Several Presbyteries within the PCA are currently
discussing Overture 4 entitled “Confession of Sin and Commitment to Racial and Ethnic Diversity” While
I admire the desire to repent of racism, or any other form of oppression, I
cannot in good conscience support this Overture. I hate racial oppression and I am deeply
saddened by the reality that much racial oppression has been perpetrated by
Christians. I do not, however, believe
that I am bound to confess sins that I did not commit. In addition, I believe that the Overture
errantly asserts that the PCA is a continuation of the PCUS. The documents from the time of the formation
of the PCA indicate the intention of the founding fathers to form a “new”
denomination by separating from the PCUS.
In the second paragraph of Overture 4, we read,
Whereas,
in the 1973 “Message to All the Churches,” the founding generation of the
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) expressly declared our denomination to be
the “continuing church” of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS),
saying, “We have called ourselves
‘Continuing’ Presbyterians because we seek to continue the faith of the
founding fathers of that Church,”
The
assertion that the PCA began with the intention of being a continuation of the
PCUS is inconsistent with the very document quoted. Nowhere in the Message to All Churches
is the phrase “continuing Church” used.
The only time the word “continuing” is used is in the above quote that
indicates a continuation of “Presbyterianism,” not a continuation of the
PCUS. In fact, in the third paragraph of
the Message to All Churches the
authors say, “The constituency of this new
denomination for the most part have separated themselves from the Presbyterian
Church in the United States.” Notice two key ideas from this
declaration. First the authors viewed
the PCA as a NEW denomination.
Secondly they viewed themselves as separating from the PCUS. This belief is affirmed by the numbering of
our General Assemblies. In 2016, the PCA
will meet for the 44th General Assembly not the 222nd. If
the founding fathers of the PCA believed that they were the continuing church,
they would not have begun numbering their GAs with 1.
To further illustrate that the PCA
has never acted as though it is the continuation of the PCUS, consider the
number of congregations that lost their property in joining the PCA. If they are the continuing PCUS and their
property is owned by the PCUS presbyteries, how could they ever lose their
property. The only explanation is that
the founders of the PCA always understood that they were leaving the PCUS and
the courts of the USA agreed.
Consider the full text of the third
paragraph in the Message to All Churches,
The
constituency of this new denomination for the most part have separated
themselves from the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The decision to separate has
come only after long years of struggle and heartache on the part of many of us
to return the Church to purity of faith and practice. Principle and conviction
entered into that decision, reached only after much soul searching and earnest
prayer. We have reluctantly accepted the necessity of separation, deeming
loyalty to Christ to take precedence over relationship to any earthly
institution, even to a visible branch of the Church of Christ.
The founding fathers of the PCA never intended to be a
continuation of the PCUS. The word
separate, or its cognates, is used eight times in this Message indicating the
firm conviction that they were founding something new. Why were they founding something new? The founders told us why in the fifth
paragraph.
We are
convinced that our former denomination as a whole, and in its leadership, no
longer holds those views regarding the nature and mission of the Church, which we accept
as both true and essential. When we judged that there was no human remedy for
this situation, and in the absence of evidence that God would intervene, we
were compelled to raise a new banner bearing the historic, Scriptural faith of
our forefathers.
There are, likely, current members of the PCA who sinned
during the time of the Civil Rights Movement while serving in the PCUS. Those individuals should confess and repent
of those sins even as one such leader did on the floor of GA last year. At the same time, honesty requires us to
acknowledge that the PCA did not exist during the Civil Rights Movement. We must also acknowledge that the PCA
includes former RPCES congregation which were never a part of the PCUS. Note as well, that the history of the PCA is
one of racial inclusion.
1)
At the advisory convention item 47 says, “It was resolved that the
continuing Presbyterian Church movement welcome fellow believers in Christ
regardless of race.”
2)
In 1977 the PCA (including Morton
Smith) helped draft the NAPARC declaration on Race Relations which expressed,
“In repentance we acknowledge and confess that we have failed effectively to
recognize the full humanity of other races and the similarity of their needs,
desires, and hopes to ours; and thus we have failed to love our neighbor as
ourselves.” It also commended seminaries
and churches for working toward racial equality, including Covenant Seminary
which would later become the PCA’s seminary.
3)
In 2002 the PCA made strong statements
decrying many racially driven sins including slavery, oppression and racism. In this declaration the PCA committed to
further oppose the racial inequality around us.
4)
In 2004 the PCA adopted a proposal
from MNA that decried the sin of racism and gave practical instruction to
churches to oppose it.
The history of the PCA which began in 1972 is one that
opposes racism and seeks to be racially inclusive. Even so, it is likely that racially driven
sins continue. For this, we must address
these sins according to the scripture, calling the offender to account for
their sin (Galatians 6:1-2).
This leads to my second concern for Overture 4. Overture 4 assumes a covenantal and
generational culpability. Let me
reiterate. I do not believe that the PCA
is the continuation of the PCUS and therefore we are not accountable for the
sins committed by that body. In
addition, I believe that God establishes a principle in Scripture that opposes
the idea of covenantal and generational culpability.
When God reveals to
Abraham that He was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham protested, “Will
You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” Lot was attached to his city and yet he was not
found covenantally culpable for their sins.
God dealt with the individual.
This principle is more clearly articulated as Jeremiah reveals the
promises of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, 29-30, “In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers
have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But everyone
will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth
will be set on edge.” God declares that the children are not culpable for the
sins of the fathers. Ezekiel expounds
this principle even more fully in chapter 18:1-9 where God draws a clear line
of demarcation between the one who sins and the one who does righteously.
In trying to establish the idea of covenantal and
generational culpability which might require confession for sins committed by
our fathers, the pastors supporting Overture 4 refer to Daniel 9, Leviticus
26:40 ff, and Nehemiah 1. What seems to
be overlooked is that in each of these passages God speaks of shared sin. Leviticus 26 is the easiest to see, “If they
confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers…” The Israelites were to confess, their
iniquity AND the iniquity of the forefathers. Both have committed the sin. That is why both Nehemiah and Daniel confess
not just the sins of the forefather but say, “we have sinned.” These passages demonstrate that the children
often repeat the sins of the fathers but they do not support the idea of
covenantal and generational culpability.
Another disturbing element to
Overture 4 is that it will be a formal judicial ruling in that it does not only
decry certain sins but it implicates individuals for those sins without proper
judicial process. It is inappropriate
for a court of the church (BCO 10-2) to issue a finding of guilt without
hearing the specifications or evidence and without providing the accused an opportunity
to address the accusations.
In
the fourth paragraph of Overture 4 we read…
Whereas,
the members of the PCA are increasingly aware that during the Civil Rights
period, many of our founding denominational leaders and churches not only
failed to support, but also actively worked against racial reconciliation in
both church and society through sins of commission and omission, including:
barring African Americans from worship services; misusing and twisting the
Bible to support racial segregation; participating in and defending white
supremacist organizations; and failing to speak out against state-supported
segregation and to support efforts to secure access to basic human and civil
rights;
Notice the words, “many of our
founding denominational leaders.” Those
leaders are individuals who have a right to the process of our church courts
(see BCO 6-3, 6-4, 27-2). Rather than
bringing charges against these individuals, Overture 4 summarily convicts them
of “sins of commission and omission.” If
we adopt Overture 4, the General Assembly is officially declaring, without
process, tht these individuals are guilty.
In the ninth paragraph, Overture 4, lists some fruits of
repentance—none of which truly reflect 2 Corinthians 7:10-11, “For the sorrow
that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret,
leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold
what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what
vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what
zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be
innocent in the matter.” This
description of the “fruits of repentance” raises several questions.
a.
Would it constitute a chargeable offense if an individual failed to
“establish interracial friendships?”
b.
If repentance requires us to establish “partnerships” outside of the
PCA, would a failure to have such “partnerships” constitute racism?
c.
Is the goal “a more racially and ethnically diverse church” or the
elimination of oppression expressed in racism?
Overture 4
says, “that this General Assembly also confesses our continued sins of
racism…” I cannot, in good conscience,
declare that this General Assembly is guilty of racism. I must see some specification of this sin and
some evidence of it. Which members of
the General Assembly are guilty of racism?
The General Assembly consists of “all teaching elders in good standing
with their presbyteries, and ruling elders as elected by their session.” This statement would implicate all of the
African American teaching elders in the PCA of the sin of continued
racism. Is that true? I do not believe that I am guilty of racism
and I cannot in honesty before the God of truth say that I am. I believe that there are many PCA teaching
elders who are not guilty of “continued sins of racism.”
