You are here
Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians discussion on Confession of 1967.
Primary tabs
Download
- speaker[Baker, David W. ]The Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians USA brings
- speakeryou a discussion of the proposal to revise the confessional position of the United
- speakerPresbyterian Church encompassed in Overture I as
- speakerpassed by the General Assembly, which met in Boston. In May nineteen sixty-
- speakersix. We are speaking to you from the study one of the oldest
- speakerPresbyterian churches in America, the Great Valley Presbyterian Church
- speakerin Chester County Pennsylvania. This church was meeting
- speakeras a worshipping congregation as early as seventeen hundred ten.
- speakerWas one of the churches that participated in the organization of the first presbytery,
- speakermore than sixty years before the American Revolution. Nearly
- speakereighty years before the establishment of the first General Assembly.
- speakerHere in this beautiful place of historic significance, yet caught
- speakerup in the full impact of modern life and the tensions and
- speakerchange of great growth, we are concerned,
- speakerprofoundly concerned, that the radical changes of the document
- speakerbefore us are not in the best interest of our church. Persons
- speakerwho will be participating in this discussion are a group of ministers and laymen
- speakerof the United Presbyterian Church who have met together in prayer and fellowship
- speakerto express their concern with this proposal. The speakers
- speakerwill include: Ralph Coleman Jr., Mariano diGangi.
- speakerLuther Fink. Leon Wardell, and myself,
- speakerDavid Baker [Baker, David W.. We are not opposed to change
- speakeras such. But we see no need for such changes as proposed.
- speakerWe feel they are not wise. A
- speakernumber of Presbyterians are laboring under the dangerous delusion that they can revise
- speakerthis present proposal. I wonder if one of you men would like to
- speakercomment on this. Well I think it's significant to point out that no less
- speakera source than Presbyterian Life in its August fifteen issue fully emphasized this
- speakerwhen it states. Quote, "No editing is possible at this stage of the process.
- speakerPresbyteries must vote yes or no." Now for church men and a
- speakerlaymen who believe that the final version of the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven, as revised
- speakerby the special committee of fifteen, represents vital concessions and an important
- speakervictory for those who favor changes, the same issue of Presbyterian Life
- speakeralso sets the record straight in this regard. Quote, "The Confession of Nineteen Sixty-
- speakerSeven was somewhat revised in detail, though not in basic content or emphasis."
- speakerThus it seems to me that it's plainly up to the presbyteries, who are still concerned with the Confession
- speakerof nineteen sixty-seven and related proposals to take the only course open to them
- speakerto make their views effective. That course, difficult as it may seem, is to vote
- speakerno when the confession of sixty seven proposal is presented for approval.
- speakerAs a commissioner to the last assembly in Boston. I directed a question on
- speakerthe floor of the assembly to the stated clerk Dr Blake [Blake, Eugene Carson], as to whether or not
- speakerit would be possible for the presbyteries to vote on part of this proposal. And
- speakerhe answered saying, "There will be one proposal on which the presbyteries are
- speakerto vote yes or no." End quote Any thought that
- speakerthey could be any changes or that a part of this proposal can be voted for, and
- speakeranother part of it against, is a dangerous delusion. I
- speakercertainly agree with that. And, I think it's important to point out that that our group
- speakerhere, criticizing the proposal to revise the constitution, is simply exercising
- speakerits right of dialogue within the church. And those are say that this exercise of
- speakerthis right is divisive or divides the church purposely ignore the history and character of our
- speakerPresbyterianism. We are not a church that is monolithic or speaking with one voice in Christ, crushing
- speakerall opposition. Rather we have striven to maintain and expand dialogue between various groups.
- speakerSome have said that since the one hundred seventy eighth General Assembly has spoken,
- speakerwe should take its decisions as binding. If we are to take the General
- speakerAssembly decision as binding, we bother to have the presbyteries vote?
- speakerThe fact that the presbyteries are required to vote means that there should be dialogue
- speakerfor and against before a vote is taken. Since the text of the priopsal runs eight full printed pages.
- speakerAnd the Book of Confessions is an additional one hundred fifty six pages, we
- speakerbelieve that each session and presbytery should take time to study this material, in order
- speakerto come to an intelligent yes or no decision on the proposal as it is, for
- speakeras it is now too late to make any changes on the proposal.
- speakerThe stated clerk of our General Assembly [Thompson, William P.] wrote in the preface of the recently published Book of Confessions.
- speakerThese are quote reproduced here in full to facilicate responsible
- speakerconsideration of the overture in the presbyteries. One of
- speakerthe abiding characteristics of the Presbyterian Church over the years has been its belief in intellectual
- speakerresponsibility. Presbyterians have played a major role in the development of this
- speakernation's system of higher education. One that is all out of proportion to their small
- speakernumbers. Devotion to learning has been an integral part of Presbyterianism
- speakerdating back to colonial times. With such a background of respect for learning and scholarship,
- speakermany are worried about our intellectual responsibility and respectability.
- speakerif we adopt this proposal. Would some of you like to comment on this point? Freely
- speakergranting that the documents such as the Second Helvetic Confession have great historical
- speakersignificance for Presbyterians, they still don't have a place in the modern
- speakerchurch's Constitution, as a framer of even the simplest Constitution knows.
- speakerThe prime requirements are for clarity, brevity, and the elimination of any conflicting
- speakeror contradictory sections. Our present confession has been known for its
- speakerbrevity and its clarity and its absence of contradictions.
- speakerThis new proposal involves the adoption of a Book of Confessions, which
- speakergreatly expands the volume of our Constitution.
- speakerAnd many believe that it confuses the clarity, which we had previously
- speakerhad, and, that it does not make for a workable document.
- speakerTake the phrase where for they speak of the Bible being written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
- speakerMany people say well that's the same as inspiration, isn't it? But it depends
- speakerupon our interpretation of words. And I believe that any constitutional
- speakerstanding should not have with in it the possibility of varieties
- speakerof interpretation. But I comment on this matter of the Book of Confessions.
- speakerThe great creeds embodying our historic Christian faith mark of as ascertained and finally settled
- speakerdoctrines on which, after a thorough investigation, the church is made up its mind. The system
- speakerof doctrine has grown as each article was hammered out between the anvil of scripture and
- speakerthe hammer of controversy. The items that are proposed for inclusion in the Book of Confessions, taken
- speakerby themselves, have a great deal to be commended. No Christian should have a problem
- speakerwith the basic truths of the Apostles Creed or the Nicean Creed because these stress
- speakerthe mighty acts of God in history and the full deity and humanity of our Lord.
- speakerI think any Presbyterian can appreciate the evangelical insights of the Scots Confession, the Heidelberg
- speakerCatechism and the Second Helvetic Confession. And yet, between these, even
- speakerthough there is an evangelical consensus, there are differences. One might even say that there are contradictions. Who is to decided which of these is to have
- speakerpriority over the others? We are simply a whole Book of Confessions for guidance and instruction,
- speakerbut we are not subscribing to any system of doctrine that may be taught there. Having
- speakermany confessional documents and merely acknowledging them for guidance, rather than
- speakersubscribing to them as founded on the Word of God and agreeable to the Word of God, receiving this as the system of doctrine taught in
- speakerthe Scriptures means that the loophole is pretty large. Anybody can
- speakeracknowledge for guidance what they listen to with a bit of respect. But we are not actually pinning ourselves down and saying,
- speaker"This is what the Bible teaches. This is what we believe." Not only would the proposal to adopt a Book of Confessions add fault and
- speakerchange a much smaller constitution that is noted for its clarity for one that is often not clear,
- speakerbut the proposed Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven is not really a confession at all. Now, some may think that this is a very bold statement.
- speakerWell, as a matter of fact, you may recall that, at the Assembly in Boston, a motion was made to call this proposed confession a declaration. And it did received
- speakerfairly strong support. The original Greek word from which we get the whole idea of confession means to
- speakersay the same thing. A confession therefore is a reaffirmation
- speakerof a belief in something. Inasmuch as the church is God's
- speakerinstrument for the spread of the gospel, a confession of faith made by the church
- speakermust of necessity be a reaffirmation of the scriptures, of that which
- speakerGod has first said to us. This, the Confession of Nineteen
- speakerhundred sixty seven is not. It is a philosophical statement or
- speakerdissertation and cannot be construed as a reaffirmation
- speakerof the clear teachings of the Bible. And, Dave, wouldn't you say C-67 doesn't adequately show
- speakerscriptural support for its varied statements? [Baker, David W.] I think that's true. Other confessions
- speakerof faith, such as Westminster, are noted for their strict adherence to the biblical texts.
- speakerFor every phrase, there is a verse from the Bible. This is not true of the proposed Confession
- speakerof Nineteen Sixty-Seven. Frankly, it contains very few references to
- speakerthe Bible. And, as a whole, it is not a reaffirmation of the scripture.
- speakerThus, it is not a confession in the proper sense of the term at all. It is a philosophical
- speakerview presented in contradiction and often in contrast with the great confessions
- speakerof the past. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Second Helvetic, the Scots
- speakerConfession and the Westminster Confession were all based strictly
- speakeron the Bible. The proposed Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven is not.
- speakerIt is not in the same class with the historic standards of our church. And we believe
- speakerit should not be voted into the Constitution. It seems to me
- speakerthat this the most critical weakness in this whole proposal before
- speakerthe church right now. That has to do with the attitude
- speakerthat we are asked to take towards the Word of God. Now the insertion
- speakerof the phrase"the word of God written" is counteracted by
- speakerthe reference to the Bible as being the words of men,
- speakerconditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions
- speakerof the places and times at which they were written.
- speakerAnd, it is particularly offset by the omission of any suggestion or definitive
- speakerstatement regarding the Bible's infallibility and final authority in matters
- speakerof faith and practice. This omission stands out in glaring
- speakercontrast, both to the present attitude toward scripture
- speakerembodied in our Westminster Confession, and even more important
- speakerto the high view of scripture that Christ himself had. This
- speakeralone is sufficient reason to vote against the adoption of the document
- speakeras a whole. I am sure that no Presbyterian layman wants us
- speakerto present an image before the world of merely regarding the
- speakerBible as a human book, instead of accepting it
- speakeras the infallible word of God, trustworthy throughout and
- speakerfinal in its authority. Although revisions were made in
- speakerthe original text, the proposed Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven
- speakerrefuses to acknowledge the Bible's witness to itself as
- speakerthe inspired word of God. It represents part of a total shift of emphasis in this confession from God to man. It has always been
- speakercharacteristic of Presbyterianism to put the first emphasis upon God. The
- speakeranswer to the first question of the catechism is "What is the chief end of man?" And,
- speakerthe answer is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
- speakerOver and over again, the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven changes this emphasis
- speakerto man in place of God. And, at no place is this more significant than in its doctrine
- speakerof scripture. The old statement spoke of the Bible as the infallible rule of faith
- speakerand practice. The new statement
- speakerspeaks of the Bible as having been given under the guidance of
- speakerthe Holy Spirit, but is nevertheless to be regarded as the words of
- speakermen, conditioned by the language, though forms, and literary fashions of the places and times in which they were written. Now
- speakerthis is not the same thing as infallibility. Even
- speakerdivine guidance may be refused. The old statement said that the guidance was accepted and was well
- speakercertified. And the word given was trustworthy in all matters of faith
- speakerand practice. This is missing in the new statement, which would put an emphasis
- speakerupon the humanistic point of view rather than the traditional view of our church.
- speakerWe feel this change is unnecessary and unwise. It destroys
- speakerthe solid foundation of our theological positionand, in fact, of our message in the world.
- speakerA second matter which the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven brings up has
- speakerto do with the much discussed issue of national security. I wonder if one of you
- speakermen will speak to that point? The proposed Confession of Nineteen
- speakerSixty-Seven states. Quote "The church in its own life is called to practice
- speakerthe forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics
- speakerthe search for cooperation and peace. This requires the pursuit of fresh
- speakerand responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk
- speakerto national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international
- speakerunderstanding." Unquote. Obviously the part that concerns
- speakerall of us is the phrase "even at a risk to national security."
- speakerWithout becoming emotional about this, I think we should consider the fact that,
- speakerif this phrase is to remain a part of our Constitution, that
- speakerelders and other church officers, who are also members of the armed forces,
- speakermay be faced with a very definite conflict that they do owe allegiance
- speakerto the national security of the United States. And, this presents them with a very difficult problem. And,
- speakerI believe all of us here would accept this particular quotation
- speakerif this phrase "even at risk to national security" could be eliminated. And yet, it
- speakeris in there. And if we vote for C-67, we've voted for this phrase. And,
- speakerthat, in itself, I feel, a reason for not voting for C-Sixty
- speakerseven. We are not trying to put the state
- speakerabove the church. We think they are entirely separate. We believe in separation of church
- speakerand state. And we believe that this type of statement is getting exactly into the field that it should not get into. There
- speakerhave been some who recommended the inclusion of the statement to further glorify the overlodrship of Jesus Christ.
- speakerBut in the past Presbyterians have been second to none in putting God and His Son
- speakerJesus Christ at the head over all things We've had to yield to no church in our loyalty,
- speakerour supreme loyalty to Jesus Christ. This statement
- speakerhowever is going to be divisive within the church and a disturbing influence.
- speakerMany men who love their country are going to be disturbed by it. And yet, if we vote
- speaker"Yes" on this proposal, this disturbing fact will be in the basic
- speakerconstitution of our church. We think it should be eliminated and left out.
- speakerSomething brought up which will affirm the lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas of life
- speakerwithout being as divisive as this certainly has been and will continue to be over the years. Well, to advocate the pursuit of
- speakerpeace at almost any price and to imply that unilateral disarmament is quote
- speaker"the Christian thing to do" unquote by insisting that we follow
- speakerthis out even at risk to national security, we are flying in the face of the facts.
- speakerWe live in a sinful society and it's necessary to repress international gangsterism abroad, as it is to curb lawlessness at
- speakerhome. I think that we have to enforce justice. And, sometimes this requires
- speakerthe use of force. There's nothing incompatible between a man's
- speakerloyalty to the state, as the state serves the ends of justice, according
- speakerto Romans thirteen and his supreme loyalty to the lordship of Jesus Christ.
- speakerAnother matter which has been brought up, has to do with the manner in which changes can be made
- speakerin our Constitution. One of the traditions of
- speakerPresbyterianism is that all things be done decently and in order. And, it is the feeling of
- speakermembers of this group that the General Assembly, acting
- speakerunder the authority of the Form of Government in the Constitution of our church has
- speakerpossibly acted in an illegal manner in completely deleting the larger catechism, which has been a part of our constitution since seventeen
- speakertwenty nine. It has only been amended one time in seventeen eighty-eight. The feeling we have is distinctly this that this was done in a manner that was not in
- speakeraccord with the present amending process of the Constituion. We are
- speakernot particularly making a brief for the Larger Catechism although we believe that is maintains truths that are outstanding. However, we do seriously question
- speakerthe whole legal aspect of this total and wholesale deletion of this basic doctrinal symbol, which constitutes forty percent of this
- speakerconstitution. Yet there are those who sincerely believe that the General Assembly of our denomination does have the authority to propose all manner of
- speakerwas quote "The most thorough going revision of constitutional standards for Presbyterians in more than three hundred years." Unquote. We believe that the
- speakerlast General Assembly, in adopting this proposal, goes a step further when it cuts out After all, even our national constitution may be amended and changed.
- speakerBut Congress would never consider proposing to the states a deletion of let's say, the Bill of Rights or even some previous amendment.
- speakerIn the case of the controversial eighteenth amendment on Prohibiton, this was not deleted. It
- speakerwas repealed. There is still an eighteenth amendment. Therefore, we believe that a vote in favor of this proposal will jeopardize the whole legal structure of
- speakerour churches. Another matter of very great concern to us in this proposal, has to do with the proposed change in the so-called terms of subscription.
- speakerthat. Well, David, you have already actually touched upon this issue, which I personally believe to be the gravest and most serious issue raised in this whole
- speakerChanging the position of our Church. My concern is that the whole underlying tone of
- speakerthe Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven is against
- speakerour belief in the Bible as the Word of God, infallible and trustworthy throughout. As one who
- speakerwas a commissioner in Boston, I became more and more concerned about this shift in position. It is true that nowhere throughout
- speakerthe document is it baldly stated that we are no longer accepting the Bible
- speakeras the Word of God. And so the average Presbyterian layman could
- speakereasily be deceived into thinking that there is no basic change from the position that we have
- speakerin our present doctrinal standards. Actually however the
- speakersubscription question concerning the Bible reveals
- speakerwhat is the tone of the documents throughout. For, instead of saying
- speakerfrom now on that we "accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God,
- speakerthe only infallible rule of faith and practice," we will say instead that we
- speakersimply recognize the Scriptures to be "the unique and authoritative witness
- speakerto Jesus Christ. In the Church Catholic and by the Holy Spirit God's word
- speakerto you." I would not like personally to come
- speakerto the place where we, as a church, would be saying to the world that we no longer
- speakerlook upon the Bible as the Word of God, but instead as a human book, subject
- speakerto error. This actually is the implication of the new statement we
- speakerare asked to adopt on subscription for ordination. I would like to
- speakerbelieve that Presbyterians across this wonderful
- speakercountry of ours still believe the Bible to be the Word of God,
- speakercompletely trustworthy and infallible throughout. This is the position
- speakerwe now have in our present doctrinal standards. It's a position
- speakerwe will be turning aside from in the adoption of
- speakerthe Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven with the change in subscription.
- speakerDoes not all this raise the question of the final authority in matters
- speakerof faith and practice? If we no longer attest
- speakerthat we accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, what
- speakerthen will be the final authority? You have been hearing a discussion
- speakerof the Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians USA as to the proposal
- speakerto revise the confessional position of the United Presbyterian Church.
- speakerThis comes to us as a package. We vote on it Yes
- speakeror no. We feel that it would be unwise
- speakerto adopt this proposal with these obvious defects.
- speakerAnd, we recommend that the church vote "No" to the proposal and
- speakerask it to come up with a new proposal, which would be truly evangelical
- speakerand not sacrifice the glories of our past or turn
- speakeraside with vigor from a challenge to the future.
- speakerWe should like to see this proposal defeated. It will be defeated when
- speakersixty-three presbyteries have voted against it.
- speakerWhen we began our effort, we thought that we were few in number. It seemed that we were voices crying in
- speakerthe wilderness. But there has come such an enthusiastic and
- speakerheartening response from all parts of America as to
- speakergive us real hope that this proposal can be defeated. All over
- speakerour church, we are finding those who are not fully satisfied with
- speakerthis proposal. Others who frankly say they don't like it, though many of them
- speakerthought they had to live with it. And more and more, these
- speakerand many others are coming to the conviction that this proposal does not represent
- speakerour best effort. They believe that, given more time,
- speakerwe can do much better. Since the present proposal
- speakercannot be revised, we have only the choice
- speakerto reject it. If you too have these convictions, make them known to
- speakersome of your friends throughout your church. And especially, encourage the representatives that go from your church to your presbytery. Encourage them to
- speakervote against this proposal. If you would like additional copies of this message or printed material to support this point of view, we invite you to write to the