One of the primary matters that led to the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973 was the adoption of the Confession of 1967 by the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). That Confession was a hodgepodge of liberalism, neo-orthodoxy (or, modernism), and social justice. It left out many important points of theology. It did not treat of the doctrine of God. It equated salvation with works of social justice. It became the rallying point for a new denomination because members could clearly see that the doctrinal integrity of the PCUS had been irreversibly compromised. The Confession of 1967 was followed by the PCUS adopting a Book of Confession which included the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the First and Second Helvetic Confessions, the Scots Confession, theHeidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, the Shorter Catechism, the Theological Declaration of Barmen (1934), the Confession of Belhar (1982), and the Brief Statement of Faith (1991). Every officer is free to choose which one or ones of those creedal statements and confessions he adopts as his own statement of faith. It is important to note that those various statements of faith or creeds were not all consistent with one another. The earlier ones were, but not the later ones. Thus, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA)—which enveloped the former PCUS in the union of the northern and southern churches—has never officially rejected the Westminster Confession of Faith. Instead, they have just ignored it.
While all those changes were being made to the doctrinal statements of the denomination, there were almost no changes being made to the polity of the denomination. I have in my office a copy of The Book of Church Order of the PCUS for 1972. There had been very few changes to their polity since the 1920’s and not many since the 1860’s. The original PCA Book of Church Order was based on The Book of Church Order of the PCUS. Dr. Morton Smith and attorney Robert Cannada worked together to develop the PCA BCO and started with the PCUS book. That proves historically a statement that I have often made that the attack against the church in the 1960’s and 1970’s was against orthodoxy. The attack in our day is against orthopraxy (the practice of the truth) with orthodoxy being ignored. An attack from either direction will ultimately destroy the other end of the truth. We see that with the PCUS (and now the PCUSA) as well as the PCA. Both denominations have books of polity that are swollen so much that it hurts your head to read through them. That is what happens when the denomination’s Constitution is allowed to be amended. In the PCUS, the power to recommend an amendment to the Constitution was given to the Permanent Judicial Commission alone and a simple majority of the first General Assembly, all the presbyteries, and the second General Assembly once again was necessary to amend the government of the church or the doctrinal standards. The PCA changed that requirement for the BCO to a majority at the first General Assembly, two-thirds of the presbyteries, and a majority of the second General Assembly. Concerning amending the Westminster Standards, including the Catechisms, the requirement was three-fourths of all courts.
Some important questions must be asked and answered at this point. First, why is the Scripture not considered a part of the Constitution of the church? I realize that some people will retort that denominations can change their Constitution, but cannot change the Scripture. That answer is begging the question. I served four terms on the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission. I cannot begin to tell you the numbers of times I heard the argument in discussing a case when a Scripture verse would be referenced: “We cannot consider the Scripture because it is not a part of our Constitution.” Who does not see that that is a recipe for disaster? If the Scripture cannot be referenced in judicial and doctrinal cases, then what is the purpose of claiming that our denomination is true to the Scripture? How is any denomination true to the Scripture when its Constitution can be changed repeatedly without reference to or consideration of the teaching of Scripture? Second, should a denomination’s Constitution be continuously changed? In some denominations, amending the BCO is like sport. I remember when BCO changes were rarer than a steak with just the horns knocked off (I overheard a man order a steak that way one time). Now that seems to be the great order of the day in many denominations which is eagerly awaited. Commissioners who are nonplussed on most issues will become greatly engaged about the overtures to change the BCO. Third, where is the evidence that amending the BCO has accomplished any good? I just have never seen it. Instead, I have observed that denominations have been destroyed by annual changes to their BCO. I remember the day when every minister ordained by the PCA declared that he subscribed fully to the Westminster Standards. Then, the PCA allowed various views of the days of creation. Then, the BCO was changed concerning the adoption of the Westminster Standards. Then, some really brilliant ministers (in their own minds) declared that they took 56 exceptions to the Westminster Standards. But, mostly, officers just ignore the parts of the Westminster Standards that they do not like. The PCA has never repudiated the Westminster Standards. It is just ignored in many presbyteries with impunity.
In 1967, the PCUS developed the Confession of 1967. That Confession taught social justice. In 2016 and following the PCA elected moderators who pushed social justice as the gospel. Many in the denomination taught Critical Race Theory openly at presbytery meetings and at the General Assembly. Is there any essential difference between adopting a doctrinal statement based on social justice (PCUS) and openly proclaiming that social justice is the gospel
(PCA)? That is what happens when the Constitution is continually amended without respect to the Scriptures. Meanwhile, the KGB is making toasts to their success in getting the churches in the West to preach social justice instead of the gospel per their 1961 plan.
There is a reason above all reasons that annual amendments to the Constitution should not be permitted. It is the regulative principle. That principle teaches that the Scripture regulates or controls doctrine, polity, and worship. Doctrine does not change because the Scripture does not change. Polity does not change because the Scripture does not change. Worship does not change because the Scripture does not change. When the Scripture is left out of a denomination’sConstitution, that is a tacit admission that said denomination does not believe in the regulative principle.
Now, some people might retort at this point that I have just revealed the fly in the ointment of my position. They will reply that there have been many changes to the creeds and confessions through the years; there has been great development of the principles of church government; and, there has been the writing of new hymns for the Church. Thus, they would state that my position is untenable. Thus, they would say, the Church must allow amendments to the Constitution. Well, I have anticipated that response and I will answer it next week. So, hold onto your hats until then.
Dewey Roberts, Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, FL
www.vanguardpresbyterianchurch.com
Please send any donations to: Vanguard Presbytery, PO Box 1862, Destin, FL 32540