I am honored to have been asked to write a response to a section of the Proposed Stated of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America.1 I am also a bit apprehensive. I do not want to offend or disappoint anyone with my opinions. I do want to honor my Lord with any service I can offer to His Church in spite of my limitations. May He bless my efforts and forgive my sins.

There is much that is helpful in this Proposed Statement. I appreciate it as a tool to help us think through some of the problems in our denomination. I agree with much that is in it, and I also disagree with various details. What concerns me most are certain statements in the introduction which seem to imply that the purpose of this document is to become the official, authoritative statement of identity for the PCA. The PCA's current Constitution is the PCA's statement of identity, her sufficiently clear basis for denominational unity, consensus and focus, and her satisfactory definition of fundamental commitments and mission. No other document should be allowed to usurp these functions of our Constitution.

If our Constitution lacks clarity or is an inadequate basis for denominational unity or contains error, then the proper way to deal with this is to amend our Constitution. This is the recommendation found in the response of the 22nd General Assembly to Overture 39:

Finally, the Assembly recommends that if the Constitutional Standards are thought to be insufficient in some respect, the proper course for those so persuaded is to seek to amend the language of the Constitution itself. 2

Of course, amending our Constitution is not easy. We have deliberately erected procedural barriers to insure that such changes are made only after prolonged deliberation and only with widespread consensus.

I welcome the PSI as a contribution to an ongoing discussion within our denomination. Yet I am uncomfortable with it as a proposed amendment to our Constitution or as a proposed authoritative interpretation of our Constitution or as a proposed replacement for our Constitution in regard to certain of its functions. Hopefully these concerns will prove unfounded. The PSI does say in its final paragraph, "The PCA continues to commit itself uncompromisingly to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith..."

That is my general response to the PSI as a whole. I have been asked, however, to respond in detail to Chapter III of the Proposed Statement.

Chapter III of the PSI begins with a positive statement about the importance of our constitutional documents and our need for more theological reflection based on Scripture. It then warns against making decisions in the church based upon pragmatism or traditionalism instead of upon solid theological reflection. In this age of pragmatism, the emphasis of these introductory remarks is very refreshing.

The introduction notes that the Westminster Standards are a product of "the Church primarily of the Seventeenth Century." True, but they have also been reaffirmed by Bible believing Christians in every century since. And there is a significant sense in which there is nothing new under the sun. The Westminster Standards represent the theological crest of an extended revival and reformation, the likes of which we have not seen since. Yes, there is a need for continued theological reflection and contemporary application beyond the specifics found in the Westminster Standards. Yet we must take care not to become too enamored with the unique wisdom of our own age, which is the temptation of every generation.

After the introduction, Chapter III has nine statements of affirmation and denial. Affirmation and denial 1 affirms the need for sound theology in evangelism and missions and in all church goals and policies. Number 1 warns against the "uncritical use of secular managerial techniques." This affirmation and denial is a word aptly spoken.

Affirmation and denial 2 addresses the church's need to sponsor and promote theological reflection at all levels, which is good. Number 2 goes on to deny that "judicial process, careless pragmatism, or simple neglect is the primary way to resolve theological issues in the church (Gal. 6:1-2)." How true! Only God can answer our prayers for a more perfect union rooted in His truth. Only God through His Word and Spirit can bring us all to the unity of the faith and deliver us from every contrary wind of doctrine.

Affirmation and denial 3 stresses the need for a "theologically well-trained leadership." This section concludes with a call to "theological integrity" and "faithfulness to the Scriptures" and a warning against accommodation "to methods and techniques without proper theological justification." Amen to number 3.

Affirmation and denial 4 states that not all doctrinal issues are of equal weight, and that is certainly true. We do need a sense of proportion in this regard. The document goes on to suggest a three-tiered classification of doctrines. Affirmation and denial 5 establishes the first two tiers, doctrines "essential to the Church's existence" and doctrines "essential to the integrity of the Reformed Church." Affirmation and denial 6 goes on to define the third tier, "important issues" which "should not be treated as though the very foundation of Christ's Church at large, or the Reformed Church in particular were threatened by them." Number 6 warns against "rash and unnecessary recourse to process and adjudication" regarding these important but nonvital issues. The document goes on to point out that "the dynamic of approaching controversy must involve patient, careful study of God's Word" and "it is crucial for the Church to proceed in a spirit of grace and forbearance..." This is all very good, true and relevant,

Number 5 lists representative doctrines in the first two tiers. The phrase "doctrines such as" is used to indicate that the listings are representative and not exhaustive. The representative list of "doctrines ... essential to the integrity of the Reformed Church in particular" is very short. Not mentioned are elder rule, the continuing validity of God's moral law as summarized in the Ten Commandments, the regulative principle of worship, and a Reformed understanding of baptism and the Lord's Supper. When I reread the entire document, I noticed that the PSI stresses the importance of most of these in other chapters.3 Still I believe a more comprehensive list here would have been better.

Number 6 treats the third tier and lists important but nonvital issues where we should exercise forbearance: "worship styles, the legitimate ministries of women (other than elder), specific strategic alliances, inter-church relations, the identity, nature, and use of spiritual gifts, and the organizational structure of church bodies." I would have added some additional qualifiers to some of these issues before classifying them as nonvital: worship styles whose basic elements are prescribed in Scripture, the legitimate ministries of women (other than elder and deacon), the identity, nature, and use of non-revelatory spiritual gifts, and the secondary organizational structure of church bodies within a presbyterian system. Again, the larger document is clarifying here. The PSI in other chapters affirms that "our worship is limited to those ‘elements’ that God's Word prescribes,"4 denies "that anything is at any time to be added to Scripture ... by new revelations of the Spirit,"5 and "affirms the presbyterian form of government as ‘the scriptural form of church government’"6 It would have been better to make these positions clear here in this list. I have not found any clarifying statements about women and the ordained office of deacon elsewhere in the document.

I would not have included "specific strategic alliances" and "inter-church relations" in this list of nonvital issues. These two matters can be peripheral or fundamental depending on the details. To give an obvious example, a move to join the World Council of Churches would be a fundamental issue whereas the routine continuation of our membership in NAPARC would be peripheral. The PSI does provide clarification on this point elsewhere: "we deny that a Reformed Church can promote ... ecumenism apart from faithful adherence to a Reformed confession,"7 and "we should be open to creative alliances with ministries that have similar biblical values."8

The last three affirmations and denials in this chapter deal with "Theological Dialogue with the World." This section calls upon us to "function prophetically in the world" and to "recognize the evils of our culture." We are "to arrive at the truth by proper reflection on the Scriptures" and not by becoming captive to secular movements. This section recognizes the continuing validity of the cultural mandate given in Genesis 1. The Christian is to subdue the world as God's creation while resisting the world as an evil system fallen into sin. Amen and amen.

In summary, the PSI does make some good points and could serve us well as a stimulus to further thought and discussion. I hope it will promote healing through an open discussion of the issues.

There are other things we should also be doing to heal the fragmentation in our denomination. Some if not all of these are implied in the PSI. To begin with, we need to recognize that our problem is a spiritual problem for which there is no quick and easy political solution. To the degree there is a problem in the PCA, the problem is us, not our Constitution. Spiritual unity and genuine reformation will come only in the context of a Spirit-inspired revival within our midst. Let us pray for the day and patiently wait upon the Lord of the harvest.

Second, we all need to follow Jesus' instructions about exercising authority. Our focus must not be upon efforts to lord it over others through political maneuvers but upon humble service which expects no reward beyond hearing those words, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." Yet Christ does often bless His humble servants with a growing influence in the church. If we want to become truly great in Christ's church, we must become Christ's truly humble servants in the church. We should be more concerned about giving of ourselves in service to Christ than about getting our way in Christ's Church.

Third, we must keep issues in proportion. Every church court makes mistakes. The question is whether these mistakes affect only the well being of the church or the very being of the church. In the old school - new school controversy, some were denying doctrines such as original sin, justification and a vicarious penal atonement. These are issues that affect the very being of the church and which necessitate separation. We may have our disagreements in the PCA, but they are not about such foundational doctrines. We should recognize this and be grateful.

Fourth, we all need to work on our attitudes. Focusing on past errors and wrongs will only fill us with the root of bitterness. We need to think more highly of others and to forgive as we have been forgiven. A time of strained relationships in the Body is the season most opportune for bearing the fruit of the Spirit, which all have to do with interpersonal relationships.

Footnotes

1 PCA CONSENSUS: A Proposed Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America (PSI), Chapter III, pp. 10-12. Grover Gunn's paper is also going to be published in a different collection of articles on the PSI, in a forthcoming issue of The Presbyterian Witness (for copies write to 403 Whealton Road, Hampton, VA 23666-2887).

2 Minutes of the Twenty-second General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (Atlanta GA: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1994, forthcoming).

3 PSI, see 1: 10, 11; IV, opening paragraph; V:6, pp. 5, 13, 19.

4 1bid, paragraph after V: 11; see also V:6, pp. 19, 20.

5 Ibid, 1:5, p. 4.

6 Ibid., IV, opening paragraph, p. 13.

7 Ibid, 11:2.; see also VII: 13, pp. 2, 28.

8 Ibid., VII: 15, p. 28.