The First General Assembly of the National Presbyterian Church (i.e., the PCA

As the newly formed denomination met that December in 1973, there was much to do and little time in which to accomplish it. The opening of the General Assembly had begun on the previous day, December 4th, at 7:30 PM with a time of worship and an opening address delivered by ruling elder W. Jack Williamson. That address was titled “To God Be the Glory”.

The first full day of work for the Assembly began the next day, on December 5th. Committees for the various church agencies began meeting at 8:30 AM and following lunch, another time of worship was set aside. The Rev. C. Darby Fulton preached from Philippians 3:7-14, on “The Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ”.

The rest of that afternoon was spent in discussion and adoption of constitutional documents [the Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Orer]. After dinner, the Assembly met yet again for worship, with the service under the direction of the Rev. Kennedy Smartt, then pastor of the Presbyterian church in Hopewell, Virginia. The Rev. Tim Fortner, of Hazelhurst, Missouri, led in prayer. The Rev. Sidney Anderson of Swannanoa, North Carolina, read the Scripture, and Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, preached a sermon entitled “The National Presbyterian Church and the Faith Once Delivered,” taking Jude 3 as his text.

After the time of worship and before recessing for the evening, the Assembly continued its work on constitutional documents by adopting the first ten chapters of the Book of Church Order. The Assembly then recessed with prayer by the Rev. Todd Allen, pastor of the Eastern Heights Presbyterian church of Savannah, Georgia.

Words to live by:
That second day of business was full and busy for the Assembly, but note how not just once but twice they met for times of worship during the day. I am reminded of Martin Luther’s statement, “I have so much to do today that I must spend the first three hours in prayer.” There is more truth in that statement than most of us are willing to admit, and certainly more than most of us are willing to live up to. But that first General Assembly of the PCA recognized their priorities and their need to completely and utterly rely upon the Lord in all their deliberations.

If you haven’t been living according to this pattern, then I urge you, test the Lord—try Him and see—put Him first each morning with a time of prayer and devotional Scripture reading. It doesn’t have to be long, perhaps just five or ten minutes if you can’t spare a half-hour. But I have every confidence that you will begin to see a marked improvement, first in your relationship with the Lord, and then in your relationships with family, friends, and  work.

Where are they now?

This day, December 4, in 1973, marks the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America, as the denomination’s first General Assembly met in Birminham, Alabama, December 4-7 at the Briarwood Presbyterian Church.

Some years ago I compiled a list of all the churches that have ever been a part of the PCA. (I think I got them all!) Perhaps we can talk more about that larger list another day, but for now we want to look at a select portion of that list. The obvious starting point for such a list would be the founding churches of the PCA, and those founding churches are the subject of our post today. Working from the Minutes of the PCA’s First General Assembly, we find there were 273 churches that can be called the founding churches of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Of these 273 churches, 182 of them are still in the PCA (though technically, two of those had merged with other churches). Three left for other Presbyterian denominations. One of our founding churches, First Presbyterian of Hueytown, Alabama, left to join the OPC in 1991. The Jackson Street Prebyterian Church of Alexandria, Louisiana (now Grace Presbyterian), joined the EPC in 1997. And Progressive Presbyterian Church, Princeton, North Carolina, joined the Associate Reformed denomination, also in 1997. Over the years, another 16 of the founding churches have left to independency.

Regrettably, 23 of the founding churches have dissolved. Closer study needs to be done to determine the reasons, whether they were small rural churches or whether other problems brought about their closing. Then the final category is for now one of mystery, and more research needs to be done with this group. Here the record is simply unclear for 41 of the founding churches. Most likely these churches were dissolved or perhaps left to independency, yet without proper notation of their action on the roll books. We might find even find in one or two instances that the church is still in the PCA, but its status is obscured by a change of name or location. (I have already discovered one such discrepancy.) In all, those 23 closures and 41 “uncertains” total 64 founding churches effectively lost to the PCA. Nothing is forever in this poor world.

It is interesting to look at those 273 founding churches state by state, and the following list shows the breakdown, The last column in this list shows how many PCA churches and missions now operate in each of those states, so as to show subsequent growth in each state.

Note that last group, “None,” in the list above. That should be understood as “unaffiliated with any Presbytery at the time of joining the PCA”. If you know anything about Presbyterianism, you’ll recognize what an odd thing it was to have churches admitted to the PCA, yet without being on the roll of a given Presbytery. Surely this was a temporary arrangment, but the story of those 9 churches could be interesting.

Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina were numerically the three strongest States for the PCA at its founding. Between those three States, the roles are now reversed, with South Carolina having the greatest growth in PCA churches, followed by Alabama and then Mississippi. Ironically, in six States–Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia–the PCUS maintained a stronger hold on churches and few PCUS churches left in 1973 to join the PCA. However, since that time the PCA has seen strong growth in these same States. The States of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia have remained difficult terrain for church planting and PCA growth there has been slow.

Then looking at the list of founding churches as grouped by the 16 founding presbyteries, we have the following:

Calvary [SC] – 35 churches

Central Georgia – 11

Covenant [AR; MS; TN] – 13

Evangel [AL] – 25

Gold Coast [FL] – 12

Grace [LA; MS] – 31

Gulf Coast [FL; LA] – 8

Mid-Atlantic [MD; NC; VA] – 7

Mississippi Valley [LA; MS] – 52

None – 9

North Georgia – 3

Tennessee Valley – 5

Texas – 4

Vanguard [AL; GA; KY; NC WV]; – 13

Warrior [AL] – 22

Western Carolinas [NC] – 5

Westminster [NC; TN; VA] – 10

Calvary, Grace and Mississippi Valley Presbyteries were, by their size, among the more influential of the newly formed PCA Presbyteries. Covenant, then with just 13 churches, is today perhaps the largest of the 81 PCA Presbyteries.

One interesting story worth following up would be that of First Presbyterian Church, Brookhaven, MS, in Grace Presbytery, and the only church in that Presbytery that lost its property upon leaving the PCUS. By the kind providence of God, most of these founding churches were able to keep their property, but were there others in other Presbyteries that also lost their property at that time, as a result of joining the PCA?

And of course we can expect there might be an interest in which were the oldest of these founding PCA churches? The ten oldest, all still in the PCA to this day, are as follows:

1. 1764 – Bethel Presbyterian Church, Clover, SC [Calvary]

2. 1775 – Lebanon Presbyterian Church, Winnsboro, SC [Calvary]

3. 1786 – Bethany Presbyterian Church, Greensboro, GA [Central Georgia]

4. 1808 – Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Rock Hill, SC [Calvary]

5. 1812 – Salem Presbyterian Church, Blair, SC [Calvary]

6. 1812 – Meadow Creek Presbyterian Church, Greenville, TN [Westminster]

7. 1819 – Kanawha Salines Presbyterian Church, Malden, WV [Vanguard]

8. 1820 – Friendship Presbyterian Church, Laurens, SC [Calvary]

9. 1820 – First Presbyterian Church, Greenville, AL [Evangel]

10. 1821 – Lebanon Presbyterian Church, Abbeville, SC [Calvary]

Other churches have joined the PCA since 1973, and the list above is not exactly the same as the list for the ten oldest churches in the PCA today. Top honor, incidentally, goes to Fairfield Presbyterian Church, in Fairton, New Jersey, organized in 1680.

On the other end of the spectrum, there were thirteen of the founding churches that had been organized in 1973, in the months just prior to the formation of the denomination. 3 of these were in Evangel Presbytery and 3 were in Westminster Presbytery. Another 9 of the founding churches were still quite young, having been organized in the 1960’s. Many of these were located in Florida.

And to conclude, while some 55% of the PCA remains weighted in the South, clearly the momentum is moving to expand out across the nation with the glorious Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ alone. In all this work may our Lord God— and He alone—be glorified.

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 39. — What is the duty which God requireth of man?

A. — The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

Scripture References: Deut. 29:29. Micah 6:8. I Sam. 15:22.

Questions:

1. Why do believers have duties toward God?

(1) God is the Creator and Preserver of all men, but believers belong to Him also by right of redemption and have added reason for obedience.
(2) God has made it very plain in His Word that the duties of the believers are the responsibilities that go with the privileges. In our catechism we have studied the privileges, now we o come to the responsibilities.

2. What is the revealed will of God?

The revealed will of God is found in the scripture of the Old and New Testaments.

3. Could not the Holy Spirit lead a believer to act apart from the Scriptures ?

Any leading by the Holy Spirit will be consistent with the Word of God. A Bible teacher put it this way: There are three main characteristics of the leading of the Holy Spirit:
(1) It is controlling, not compelling.
(2) It is continuous, it always “Puts to death”.
(3) It is mediate, always by and with the Word, “Into the truth”.

4. Should believers obey God rather men?

There is a responsibility on the part of believers to “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake”, (I Pet. 2: 13) but if the duty required of us by man would cause us to disobey God (according to His revealed will) we must obey God. (Acts 5:29).

5. Does God require of the believer what is impossible for the individual believer?

No, God only requires of the believer what he will give the believer the strength, wisdom, courage and power to perform. (Ezekiel 36:27. I Cor. 10:13).

HOLINESS AND TRUTH

We learn in this question that our duty is obedience to the revealed will of God. This brings forth the teaching that we as believers need to be reminded of again and again: to simply know the truth is not enough, there must be a working out of the truth in our lives every day. This teaching is vital, for the real test of Christian discipleship is continuance in Christ and in His Word. (John 8:31, 32).

In this day and age, among conservative circles, there is much teaching about the Truth. Well should there be for the battleground today is over the Truth, whether it is verbally inspired or not, whether or not it is the authority for the believer. We recognize the importance of the Word and are always ready to do battle for it. But are we: ready, always ready, to live it day by day? Possibly our trouble is that of making the process too difficult. We feel it is too hard to do and so end up doing little or nothing. Would it not be good for us·to get back to the simple principles of obedience to the revealed will of God? Let us check a few of them again, all to the glory of God.

First, remember that we are God’s children. Since we have been born into His family we should no longer seek to do our will but His will. If we will but settle right now, once and for all, the important principle that we are to do all to the glory of God we will avoid many difficulties. Remember that doing His will in no sense depends on feeling, it is simply a self-discipline.

Second we should be steadfast Christians. We can do this by always abiding in the vine. The Spirit of Christ dwells in the true believer and is ready every moment to impart wisdom, courage, patience and give victory over sins from within and without. Keeping close to. Him will help us to be steadfast.

Third, honor God’s Word. It would be better to give up one meal a day than to miss one day without reading the Word. Remember ever to turn to the authoritative Word of the sovereign God, remember it is our objective authority and from it we learn how to live.

Fourth, pray without ceasing. Prayer can . lay hold of the throne and spiritual forces are set into motion far beyond the understanding of man. It is an offensive weapon.

Fifth, be faithful in the little things. Faithfulness is the great test of true discipleship. He that is faithful in that which is least will be faithful also in much.

Published By: THE SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Vol. 3 No. 39 (March, 1964)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor

Gordon Clark’s Daddy

Another article, albeit a brief one, by the father of Gordon H. Clark.

BARTHIAN FOG
by the Rev. David S. Clark, D.D.
[The Presbyterian 107.48 (2 December 1937): 11.]

THE PRESBYTERIAN has been honored with three splendid articles by Dr. John W. Bowman, on Barthianism. The Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., is fortunate in having Dr. Bowman, and the Presbyterian Church, U.S., is fortunate in having Rev. Holmes Rolston as experts on Barthianism. We do not know Dr. Bowman, but we assign him a place in the galaxy of scholars.

The Achilles heel of Barthian Theology is his doctrine of Scripture, especially of Inspiration. The formation of the written word is a “paradox” in Barthian language. A paradox is a contradiction. The written word has a human and a divine element, which, according to Barth, are in contradiction. The human letter or writing is the human element, and as it is wholly human, and contradicts the divine, it is imperfect, and therefore an infallible word is impossible.

Barth is willing to admit that the influx of the divine revelation to the prophet’s mind is of God, and is infallible. But the efflux, resulting in the writing of the Word, is only human and faulty. All this is due to an inadequate view of Inspiration, and a neglect of the testimony of the Scriptures, which are our only source of information.

One error of Barth in this is an inheritance from the philosophy of Hegel. We observed in studying Hegel’s philosophy that he called a difference a contradiction. A human element and a divine element are different, but not a contradiction. If you are a semi-Pantheist, you will identify the human and divine. If you are a normal Theist, you will recognize an almighty immanence, and a supernatural providence, that can guarantee an infallible efflux and produce an infallible Word.

Barth’s conception of the Word of God is subjected to a tenuous refinement like Kant’s “Ding an sich,” till it is difficult to get one’s fingers on it. The written word is not the word of God, according to Barth. The spoken word is not the word. It is something in and through and behind all this.

Here is the German tendency to go back of the thing to the thing behind the thing, which always results in vagueness. A good example is the recent Form Criticism. It all has an unsettling tendency.

Somewhat more confusing is Barth’s Dialectic, which he inherited from Hegel, who borrowed it from Fichte. It is called “logic”; but in our estimation it is not logic at all. When a conclusion necessarily results from the combination of major and minor premises, we call that logic. But the German scheme of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, is to our mind an invalid process, because there is no necessary connection in thought between the synthesis and the other terms. But perhaps we may say casually that a German would not be indigenous without some idiosyncrasy. The tendency to mere speculation and vagueness is confusing to an American who looks for conciseness and terse expression. Theology as a whole is capable of simple and lucid statement. Job said : “Oh, that my adversary had written a book!” But we may say : “Oh, that the German critics would talk United States!”

Barth deserves praise for exalting the sovereignty and authority of God ; but his doctrine of Scripture is fatal to any sound theology.

Philadelphia, Pa.