Monday, March 26, 2012

Young Turk Reports on Second General Assembly of the PCA

         Second General Assembly
The National Presbyterian Church
The Presbyterian Church in America 

William H. Smith

[This Report on the Second General Assembly of the National Presbyterian Church, now the Presbyterian Church in America, was originally Published in The Presbyterian Guardian, November 1974. John W. Mitchell, Editor of the Guardian had an interest in the Presbyterian Church in America and reached out to some of the Young TRs in the denomination, soliciting and publishing their articles. The writer was two years out of seminary and had just turned 24 years old at the time of publication. The report is published here as an historical curiosity.]

The Second General Assembly of the National Presbyterian Church convened at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, September 17, at the Fist Presbyterian Church of Macon, Georgia. (This church had been the host for two previous assemblies of the Presbyterian Church, U.S. It was also a church in which Dr. J. Gresham Machen frequently worshipped on vacations; his maternal grandfather was its clerk of session for over forty years.)

State of the Church
First Presbyterian Church, Macon, GA
The retiring moderator, W. Jack Williamson, a ruling elder from Geenville, Alabama, presided at the opening worship service. He reported that there are 348 congregations officially enrolled, approximately 260 ministers, and perhaps 75,000 members. Some 445 commissioners (215 teaching elders and 230 ruling elders) made up this second assembly. From its original base in the southern states, the NPC has already reached into New England, the Pacific coast states, and even Alaska and Canada.

Only one name was placed in nomination for moderator: the Rev. Erskine L. Jackson, pastor of the First Church of Kosciusko, Miss. He was elected by acclamation and served to the obvious approval of commissioners.

A rose by any other name
The assembly was faced with a possible lawsuit over its name on the part of the National Presbyterian Church (UPUSA) in Washington, D.C. Though a single congregation, this church does have a nationwide influence and support and felt its situation would be adversely affected by the new denomination’s chosen name. Rather than go to court over the name, the General Assembly moved to choose a new name. Out of sixteen names proposed, it finally chose “National Reformed Presbyterian Church” - which name was widely reported in the press.

Overnight, however, strong dissatisfaction with the new name had grown, and even doubt that the new name would escape the legal threat since it still contained the word “National.” The assembly agreed to reconsider, and finally chose the name “Presbyterian Church in America.” A move to reconsider even this was rejected.

[Note: The present Orthodox Presbyterian Church was originally named the “Presbyterian Church of America” in 1936. Challenged in court by its parent denomination, the (now United) Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the infant church lost an initial court decision; rather than continue an expensive legal struggle, it took its present name. However, a recent assembly initiated steps to investigate the possibility of reclaiming its original name. Some legal experts believe this could be done and, if necessary, defended in court successfully.]

The question of spiritual gifts
At the First General Assembly, held in December 1973, adoption of standards for the new church was a major part of the docket. In considering the Book of Church Order (form of government), that assembly was unable to agree on the traditional wording of Chapter Seven, paragraph 1, which read:

“Under the New Testament, our Lord at first collected his people out of different nations, and united them to the household of faith by the mission of extraordinary officers, endued with miraculous gifts, which have long since ceased.” Debate over the final phrase led the assembly to refer the whole question to a special committee. This ad interim committee reported to the second assembly; it recommended that the paragraph be made to read:

“Under the New Testament, our Lord at first collected his people out of different nations, and united them to the household of faith by the ministry of extraordinary officers who received extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and who were agents by whom God completed His revelation to His church. Such officers and gifts related to new revelation have no successors since God completed His revelation at the conclusion of the Apostolic Age.”

This proposed wording was adopted. A “pastoral letter” also proposed by the ad interim committee was accepted by the assembly. It appears elsewhere in this issue of the Guardian.

Comment: In some respects the new paragraph of the B.C.O. is stronger than the old one. Consistent with Chapter 1 of the Confession of Faith, it makes absolutely clear that revelation has ceased and that those officers and gifts related to the giving of revelation have also ceased.

The sufficiency and finality of Scripture are two of the most important issues facing Reformed Christianity today, both in relation to its confrontation with neo-orthodoxy and in discussion with the broader evangelical world. The new paragraph leaves no doubt on these two issues. Neo-pentecostals will find little with which to be happy. The pastoral letter is a constructive one which should prove helpful to the church as a whole.

[For further comment on this matter, see the remarks elsewhere in this issue by Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, who was a member of the ad interim “committee to study the question of spiritual gifts.”]

Theological extension seminaries
The assembly was confronted with different recommendations on the matter of extension seminaries by the Committee on Mission to the U.S. (home missions committee) and the Committee on Christian Education and Publications. The first urged that it be allowed to move ahead with plans for extension seminaries while the latter committee recommended that no definite steps be taken toward establishing such seminaries this year.

A temporary committee was appointed to seek a resolution of the differences. This committee determined that the responsibility for such seminaries was that of the Committee on Christian Education, but recommended that the assembly charge that committee to formulate plans and programs for extension seminaries in consultation with the MUS Committee. This recommendation was adopted.

Debate on this overall concept focused on the need for ministers in the new denomination and the practical advantages of offering theological training without the normal three or four years of residence at a seminary. Extension seminaries could also provide training for teachers and other church leaders. Objections to the idea centered on the need to maintain high academic standards for ministerial training, particularly in the areas of the biblical languages and Reformed doctrine. Placing responsibility for such extension seminaries under the Christian Education Committee was designed to ensure academic quality.

Mission to the World
Perhaps the most important issue faced by the assembly was raised in connection with the recommendations of the Committee on Mission to the World (foreign missions committee). The assembly was urged to “authorize the Committee on Mission to the World to establish working relationships with other evangelical missionary agencies which welcome the services and teachings of missionaries holding the Reformed faith and polity…”

In contrast, an overture from Mississippi Valley Presbytery had asked the assembly to “direct its Committee on Mission to the Word to use care to see that all missionaries sent by the Assembly’s Committee be involved in propagating the Reformed faith, either by working with already established Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, or, if no Reformed church exists in the land to which they are sent, to establish a Reformed witness there.”

A move to commit the whole matter for further study was rejected and the first recommendation was adopted. More than forty commissioners recorded their negative votes. As adopted, the recommendation permits implementation during the coming year, but does call for further evaluation at the next assembly.

The assembly also approved the nomination of the Rev. John E. Kyle as Coordinator of the Committee on Mission to the World. Mr. Kyle formerly served with the Wycliffe Bible Translators, an independent mission agency specializing in Scripture translation work.

Comment: Though the reports of both the Christian Education and the MUS committees contained theological statements setting forth the basis and principles of their work, no such statement was contained in the report of the Committee on Mission to the World. The church is in need of a biblical theology of missions, one that will mold and motivate the practice of world missions. One must hope that presbyteries, and the committee, will enter into a thorough study of Scripture and consciously seek to relate the study to the way mission work is to be done.

 In the debate on the proposal to work “with other evangelical missionary agencies,” Dr. Morton Smith of Reformed Theological Seminary (and the assembly’s stated clerk) opposed the proposal and noted the quite different policy of the constituting assembly of “southern” Presbyterian Church in 1861. In an “Address to All Churches” (primarily authored by Dr. J. H. Thornwell) that assembly said:

“The only thing that will be at all peculiar to us is the manner in which we shall attempt to discharge our duty. In almost every department of labor, except the pastoral care of congregations, it has been usual for the church to resort to societies more or less closely connected with itself, and yet logically and really distinct. It is our purpose to rely on the regular organs of our [church] government, and executive agencies directly and immediately responsible to them. We wish to make the church not merely a superintendent, but an agent. We wish to develop the idea that the congregation of believers, as visibly organized, is the very society or corporation which is divinely called to do the work of the Lord. We shall, therefore, endeavor to do what has never yet been adequately done – bring out the energies of our Presbyterian system of government. From the session to the Assembly, we shall strive to enlist all our courts, as courts, in every department of Christian effort.”

[This paragraph from its earlier history the National Presbyterian Church had adopted itself in a “Message to All Churches” from its first general assembly. But the second assembly has rather clearly chosen to depart from the principle of doing mission work in a Presbyterian way in order to gain the supposed advantages of working through existing agencies. Though the proposal adopted insists that the missionaries must be free to propagate the Reformed faith and polity, a requirement that many independent agencies may not be willing to grant, it remains to be seen how well truly Presbyterian mission work can be done under such circumstances.]

Ruling elders and the sacraments
In adopting the Book of Church Order, the First General Assembly made provision for presbyterial licensing of certain ruling elders for more or less regular preaching. Both historically and by immediate need, ruling elders have regularly filled pulpits particularly in small churches unable to support a pastor. But when this provision was adopted in 1973, the question of having such elders administer the sacraments created considerable debate. The question was referred to an ad interim committee for study. That committee reported to the second assembly, but with a majority and minority recommendation.

The majority report recommended keeping the present wording of the B.C.O. which does not provide for ruling elders’ administering the sacraments. The minority urged that it be provided for. The assembly erected a new committee with responsibility to study the question along with others relating to the eldership.

Comment: Neither the majority nor the minority had made use of the writings of Dr. Thornwell, despite the fact that he had successfully persuaded the Southern Church to his conviction on the “parity” of ruling and teaching elders.

As Thornwell put it: “To rule well was the duty of all Elders, regarded simply as Elders; to labour in the word and doctrine was to do something more than the Presbyterate [or, eldership] required…The eldership, as such, never includes teaching: this is always a superadded function, and it is not in consequence of his presbyterial authority that an Elder preaches…[The preacher] differed from his brethren in nothing but the authority to preach and administer the sacraments; the dispensation of the sacraments being, in fact, only a symbolic method of preaching, and, therefore, are the exclusive function of the Preacher’s office” (from Collected Writings, Vol. IV, pp. 118-120).

Though Thornwell is surely not the final authority on such questions, it does seem that his views need to be studied by those who claim to follow in his steps and insist on the “parity” of the elders. The new church has already emphasized anew the role of the ruling elder, an emphasis welcomed by nearly everyone. But it is to be hoped that this new study committee will investigate thoroughly the writings of Dr. Thornwell in this crucial area of church life and polity.

Joint venture in Christian education
A decision, taken in closing hours of the assembly but without dissent from the commissioners still present, may turn out to be one of the most significant acts of the young church. The Committee on Christian Education had considered an offer from the Orthodox Presbyterian’s Great Commission Publications to set up a joint operation funded and controlled by both denominations. The joint venture  would initially concentrate on producing Sunday school materials, and such other Christian literature as might be developed.

In clarifying some of the conditions, it became clear that the joint venture would be as expensive as each church felt it could afford, that joint operations could be begun on whatever limits were mutually agreeable. With that understanding, the assembly readily approved an initial investment of $50,000 in a joint operation of Great Commission Publications.


Anonymous said...

Several items with more detail.

You did not mention that the vast majority of Young Turks (later to be named Truly Reformed by G. Aiken Taylor) were sitting in the section of pews stage left to the podium. The assigned floor clerk for that section, and thus the person holding the yellow pad on which objections were signed, and the first name appearing on each list, was newly ordained TE Don Clements from Eastern Heights Church in Savannah.

A second point involving said new minister - he took to the mike with fear and trembling for the first time in his career and suggested that the argumnets about RE's administering sacraments was missing the real point - which was how many offices are ther ein the church, 2 or 3? He then was allowed by the Moderator to break the rules (unknown to him at that time) that you could not make a motion after speaking, and he made the motion to set up the Ad-Interim Committee on the Number of Officers, following which said kind moderator appointed him to that committee - yikes!

The co-poster boy for G. Aiken Taylor's caricature of T. R., Don Clements

Anonymous said...

I included my name in the post

Vaughn Hathaway said...

When I came into the PCA essentially from Independency (some what via a general letter of dismission from the Bible Presbyterian Church), while I was soon aligned with the TRs, I was told that I could not truly be a TR because I had not attended Reformed Theological Seminary/Jackson. Furthermore, I question that G. Aiken Taylor originated the designation. I believe that history shows that the young Turks had chosen the name for themselves. It was G. Aiken Taylor, however, who turned the designation into a pejorative with his article about First Presbyterian Church/Biloxi, "Lo! the T.R."

The Christian Curmudgeon said...

V. is right about the origin of TR, at least to my memory. It originated in my years at RTS, and mostly as a joking self-reference among some students. GAT did turn it into a pejorative term. Guy Oliver followed up with a lecture "TR: The Anatomy of a Slogan." And, V., I cannot believe anyone ever questioned your TR credentials.