"Can two walk together except they be

agreed?" Amos 3:3

The proposed "Identity" statement
answers the question "can two walk
together except they be agteed?" In the
affirmative, at least if we can just agree
to disagtee. Itstates "We want to learn
to live successfully with the allowable
diversity in the Reformed Faith rather
than to eliminate it through political
means ... Our desire is to be
... A Reformed Church
Always Reforming."
The revival of A
Concerned Presbyterian
Movement and a proposed
"Identity" statement for the
PCA have brought to a head
the fact that there are
different theological
currents, ifnot rivers, within
the PCA and that particular
issues are dividing and
perhaps, as they put it,
distracting the PCA from
devoting her energy and resources to
her "primary" mission in Christ.
Therefore, we ought to be sincerely
grateful for these effons to call the
church to identify, address, and resolve
these issues.
If we were honest, and this seems
like a good time to be honest, the PCA
from the beginning has embraced
within her fellowship Calvinists and
conservative evangelicals who only
loosely, often reluctantly, and
sometimes grudgingly, have held to
the Reformed distinctives. Since the
formation of the PCA additional
currents have flowed into the PCA, a
growing Charismatice1ement, brethren
from the former RPCES, the OPC, and
the UPUSA. As these have brought
their own varied historical
denominational traditions, emphases,
and perspectives, we have experienced
mounting tensions that now are at the
point of fracturing the PCA.
Indeed, we should be zealous to
maintain the unity and peace of the
church in truth to the glory of God.
We must all be hesitant to divide the
body of Christ as manifest in the PCA.
There is always the danger of
theological myopia that comes from
listening only to those who agree with
us, Growth in understanding often
comes in the crucible of discussion
and debate, especially when discussing
from the same presuppositions. One
of the problems in the PCAhistorically
has been the division into theological
camps which simply discount the other
side. We must, however, also be just as
zealous to maintain and perpetuate
the church of the LordJesus Christ as
the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1
Tim. 3:15), and not as a cafeteria of
theological preferences and practices.
Because I know several of the signers
of the "Identity" statement personally
and the commitment to the Reformed
faith by others is a matter of public
record, I consider this document a
sincere and serious attempt to address
and resolve issues in our denomination
for the good of the church and the
advance of the GospeL The crux of the
"Identity" statement is stated in the
introduction: "We want to learn to live
successfully with the allowable
10 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon October! November, 1994
diversity in the Reformed Faith rather
than to eliminate it through political
means ..... OUr desire is to be ..... A
Reformed Church Always Reforming."
The presupposition of the
Consensus statement as expressed in
the Introduction is that the PCA has a
solid commitment to the "Lordship of
Jesus Christ" imd "the Reformed Faith."
The first principle is that within the
broad umbrella of the
Reformed Faith there is
"allowable diversity."
Secondly, the Scriptures
alone are the Word of God
. written and the Westminster
Standards are not to' be
equated with Scripture.
Thirdly, a truly Reformed
church is "Semper
Reformanda: always
reforming.
No one would dispute
or eqUivocate concerning
the Reformed principles of
the Concensus Statement. The
Concensus Statement assumes that the
iss1;le is now to formally determine the
areas of "allowable diversity" and what
doctrinesin the Westminster Standards
need to be revised in the name of
"Semper Reformanda," The issue for
some, however, runs deeper than this.
There is a genuine "sincerity" issue.
Have men who subscribed to the
Westminster Standards already
departed from historiC Reformed
doctrines in significant areas under
"allowable diversity" and the
"fundamentals of the system" clause,
and do they "sincerely" receive and
adopt the Confession of Faith and the
catechisms of this Churchascontaining
the system of doctrine taught in the
Holy Scriptures," and did they make
known to their Presbyteries any
changes in their views concerning "the
fundamentals of this system of
doctrine?"
At issue for some is, not what we
may do, but what we have already
done? Have individuals, perhaps
Presbyteries and General Assembly
committees, andlor General Assembly
administrators already allowed and
practiced "diversity" from the
fundamentals of the Standards in their
beliefs and practices? And are they
now, after the fact , asking the
denomination to officially recognize
their diversities and differences so that
these matters will no longer be matters
of question, complaint, appeal, or
discipline, and not only be allowed
but become the operating principles
of the PCA?
Constitutional church and freely depan
from the constitution in their practices.
That this has apparently been the
practice is where a great deal of the
animus comes from by those who hold
to the historic Reformed and
Westminster positions. Those who
have diverged and differ from the
Standards, in the light of continuing
resistance by those who hold to the
historic "Reformed" positions as
expressed in the Westminster
Standards, have decided they must
have their views fOlmally tolerated and
embraced as "allowable differences"in
order to avoid continuing conflict and
distraction and to practice them.
The fact is that the PCA already has
an identity statement, the Westminster
Constitution. If it is promoting
changing the Constitution this itself is
the result of having allowed men into
the denomination who did not agree
with the Constitution to begin with
and thereby reflects a failure to uphold
the Constitution in examination and
receptions. The onus is on those who
wish to be acceptable, to change the
direction or identity of the PCA, and
not on those who wish to adhere to it.
This is why the "stlict subscription"
issue has been the focal point of much
of the debate and discussion.
The Consensus Statement is for
some, not necessarily all the Signers,
therefore, essentially a confession of
disagreement with the ConfeSSion, a
confession by others that perhaps they There is no question, for example,
that the historic Reformed and
Westminster position is that
revelation and gifts associated
"The fact ie; that the
PCA already hae; an
identity e;tatement. the
Westmine;ter Confee;e;ion
and Catechisme;,"
with revelation have ceased,
visual pictures ofjesusasworship
aids have historically been
viewed as contrary to the second
commandment, and dance and
drama have not been induded
within the parameters of "The
regulative principle of worship,"
never did agree with the
Westminster Standards, and a
call to either change or
circum vent the constitution.
The consensus statement is an
attempt to declare that these
particular doctrines or practices
are allowable in the PCA and
therefore are no longer matters
of theological debate, complaint,
appeal, or discipline. Thus, these
issues will be effectively resolved
only to mention a few of the
issues. No one could legitimately view
these as anything less than departures
from the fundamentals of the system.
Are not these matters that should have
been disclosed to Presbytery in
examination for approval and
reception, not by a mass protest or
confession at General Assembly?
Should anyone assume that if they
differ from the Confession in these
areas they may practice their views? To
discoverthat many men in the PCA do
not hold to these positions brings into
question their sincerity in su bsclibing
to the Westminster Standards or the
carefulness of the Presbytelies to
examine these men. No one is allowed
to personally invoke "Semper
Reformanda" and "The Bible is the
only rule of faith and practice" in a
Confession and Catechisms. The fact
is that what is being argued for in some
cases is divergence from that historic
confession and creed and from the
stated direction and commitments of
the PCA at her formation. The fact is
that by allowing into the denomination
men who apparently differed from the
Confession we have a significant
number who now wish to change the
Constitution. In the final analysis, the
Constitution I know, the Westminster
Standards I know, the Book of Church
order I know - but I don't know what
a "Consensus Statement" is, or, more
importantly, what standing, autholity
it would have in the denomination. It
certainly has the appearance of saying
that we don't have to agree with our
Constitution without changing the
and will no longer occupy the time of
the church, allowing her to give
attention to her primary "mission".
This in itself reflects a narrow view of
the mission of the church. The church
must not only proclaim the truth but
defend and preserve the truth! It seems
to me that the consensus paper has the
appearance of an "end run" around the
constitution because there are those
who find that their views are not in fact
in accord with the Westminster
Standards or have changed their views.
The issue still remains as to
particular areas of doctrinal diversity
suggested in how the church should
regard those who have allowable
differences. As I have indicated, I
believe their is allowable diversity
within the Reformed Faith; I do not
October! November, 1994 TJiE COUNSEL of chalcedon II
hold to every teaching of the standards
myself, and I have always sought to
declare my personal exceptions to the
Standards before Presbytery when
examined. Neither do I agree with
some of the positiOns taken by men
with whom I generally agree, that, for
example, the peA was self-consciously
or intentionally organized as a "strict"
subscriptionist church, that all
"pictOrial representations of Jesus"
necessarily violate the second
commandment, or that there
is no room for valid
differences in understanding
and applying the regulative
princtple of worship. I am
not an exclusive Psalm
singer, I believe that
Christians can rejoice in and
celebrate the birth of Jesus,
andthatindividualsandchoirs
can lead the congre-gation in
worship, for example.
Therefore, I do believe (and
hope) that there is room for
diversityin the ReformedFaith
and in the PCA.
As far as the document itself is
concerned, not to go through every
topic, the "devil" is in the details, not
in the princtples. There is a giant leap .
from "Semper Reformanda" to some of
the spectfic positions advocated. Are
we talking about allowable diversity or
allowable departure from the Reformed
Faith? Also, many of the affirmations
and denials are often dangerously
general, vague, and open to wide
interpretation and application. This
lack of" prectsion in many positions
will only serve to widen the diversity,
loosen the church from the
Westminster and Reformed Standards,
and further "de-form" the church.
For example, as I read the chapter
on Scripture in the Identity statement,
and in the light of the current debate
and discussion on revelation and
tongues, I would read the statement as
allOwing tongues, prophecy, and
continuing revelation in the peA. The
only exclusion would be adding
anything to the Word of God written
or regarding new and continuing
revelation as having the authority of
Scripture. This is not only an
implication but is also stated in such a
way that it may not be immediately
clear that this is the position advocated.
Is this a case of verbal subterfuge or
merely a failure to communicate?
divergent but allowable view does not
include the liberty to teacher practice
that view. This does not preclude an
individual or Presbytery seeking to
change the constitution in order to
bring it into stricter conformity to the
Word of God, or appeal to the General
Assembly concerning a matter which
in their view has been erroneously
adjudicated. Thus the church acts
through her courts (as a Christian
family!) To determine, to
define, and to declare the
docttine and practices of the
church. This also is a part of
the mission of the church!
To be Reformed is to be
committed both to the
SCriptures as the final rule of
faith and practice and to the
Westrninster Standards as an
expression of the teaching of
the Bible. To subscribe to the
standards means that you
believe that what the
standards teach the Bible
teaches. "We do not have to
On" pg. 5, the statement speaks of choose between the two. Let it also be
"the traditional form of said that we do believe in "Semper
dispensationalism" and "theonomy as Reforrnanda." Therefore, thesta.ndards
popularlyunderstood."Doesthatmean can be changed. But let it also be said,
that a person can say that he is not a that if one disagrees with the
"traditional dispensationalist" and be constitution of the church he should
accepted in the PCAand a"theonomist" declare his differences, submit to tl:!e
be rejected beCause of "popular mis- constitution and the couns of the
understandings" of their views? church, change the constitution by the
I would exhort the brethren to proper and due process of the church,
follow the order and procedure that or seek a fellowship consistent with
we have historically followed in our his views. It might be argued that this
constitutionassuffic!entinaddressing is exactly what the C6ncensus
these matters. Each officer ought to Statement is promoting. What I am
sincerely subscribe to the standards as suggesting is that some have already
teaching what the Scriptures teach. If let the chickens in the house and now
they differ at any point with those they wantthem ratified. Brethren have
doctrines, they should declare to their apparently already departed from the
Presbytery those views or doctrines Constitution of the Church which they
with which they disagree, allowing the have subscribed to and now are only
Presbytery to judge whether they are seeking to legitimize their views.
inimical to the system of doctrine, or There is an even more important
allowable. Allowing a person to hold a underlying "presupposition" that I
12 THE COUNSEL of Chakedon October! November, 1994
think is erroneous and needs to be
recognized as at the root of the
problem. It is arguable, I believe, to
state in the first paragraph of the
introduction to the Consensus
Statement that the PCA was born with
a solid commitment to "The Reformed
Faith." This is the "myth" of the PCA!
From the beginning the PCA has
been a mixed multitude of broad
evangelical and Reformed
commitments. This is, in fact, the root
of the problem within the PCA. The
issue is understated when the writers
speak as if the problem is merely one
of "allowable diversity" within the
Reformed Faith. However, this might
be understandable since, to my
knowledge, only four of the signers of
the "Concensus Statement" were
original PCA members or signers of
"The Address to All the Churches."
Most of the Signers of the statement
appear to me to be from outside the
PCA in denominational background,
OPC, RPCES, UPUSA, etc. The
significance of this is, I believe, that
many of these men who came from
different and sometimes stronger
Reformed backgrounds, regard the
PCA as having a stronger and more
knowledgeable commitment to the
Reformed distinctives than it actually
does. I would sincerely and humbly
suggest that the problem is much
deeper than allowable differences, that
on the part of many in the PCA these
diversities arise from a lack 0 f
commitment to the Reformed
Distinctives at all. In fact, it is my
opinion that while there has been a
growth of appreciation for Reformed
doctrine since the birth of the PCA,
many ofthe churches and Elders have
very little commitment to Reformed
distinctives and viewthemas obstacles
to church growth, evangelism, and
missions. They have a historical and
perhaps sentimental loyalty to the
Westminster Standards which,
however, does not govern, control, or
inforrn their practices. In fact, theyare
more governed and controlled by
broad evangelicalism than the
Reformed Faith.
I realize that for me to say this will
be taken by some to be anogant,
ignorant, and may open myself to
severe criticism. However, I say this
based upon my firsthand experience
and participation in the formation of
the PCA. I was defrocked for departing
the PCUS to fOlm and join the PCA. I
am an original signer of "The Address
To All Churches." The PCA has since
her birth been a mixed theological
fellowship, the fmit of which has
manifest itselfin practical mission and
ministerial issues, and is the source of
the debates, divisions, and distractions
in the denomination.
On paper, in 1973, the PCA
expressed its commitment to the
Westminster Standards and "The
Address To All The Churches."
However, in reality many of the
preachers, churches, and people I
knew had little commitment to the
distinctives and implications of the
Reformed Faith. I was converted and
nurtured in the Lord under the
ministry of conservative evangelicals
in the PCUS in 1963, and ministered
in the fellowship of a number of those
men and churches involved in the
formation of the PCA. I was a youth
evangelist with PEF, attended
conferences and reVivals, preached in
churches, and was a part of the circles
of many of those who were involved
in Concerned Presbyterians, the
Presbyterian Journal, and The
Continuing Presbyterian Church. It
was not until I entered RTS in 1969
that I came to know and understand
the RefOlmed Faith. While I Sincerely
admire and appreCiate the
commitment of those men for their
evangelistic zeal, who fought for
conservative, evangelical theology
amidst liberalism, I realized that the
men, the methods, the movement that
I had been nmtured and ministered in
were essentially Alminian in practice
and perspective. Many of these same
men and churches were instmmental
in establishing the PCA.
Indeed, the reason for separation
fromthe PCUSwannotoverReformed
distinctives or strict SUbSCliption but
evangelical distinctives, commitment
to the inspiration and infallibility of
the Scripture, the virgin birth,
creationism, evangelismand missions,
etc. The Wesrminster Standards were
adopted by the PCA, at least on the
part of many if not most, I believe, .
merely out of tradition more than
conviction.
From the earliest days of the PCA
men who sought to be faithful to
Reformed principles, were labeled
"TR's" ("Thoroughly Reformed") for
trying to follow the Constitution and
were viewed and treated as a threat
and disruption to the goals and
methods of the "PCA" which were in
fact more in tune with broad
evangelicalism than the Reformed
tradition. What the PCA adopted in
prinCiple and Signed on paper was not
the theology by in large of the pulpit
or the pew. Therefore, some of the
issues in the PCAare not over allowable
diversity within the Reformed faith at
all, but of real heart rooted differences
over basic theology. Thus, if this
"Consensus Statement" were adopted
it would give greater latitude and
liberty to those who have never
embraced the Reformed distinctives
in the first place to further ignore and
detach themselves from them.
Take, for example, the issue of
"Pictures ofjesus." There are Reformed
and Biblical arguments concerning
whether or not visual images may be
made to represemJesus. But I dare say
concluded on pg. 32
October! November, 1994 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 13
t])iso6etfience
6y InaPainter
"$read of cfeceit is sweet to a
manj out afterwardS nis
11WUtn sna{{ oe forecf witli
graver. JJ Proverbs 20:17
'lJisooeaience mask itself
as oeing re(ative{y unimportant,
a rationa[izea pause,
going unnoticecC,
promising no fasting iffect.
!lfaving oegun to waiver
in tlie narrow patfiway,
we cease to ponaer

now tfie cfioue maae
'I1ie p{easurea sin
_ toot {oo!(g.cC, at first, to oe no fiarm,
lias pusfiea it wi({ju{ way
ana we are victims afreaay,
fiaving faen prey
to sin's controc.
("But every man is temptei,
when he is arawn away of
his own rust, ana enticed.
'Then when rust hath con-
ceivei, it Gnngeth forth
sin: ana sin, when it is
finishei, Gnngeth forth
aeath. JJ James 1: 14-15
Coneeneue. cont. from pg. 18
that for some in the PCA, the issue
isnotwhat the Scriptures say, what
the Larger Catechism says, but that
this is simply a hindrance to
effective evangelism, and "our
times deIilllnd" (another dangerous
phrase from the Consensus
Statement) that we not be so strict
in our doctrine. Their ultimate
practice is governed, not by
Scripture, not by the Reformed
Faith, not by concern for or
confidence in doing God's work
God's way, not by confidence in
the sovereignty of God who is
saving His elect through the
preaching of the tru th, but by the
anti-Reformed "Arminian"
approach and atmosphere that says
we must use whatever means
32 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon October! November, 1994
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
BULK RATE
Permit No. 1553
Greenville, SC
29602
possible to get as many saved as we
can and we shouldn't let theology
get in our way!
I am concerned that some of
the views of the "Consensus
Statement" not only depart from
the Reformed tradition but that it
really fails to deal with the realroot
problem and to gloss over, to
insulate, latent, real, and practical
Arminianism in the PCA in the
name of "allowable diversity."
The PCA has an identity. It is
stated in her Constitution. The
crisis is not because she has no
identity but because she has
departed from her identity. This is
what is so egregious to those in the
PCA who are still committed to
her original position and
declarations. Q