The Peaceable Fruit of Biblical Ecumenism

In the Message to all Churches of Jesus Christ throughout the world, the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (originally named the National Presbyterian Church)  had specifically stated that they invited “into ecclesiastical fellowship all who maintain our principles of faith and order.”  It was then at the Fifth General Assembly of PCA, meeting in Smyrna, Georgia, that the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod sent a communication requesting closer relationship and engagement of cooperative ministries.

Two assemblies later in 1979, a small committee with a long name, namely, “The Ad Interim Committee to Discuss Areas of Agreements, Differences, and Difficulties with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES), and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America” was constituted by the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).  They would meet many times in the two years of discussion with representatives of the various Presbyterian churches.

In June of 1980, at the Eighth General Assembly of the PCA, that body issued invitations to the aforementioned denominations to join the PCA.  The invitation was not to be a long courtship but rather a quick “tying of the knot” by simply merging into the PCA by a common commitment to the subordinate standards of the Westminster Assembly and the PCA’s Book of Church Order.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, citing exclusive psalmody and other considerations, pulled out of the discussions.  The invitation to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church came up to a vote of presbyteries in both bodies.   It failed by a narrow margin to arrive at the necessary vote by both assemblies, first by the PCA and then by the OPC.  Fraternal relations continue between both bodies.

For the remaining two denominations—the Presbyterian Church in America and the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod— joint General Assemblies were scheduled for their next national meetings at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  In the pivotal vote of the RPCES on June 14, 1982, they accepted the union by a majority vote of 322 in favor to 90 against.

By this union, the PCA received 164 churches, 416 ministers, 20,615 communicant members, 6,139 covenant children, Covenant Theological Seminary, Covenant College, a direct line to the Scottish Covenanters from the Reformed Presbyterian Church branch of the former RPCES, and the God-given experience of  recognized theologians, teaching and ruling elders in both churches. Elected as moderator of the PCA General Assembly that year was former RPCES scholar and minister, Dr. R. Laird Harris, from Covenant Theological Seminary.

The “marriage” has lasted now 34 years (as of 2016), with continued prayers and work to make it a lifetime of married bliss.

Words to Live By:
Here is true biblical ecumenism. We ought to unite together on the basis of the Word of God and the Westminster Standards with all churches which have that common basis.  By it, the Church is strengthened to meet the secular challenges of the age in which we live; the divisive character of too many a religious body in the eyes of the watching world is removed, and God’s people are built up in the holy faith. Work where God has placed you to make this a reality more and more.

Happy Anniversary! [after a fashion] and A Most Basic Right.

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) in this country began with a merger which took place on this day, June 13, 1782, between the Reformed Presbyterians and the Associate Church, two groups which derived directly from secessions from the Church of Scotland. Both groups entering this union were small and it was not until 1804 that the newly formed denomination had sufficient strength to constitute itself as a General Synod. Admittedly it’s a more complicated history than this short account would imply. As the ARPC grew, there were eventually four Synods and one General Synod. But today the ARPC officially looks back to the 1803 formation of the Church’s Synod of the South, since the other Synods eventually merged into the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

But to make a point with today’s blog, let’s look more closely at the Associate Presbyterian side of that 1782 union. The Scottish Reformation dates to 1560. Then in 1733 came the First Secession, which came about when the 1732 General Assembly approved a highly controversial Act which inferred with a congregation’s right to call its own pastor. This First Secession was led by Ebenezer Erskine, and the departing group named themselves the Associate Presbytery. By 1745, the Presbytery had grown to the extent that it could now be constituted as a Synod. But no sooner had blessing come than division again brought humbling. The Associate Synod was split in 1747 over the Burgess oath. The sticking point was a clause in this oath which some took to mean they approved of the established or state-supported Church, the Church of Scotland. Those opposed to the Burgess oath were called Anti-Burghers and these took the name of the General Associate Synod, or in the American colonies, the Associate Church.

As one Scottish historian has observed, 

If the Scottish parliament had accepted the 1st and 2nd Books of Discipline at the time of the Reformation in 1560, the troubles which beset the Presbyterian church in Scotland in the ensuing centuries would never have happened. These were almost all caused by patronage – the right of a patron to appoint the minister in each parish. The Books of Discipline had lain down that the minister was to be chosen by the parishioners and that no minister was to be intruded against their will.
Unfortunately, the Parliament of the day was made up of men with vested interests – the landowners in those parishes and so while, initially, the Crown had assumed the right of patronage, landowners soon acquired that right. For a while, after the execution of Charles 1 in 1649 and throughout Cromwell’s Commonwealth, congregations were allowed to choose their ministers, but, after Charles 11 was restored, an act of 1662 re-instated patronage.
It also required all ministers who had been appointed since 1649 to acquire a patron. A quarter of the clergy refused to do so and so were deprived of their livings and it was these men who formed the backbone of the Covenanters, out of which movement, the Reformed Presbyterian Church emerged.

[http://scotsarchivesearch.co.uk/short-history-secession-churches-scotland/]

And so we want to stress the importance of that right of a congregation to call its own pastor. Presbytery has the right to keep an ill-suited man from the field, but the right of the congregation to call its own pastor can be considered the more foundational right. And basic rights can often become ignored rights, and once ignored, can sometimes be lost or surrendered when we forget just how important they actually are. Let’s take a look at how this fundamental right has been inshrined in the Constitutions of Presbyterian denominations over the last four and one-half centuries:

First Book of Discipline, Church of Scotland (1560)

Fourth Head—Concerning Ministers and their Lawful Election
It appertains to the people, and to every several congregation, to elect their minister. And in case that they are found negligent therein the space of forty days, the best reformed kirk—to wit, the church of the superintendent with his council—may present unto them a man whom they judge apt to feed the flock of Christ Jesus, who must be examined as well in life and manners, as in doctrine and knowledge.

Second Book of Discipline, Church of Scotland (1578)

Chapter 3—How the Persons that bear Ecclesiastical Functions are to be Admitted to Their Office
5. In the order of election, it is to be eschewed that any person be intruded in any of the offices of the kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to whom they are appointed, or without the voice of the eldership. None ought to be intruded or entered in the places already planted, or in any room that vakes not [is not vacant], for any worldly respect; and that which is called the benefice ought to be nothing else than the stipend of the ministers that are lawfully called and elected.

Then crossing the ocean, notice how consistently the American Presbyterian Churches have reiterated this core right of the congregation, each denomination taking up the very same wording in paragraph six of a document called the Preliminary Principles:

Preliminary Principles, Paragraph 6.
VI. That though the character, qualifications, and authority of church officers, are laid down in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the proper method of their investiture and institution; yet the election of the persons to the exercise of this authority, in any particular society, is in that society.

These denominations are:
(1.) Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1789)
(2.) Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936)
(3.) Book of Church Order of the Bible Presbyterian Church (1938)
(4.) Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America (1973)
[in 2008 the PCA made a small change, deleting the words “and institution”]

Note that the OPC and the BPC both come out of the PCUSA tradition where the Preliminary Principles were drawn up in 1788. Yet while the PCA comes out of the Southern Presbyterian tradition, those Preliminary Principles were seen as so important that our founding fathers included them as part of our Constitution. Curiously, the Southern Presbyterian Church had rejected the Preliminary Principles as early as 1867 and declined to include them in its Book of Church Order, viewing them as innately congregationalist in nature and as only befitting a nascent church. Time was limited but surprisingly, I did not see, in a quick scan, a similar provision in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Form of Government. If it is there, I would appreciate someone pointing it out. 

To read the full text of the Preliminary Principles, comparing the text as adopted by the above denominations, click here.

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

Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

Scripture References: Heb. 10:39. John 1:12. Phil. 3:9. John 6:40.

Questions:

1. Why is faith in Jesus Christ called a “saving grace”?

It is called a “saving grace” because it is a gift of God and is given to the sinner not because of any merit or worth the sinner has (l Cor. 4:7).

2. Why is this faith called faith in Jesus Christ?

It is called such because Christ is the principal object of saving faith according to Acts 16:31.

3. Why is the word “receive” used in this Question?

The word “receive” is used because Christ is offered in Scripture as a gift. He is given to those who are without hope in themselves, have nothing and are nothing.

4. Why does the Question mention resting on Him alone for salvation?

The person coming to Christ must rest on Him alone because the Bible reveals Him as the only foundation on whom one can rest his confidence, his trust.

5. What is this salvation that is received by the person coming to Him?

This salvation includes three things:

(1) Deliverance from the curse of the law.
(2) Deliverance from the dominion of sin.
(3) The blessedness of heaven.

6. Who offers Christ to us?

God offers Christ to us, God the Father who made the offer in John 3:16.

7. Do all believers have the same measure of saving faith?

No, all believers do not. Some have little faith and others have strong faith (Note the comparison of Matt. 14:31 and Rom. 4:20), But even those with little faith have sufficient to get to glory if it is saving faith.

PREACHING THE SAVING FAITH

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, in his wonderful book, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure, states:

“Lop-sided Christians are generally produced by preachers or evangelists whose doctrine lacks balance, or rotundity, or wholesomeness. More and more as we proceed with our studies we shall see how vitally import are the circumstances of the birth of the Christian.”

The preaching of, witnessing to, saving faith in Jesus Christ is an awesome responsibility of the believer. Too often it is not done at all. Too often when it is done it is done with methods that are far from being all-inclusive, theologically speaking. It is simply a “passport to heaven” approach or an offering of the forgiveness of sin without anything else being mentioned.

The whole salvation message should be preached or witnessed to by a believer. Usually deliverance from the curse of the law (from the wrath of God) is made plain, it is offered by the person speaking. The individual hearing it simply then thinks in terms of his deliverance and possibly the fact he will someday reach heaven. But what about the time in between, the months and years before he goes to meet his Lord? Is not the doctrine of the deliverance from the dominion of sin part of saving faith?

I once heard an evangelist give the invitation in a very plain, Scriptural manner. In it he certainly emphasized that “If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ your sins will be forgiven” but he also made it very plain that a part of saving faith-if it is truly wrought in. the soul-is the fact regeneration has taken place in the soul and now there will be a new principle of life present and that new life will produce fruits of holy living. It meant new life will want, for the most part, to live a holy life. The new life will have power to—will to want to—conquer sin and obey God and to make his will the rule of life in the days to come.

It is true that this faith will start small for it is a new life. But it will grow and will want to grow. Why can’t this be made plain to those coming to Christ, why can’t they be made to see in t.he beginning that the Christian life is not simply a passport to heaven but also a life of hating and fleeing from sin? Paul knew this and wrote II Cor. 5:17 for all of us to see and believe.

Published by The SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Dedicated to Instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches.

Vol. 6 No.3 (March 1967)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.

“Defensive Arms Vindicated”
by Stephen Case (June 17, 1782)

Stephen Case’s 1783 “Defensive Arms Vindicated” alluded to John Knox, even citing specific page numbers.[1] In  Case’s same sermon, Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex was cited twice (once with reference to Rutherford’s original Question 32 about warrant for popular revolt), as was the later Jus Populi.[2]

At the outset, Case pays tribute to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense for having had some value; however, he did not believe that a sufficient apologetic had been proffered for resistance, armed if necessary. As a first principle, he believed that “self preservation and defence is right and lawful, because it is congenite [ed., consistent] with, and irradicated in every nature that hath a self which it can preserve.” The battles on American soil would not have been as protracted, he thought, had it not been for “monsters in nature [who] are malignant in religion; and as great perverters of the law of nature as they are subverters of municipal laws, and everters of the laws of God.”

He defended the patience of Americans, but asserts that when they finally took up arms—after many petitions and peaceful efforts—they merely followed the patterns of other nations. To buttress this line of argument, he drew upon the well-known political disciples of Calvin. Case (although the original oration was delivered in June 1782 and unsigned, except by “a Moderate Whig”) esteemed Rutherford’s work as “unanswerable,” and viewed these Scottish authors as “learned patrons and champions for this excellent privilege [armed resistance] of mankind.” He also cited Westminster Assembly member Stephen Marshall’s “Meroz Cursed” sermon.[3]

He thought it a duty—unless his peers were “Passive slaves”—to resist tyranny whenever one is “by a good providence of God, called thereunto; and this we must do, if we would not be found betrayers of the liberties of our country and brethren, together with the ruin of our poor posterity, which, if we should neglect to do, we shall be instruments of delivering up these inestimable blessings into the devouring jaws of tyranny; which if we should be tame enough to do, shall we not bring on us the curse of Meroz and the curse of our brethren’s blood, crying for vengeance on the heads of the shedders thereof, and upon all who being in a capacity came not to their rescue.”

He outlined his argument as below—interestingly, in a fashion typical to the Reformers. One may see the fine distinctions in this as logically similar to a Just War argument.

• I do allow that the ordinance of majestracy, which is of God, is not to be resisted; no, not so much as by disobedience or non-obedience; nay, not so much as mentally, by cursing in the heart, Eccles. x. 20. But a person clothed therewith, abusing his power, may be so far resisted; but tyrants, or magistrates turning tyrants, are not God’s ordinances; and there is no hazard of damnation for refusing to obey their unjust commands; but rather, the hazard of that is in walking willingly after the commandment, when the statutes of Omri are kept . . .
• I do allow that rebellion is a damnable sin, except where the word is taken in a lax sense, as Israel of old is said to have rebelled against Rehoboam, and good Hezekiah against Senacherib, which was a good rebellion and a clear duty. Being taken there for resistance and revolt, in this sense, the Americans rising in arms may be called rebellion, for it is right and lawful, to all intents and purposes, to rebel against tyrants, as all are who offer, or attempt, to govern contrary to the laws of the land; for where law ceases, tyranny begins. But because the word is generally taken in an evil sense, many do not make the proper distinction between a lawful rebellion against tyrants, and an unlawful one against lawful authority.
• I do allow passive subjection, in some cases, even to tyrants, when the Lord lays on that yoke; . . . but I do not say passive obedience, which is a mere chimera, invented in the brains of such sycophants and jack asses as would make the world slaves to tyrants. Whosoever suffereth, if he can shun it, is an enemy to his own being, and is a first cousin to a self-murderer; for every natural thing must strive to preserve itself against what annoyeth it; and also, he sins against the order of God who, in vain, hath ordained so many lawful means for the preservation of our being, if we suffer it to be destroyed, having power to help it.
• I do abhor all war of subjects, professedly declared against a lawful king, who governs and rules according to law; as also all war against lawful authority, founded upon, or designed for maintaining principles inconsistent with government, or against policy and piety; . . .
• I do disallow all war, without real necessity and great wrongs sustained; and that it ought not to be declared or undertaken upon supposed grounds, or pretended causes; and so the question is impertinently stated by the tories, whether or not it be lawful for subjects, or a party of them, when they think themselves injured, or to be in a capacity, to resist or oppose the supreme power of a nation?
• I condemn all rising to revenge private injuries, whereby a country may be covered with blood, for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small. I also abhor all revengeful usurping of the magistrates sword, to avenge ourselves for personal injuries . . .
• I do also disclaim all rising in arms for trifles of our own things, or small injuries done to ourselves, but in a case of pure necessity, for the preservation of our lives, religion, laws, and liberties, when all that is dear to us as men and christians, are in hazard. So I am not for rising in arms to force any people to be of any particular religion, but to defend my own, and my country’s religion and liberties, from unjust force and violence, against kings and tyrants, that may encroach thereon.
• Further from the rules of government it may be argued several ways. First. That power which is contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection; but if it oblige to any thing, it ties to resistance. But the power of a king against law, religion, and liberty, is a power contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, therefore, &c.
• From the very end and true design of government, which must be acknowledged by all to be the glory of God and the good of mankind; yea all that have been either wise or honest have always held that the safety of the people is the supreme law
• From the obedience required to government it may be argued thus: First. If we may flee from tyrants then we may resist them; but we may flee from tyrants therefore we may resist them.
• From the resistance allowed in all governments, it may be argued thus: If it be duty to defend our religion, lives and liberties, against an invading army of cut throats, Turks, Tartars, &c. without or against the king’s warrant, then of course, it is and must be duty to defend the same against home bred tyrants, except we would subscribe ourselves home born slaves;
• The 12th point, with 18 subpoints may be considered, if the reader wishes to see more of this sermon. Available online at: http://www.consource.org/document/defensive-arms-vindicated-by-stephen-case-presumably-1782-6-17/

A printed version is also available in Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991).

At one point, citing the massive On the Republic by Bodin, Case’s summary seems ineluctable: “If a king turn tyrant, he may lawfully, at his subjects request, be invaded, resisted, condemned, or slain by a foreign prince”—hence, if a “foreign prince may lawfully help a people, oppressed by their own sovereign, then people may resist themselves, if they be able; but the former is true, therefore the latter. The consequence cannot be denied, for foreigners have no more power or authority over another sovereign, than the people have themselves.”

Both full of Scripture and full of references to political history, this is one of the sturdiest messages of the period. And the relief behind this political sculpture is the history of Calvinistic political thought.

The panels of Geneva’s Reformation wall monument are all represented in this homily. This single sermon contained references to Knox (three times), George Buchanan (twice), William of Orange, Admiral Coligny, the French Huguenots;[4] and to cap off the Hall of Fame, Case even referred to one of Peter Martyr’s commentaries.[5] Thus, not only were the ideas of the Reformers still vital, but their writings were deemed authoritative enough to be cited in popular religious discourse several centuries later.[6]

Sounding very similar notes to Calvin’s earlier political melodies, Case asserted that private citizens were not justified in seeking revenge, but that self-defense was a “privilege of nature,” not an act usurping rightful jurisdiction. He summarized his thesis this way: “all laws permit force to be repelled by force; and the great and first law of nature allows self-defense.”[7] Case’s history of resistance holds forth many of the same examples as the works of Beza, Buchanan, and Knox. Case clearly knew Reformation sources very well. He brought up the 1550 Magdeburg Confession (relied upon by Knox, Calvin, Beza, and others) as teaching that resistance was permitted [meaningless] whenever Caesar should attempt “to root out religion, and subvert our liberties.”[8]

By Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church

Taken from Twenty Messages to Consider Before Voting

[1] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 756, 673.

[2] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 720, 755, 731, 758.

[3] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 721, 759. Nathaniel Whitaker also drew on this text for his 1777 sermon (which was dedicated to George Washington), “An Antidote Against Toryism.” See Daniel C. Palm, ed., On Faith and Free Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 154.

[4] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 722, 724, 749.

[5] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 756. The reference is to Martyr’s commentary on 2 Chronicles.

[6] Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 259-281 provides an excellent survey of the impact of sermons during the critical 1764-1776 period.

[7] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 726.

[8] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 748.

We find an account of the person and ministry of the Rev. Dr. James Mcmullen Crowell for our post on This Day in Presbyterian History, courtesy of the Encyclopaedia of the Presbyterian Church, by Alfred Nevin (1884).  And in that volume, we are told that Dr. Crowell was born on June 9, 1827 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of a druggist and apothecary shop owner.

Nevin doesn’t give us much in the matter of his early years in either the home or the church, but there must have been a commitment to the Presbyterian church at some time.  He attended the College of New Jersey in 1848, graduating fourth in a class of eighty students.  He taught for one year at West Chester Academy after graduating, but soon found his next training at Princeton Theological Seminary, graduating in 1851.  His faculty during his student days were Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, James Addison Alexander, James Waddel Alexander, and William Henry Green.  With spiritual mentors like these, he would be adequately trained for this life calling of the pastorate.

For six years, Rev. Crowell served the Lord as pastor of the Upper Octorora Presbyterian Church in present day Parkesburg, Pennsylvania. Nevin says that “he was greatly loved by the congregation and prospered in his labors.”  Note: The readers of Today have one of the early buildings of this congregation in the heading of these posts.

Continuing his pastorate, James Crowell served for twelve years as pastor of Seventh Presbyterian Church in his home town of Philadelphia. Again it was stated that he labored there as the preacher and pastor of the flock with great fidelity.

Two years were spent at St Peter’s Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York, where his spiritual labors were once again blessed by the Lord.

His last pastorate, from 1870 – 1882, was again taken up in his home town of Philadelphia,  at the Woodlawn Presbyterian Church, where he was described as being faithful in labor, and beloved by his flock.

What stands out to this author is that here we have a man of God committed to his pastoral calling, faithful, and as a result, fruitful in souls.  He was universally loved by the people of the Lord in these Presbyterian congregations.

Nevin concludes his treatment of James Crowell by stating that “he was a cultivated gentleman, an exemplary Christian, a good preacher, and highly esteemed by all who knew him.” (p. 167)

Words to Live By: 
To those followers of This Day in Presbyterian History whttps://ia800303.us.archive.org/34/items/memorialofwillia00crow/memorialofwillia00crow.pdfho are called to be pastors of the flock of God, our post today on James Crowell stands out as an exemplary undershepherd who obviously loved the Word of God, preached it in its fullness to the hearts and minds of the people of God in Presbyterian churches, and most importantly, lived its eternal principles and practices before the watching world.  Oh for teaching elders today to have his zeal for the God’s Word in their present ministries.

To read Rev. Crowell’s funeral sermon for ruling elder William S. Martien, click here. It was Martien, together with his brother Alfred, who was so prominent in the publication of literally scores of 19th-century Presbyterian classics.