Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians discussion on Confession of 1967.

Primary tabs

Download

  • speaker
    [Baker, David W. ]The Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians USA brings
  • speaker
    you a discussion of the proposal to revise the confessional position of the United
  • speaker
    Presbyterian Church encompassed in Overture I as
  • speaker
    passed by the General Assembly, which met in Boston. In May nineteen sixty-
  • speaker
    six. We are speaking to you from the study one of the oldest
  • speaker
    Presbyterian churches in America, the Great Valley Presbyterian Church
  • speaker
    in Chester County Pennsylvania. This church was meeting
  • speaker
    as a worshipping congregation as early as seventeen hundred ten.
  • speaker
    Was one of the churches that participated in the organization of the first presbytery,
  • speaker
    more than sixty years before the American Revolution. Nearly
  • speaker
    eighty years before the establishment of the first General Assembly.
  • speaker
    Here in this beautiful place of historic significance, yet caught
  • speaker
    up in the full impact of modern life and the tensions and
  • speaker
    change of great growth, we are concerned,
  • speaker
    profoundly concerned, that the radical changes of the document
  • speaker
    before us are not in the best interest of our church. Persons
  • speaker
    who will be participating in this discussion are a group of ministers and laymen
  • speaker
    of the United Presbyterian Church who have met together in prayer and fellowship
  • speaker
    to express their concern with this proposal. The speakers
  • speaker
    will include: Ralph Coleman Jr., Mariano diGangi.
  • speaker
    Luther Fink. Leon Wardell, and myself,
  • speaker
    David Baker [Baker, David W.. We are not opposed to change
  • speaker
    as such. But we see no need for such changes as proposed.
  • speaker
    We feel they are not wise. A
  • speaker
    number of Presbyterians are laboring under the dangerous delusion that they can revise
  • speaker
    this present proposal. I wonder if one of you men would like to
  • speaker
    comment on this. Well I think it's significant to point out that no less
  • speaker
    a source than Presbyterian Life in its August fifteen issue fully emphasized this
  • speaker
    when it states. Quote, "No editing is possible at this stage of the process.
  • speaker
    Presbyteries must vote yes or no." Now for church men and a
  • speaker
    laymen who believe that the final version of the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven, as revised
  • speaker
    by the special committee of fifteen, represents vital concessions and an important
  • speaker
    victory for those who favor changes, the same issue of Presbyterian Life
  • speaker
    also sets the record straight in this regard. Quote, "The Confession of Nineteen Sixty-
  • speaker
    Seven was somewhat revised in detail, though not in basic content or emphasis."
  • speaker
    Thus it seems to me that it's plainly up to the presbyteries, who are still concerned with the Confession
  • speaker
    of nineteen sixty-seven and related proposals to take the only course open to them
  • speaker
    to make their views effective. That course, difficult as it may seem, is to vote
  • speaker
    no when the confession of sixty seven proposal is presented for approval.
  • speaker
    As a commissioner to the last assembly in Boston. I directed a question on
  • speaker
    the floor of the assembly to the stated clerk Dr Blake [Blake, Eugene Carson], as to whether or not
  • speaker
    it would be possible for the presbyteries to vote on part of this proposal. And
  • speaker
    he answered saying, "There will be one proposal on which the presbyteries are
  • speaker
    to vote yes or no." End quote Any thought that
  • speaker
    they could be any changes or that a part of this proposal can be voted for, and
  • speaker
    another part of it against, is a dangerous delusion. I
  • speaker
    certainly agree with that. And, I think it's important to point out that that our group
  • speaker
    here, criticizing the proposal to revise the constitution, is simply exercising
  • speaker
    its right of dialogue within the church. And those are say that this exercise of
  • speaker
    this right is divisive or divides the church purposely ignore the history and character of our
  • speaker
    Presbyterianism. We are not a church that is monolithic or speaking with one voice in Christ, crushing
  • speaker
    all opposition. Rather we have striven to maintain and expand dialogue between various groups.
  • speaker
    Some have said that since the one hundred seventy eighth General Assembly has spoken,
  • speaker
    we should take its decisions as binding. If we are to take the General
  • speaker
    Assembly decision as binding, we bother to have the presbyteries vote?
  • speaker
    The fact that the presbyteries are required to vote means that there should be dialogue
  • speaker
    for and against before a vote is taken. Since the text of the priopsal runs eight full printed pages.
  • speaker
    And the Book of Confessions is an additional one hundred fifty six pages, we
  • speaker
    believe that each session and presbytery should take time to study this material, in order
  • speaker
    to come to an intelligent yes or no decision on the proposal as it is, for
  • speaker
    as it is now too late to make any changes on the proposal.
  • speaker
    The stated clerk of our General Assembly [Thompson, William P.] wrote in the preface of the recently published Book of Confessions.
  • speaker
    These are quote reproduced here in full to facilicate responsible
  • speaker
    consideration of the overture in the presbyteries. One of
  • speaker
    the abiding characteristics of the Presbyterian Church over the years has been its belief in intellectual
  • speaker
    responsibility. Presbyterians have played a major role in the development of this
  • speaker
    nation's system of higher education. One that is all out of proportion to their small
  • speaker
    numbers. Devotion to learning has been an integral part of Presbyterianism
  • speaker
    dating back to colonial times. With such a background of respect for learning and scholarship,
  • speaker
    many are worried about our intellectual responsibility and respectability.
  • speaker
    if we adopt this proposal. Would some of you like to comment on this point? Freely
  • speaker
    granting that the documents such as the Second Helvetic Confession have great historical
  • speaker
    significance for Presbyterians, they still don't have a place in the modern
  • speaker
    church's Constitution, as a framer of even the simplest Constitution knows.
  • speaker
    The prime requirements are for clarity, brevity, and the elimination of any conflicting
  • speaker
    or contradictory sections. Our present confession has been known for its
  • speaker
    brevity and its clarity and its absence of contradictions.
  • speaker
    This new proposal involves the adoption of a Book of Confessions, which
  • speaker
    greatly expands the volume of our Constitution.
  • speaker
    And many believe that it confuses the clarity, which we had previously
  • speaker
    had, and, that it does not make for a workable document.
  • speaker
    Take the phrase where for they speak of the Bible being written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
  • speaker
    Many people say well that's the same as inspiration, isn't it? But it depends
  • speaker
    upon our interpretation of words. And I believe that any constitutional
  • speaker
    standing should not have with in it the possibility of varieties
  • speaker
    of interpretation. But I comment on this matter of the Book of Confessions.
  • speaker
    The great creeds embodying our historic Christian faith mark of as ascertained and finally settled
  • speaker
    doctrines on which, after a thorough investigation, the church is made up its mind. The system
  • speaker
    of doctrine has grown as each article was hammered out between the anvil of scripture and
  • speaker
    the hammer of controversy. The items that are proposed for inclusion in the Book of Confessions, taken
  • speaker
    by themselves, have a great deal to be commended. No Christian should have a problem
  • speaker
    with the basic truths of the Apostles Creed or the Nicean Creed because these stress
  • speaker
    the mighty acts of God in history and the full deity and humanity of our Lord.
  • speaker
    I think any Presbyterian can appreciate the evangelical insights of the Scots Confession, the Heidelberg
  • speaker
    Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession. And yet, between these, even
  • speaker
    though 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
  • speaker
    priority over the others? We are simply a whole Book of Confessions for guidance and instruction,
  • speaker
    but we are not subscribing to any system of doctrine that may be taught there. Having
  • speaker
    many confessional documents and merely acknowledging them for guidance, rather than
  • speaker
    subscribing 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
  • speaker
    the Scriptures means that the loophole is pretty large. Anybody can
  • speaker
    acknowledge 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
  • speaker
    change a much smaller constitution that is noted for its clarity for one that is often not clear,
  • speaker
    but 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.
  • speaker
    Well, 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
  • speaker
    fairly strong support. The original Greek word from which we get the whole idea of confession means to
  • speaker
    say the same thing. A confession therefore is a reaffirmation
  • speaker
    of a belief in something. Inasmuch as the church is God's
  • speaker
    instrument for the spread of the gospel, a confession of faith made by the church
  • speaker
    must of necessity be a reaffirmation of the scriptures, of that which
  • speaker
    God has first said to us. This, the Confession of Nineteen
  • speaker
    hundred sixty seven is not. It is a philosophical statement or
  • speaker
    dissertation and cannot be construed as a reaffirmation
  • speaker
    of the clear teachings of the Bible. And, Dave, wouldn't you say C-67 doesn't adequately show
  • speaker
    scriptural support for its varied statements? [Baker, David W.] I think that's true. Other confessions
  • speaker
    of faith, such as Westminster, are noted for their strict adherence to the biblical texts.
  • speaker
    For every phrase, there is a verse from the Bible. This is not true of the proposed Confession
  • speaker
    of Nineteen Sixty-Seven. Frankly, it contains very few references to
  • speaker
    the Bible. And, as a whole, it is not a reaffirmation of the scripture.
  • speaker
    Thus, it is not a confession in the proper sense of the term at all. It is a philosophical
  • speaker
    view presented in contradiction and often in contrast with the great confessions
  • speaker
    of the past. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Second Helvetic, the Scots
  • speaker
    Confession and the Westminster Confession were all based strictly
  • speaker
    on the Bible. The proposed Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven is not.
  • speaker
    It is not in the same class with the historic standards of our church. And we believe
  • speaker
    it should not be voted into the Constitution. It seems to me
  • speaker
    that this the most critical weakness in this whole proposal before
  • speaker
    the church right now. That has to do with the attitude
  • speaker
    that we are asked to take towards the Word of God. Now the insertion
  • speaker
    of the phrase"the word of God written" is counteracted by
  • speaker
    the reference to the Bible as being the words of men,
  • speaker
    conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions
  • speaker
    of the places and times at which they were written.
  • speaker
    And, it is particularly offset by the omission of any suggestion or definitive
  • speaker
    statement regarding the Bible's infallibility and final authority in matters
  • speaker
    of faith and practice. This omission stands out in glaring
  • speaker
    contrast, both to the present attitude toward scripture
  • speaker
    embodied in our Westminster Confession, and even more important
  • speaker
    to the high view of scripture that Christ himself had. This
  • speaker
    alone is sufficient reason to vote against the adoption of the document
  • speaker
    as a whole. I am sure that no Presbyterian layman wants us
  • speaker
    to present an image before the world of merely regarding the
  • speaker
    Bible as a human book, instead of accepting it
  • speaker
    as the infallible word of God, trustworthy throughout and
  • speaker
    final in its authority. Although revisions were made in
  • speaker
    the original text, the proposed Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven
  • speaker
    refuses to acknowledge the Bible's witness to itself as
  • speaker
    the inspired word of God. It represents part of a total shift of emphasis in this confession from God to man. It has always been
  • speaker
    characteristic of Presbyterianism to put the first emphasis upon God. The
  • speaker
    answer to the first question of the catechism is "What is the chief end of man?" And,
  • speaker
    the answer is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
  • speaker
    Over and over again, the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven changes this emphasis
  • speaker
    to man in place of God. And, at no place is this more significant than in its doctrine
  • speaker
    of scripture. The old statement spoke of the Bible as the infallible rule of faith
  • speaker
    and practice. The new statement
  • speaker
    speaks of the Bible as having been given under the guidance of
  • speaker
    the Holy Spirit, but is nevertheless to be regarded as the words of
  • speaker
    men, conditioned by the language, though forms, and literary fashions of the places and times in which they were written. Now
  • speaker
    this is not the same thing as infallibility. Even
  • speaker
    divine guidance may be refused. The old statement said that the guidance was accepted and was well
  • speaker
    certified. And the word given was trustworthy in all matters of faith
  • speaker
    and practice. This is missing in the new statement, which would put an emphasis
  • speaker
    upon the humanistic point of view rather than the traditional view of our church.
  • speaker
    We feel this change is unnecessary and unwise. It destroys
  • speaker
    the solid foundation of our theological positionand, in fact, of our message in the world.
  • speaker
    A second matter which the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven brings up has
  • speaker
    to do with the much discussed issue of national security. I wonder if one of you
  • speaker
    men will speak to that point? The proposed Confession of Nineteen
  • speaker
    Sixty-Seven states. Quote "The church in its own life is called to practice
  • speaker
    the forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics
  • speaker
    the search for cooperation and peace. This requires the pursuit of fresh
  • speaker
    and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk
  • speaker
    to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international
  • speaker
    understanding." Unquote. Obviously the part that concerns
  • speaker
    all of us is the phrase "even at a risk to national security."
  • speaker
    Without becoming emotional about this, I think we should consider the fact that,
  • speaker
    if this phrase is to remain a part of our Constitution, that
  • speaker
    elders and other church officers, who are also members of the armed forces,
  • speaker
    may be faced with a very definite conflict that they do owe allegiance
  • speaker
    to the national security of the United States. And, this presents them with a very difficult problem. And,
  • speaker
    I believe all of us here would accept this particular quotation
  • speaker
    if this phrase "even at risk to national security" could be eliminated. And yet, it
  • speaker
    is in there. And if we vote for C-67, we've voted for this phrase. And,
  • speaker
    that, in itself, I feel, a reason for not voting for C-Sixty
  • speaker
    seven. We are not trying to put the state
  • speaker
    above the church. We think they are entirely separate. We believe in separation of church
  • speaker
    and state. And we believe that this type of statement is getting exactly into the field that it should not get into. There
  • speaker
    have been some who recommended the inclusion of the statement to further glorify the overlodrship of Jesus Christ.
  • speaker
    But in the past Presbyterians have been second to none in putting God and His Son
  • speaker
    Jesus Christ at the head over all things We've had to yield to no church in our loyalty,
  • speaker
    our supreme loyalty to Jesus Christ. This statement
  • speaker
    however is going to be divisive within the church and a disturbing influence.
  • speaker
    Many 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
  • speaker
    constitution of our church. We think it should be eliminated and left out.
  • speaker
    Something brought up which will affirm the lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas of life
  • speaker
    without being as divisive as this certainly has been and will continue to be over the years. Well, to advocate the pursuit of
  • speaker
    peace at almost any price and to imply that unilateral disarmament is quote
  • speaker
    "the Christian thing to do" unquote by insisting that we follow
  • speaker
    this out even at risk to national security, we are flying in the face of the facts.
  • speaker
    We live in a sinful society and it's necessary to repress international gangsterism abroad, as it is to curb lawlessness at
  • speaker
    home. I think that we have to enforce justice. And, sometimes this requires
  • speaker
    the use of force. There's nothing incompatible between a man's
  • speaker
    loyalty to the state, as the state serves the ends of justice, according
  • speaker
    to Romans thirteen and his supreme loyalty to the lordship of Jesus Christ.
  • speaker
    Another matter which has been brought up, has to do with the manner in which changes can be made
  • speaker
    in our Constitution. One of the traditions of
  • speaker
    Presbyterianism is that all things be done decently and in order. And, it is the feeling of
  • speaker
    members of this group that the General Assembly, acting
  • speaker
    under the authority of the Form of Government in the Constitution of our church has
  • speaker
    possibly acted in an illegal manner in completely deleting the larger catechism, which has been a part of our constitution since seventeen
  • speaker
    twenty 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
  • speaker
    accord with the present amending process of the Constituion. We are
  • speaker
    not particularly making a brief for the Larger Catechism although we believe that is maintains truths that are outstanding. However, we do seriously question
  • speaker
    the whole legal aspect of this total and wholesale deletion of this basic doctrinal symbol, which constitutes forty percent of this
  • speaker
    constitution. Yet there are those who sincerely believe that the General Assembly of our denomination does have the authority to propose all manner of
  • speaker
    was quote "The most thorough going revision of constitutional standards for Presbyterians in more than three hundred years." Unquote. We believe that the
  • speaker
    last 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.
  • speaker
    But Congress would never consider proposing to the states a deletion of let's say, the Bill of Rights or even some previous amendment.
  • speaker
    In the case of the controversial eighteenth amendment on Prohibiton, this was not deleted. It
  • speaker
    was 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
  • speaker
    our 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.
  • speaker
    that. 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
  • speaker
    Changing the position of our Church. My concern is that the whole underlying tone of
  • speaker
    the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven is against
  • speaker
    our belief in the Bible as the Word of God, infallible and trustworthy throughout. As one who
  • speaker
    was a commissioner in Boston, I became more and more concerned about this shift in position. It is true that nowhere throughout
  • speaker
    the document is it baldly stated that we are no longer accepting the Bible
  • speaker
    as the Word of God. And so the average Presbyterian layman could
  • speaker
    easily be deceived into thinking that there is no basic change from the position that we have
  • speaker
    in our present doctrinal standards. Actually however the
  • speaker
    subscription question concerning the Bible reveals
  • speaker
    what is the tone of the documents throughout. For, instead of saying
  • speaker
    from now on that we "accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God,
  • speaker
    the only infallible rule of faith and practice," we will say instead that we
  • speaker
    simply recognize the Scriptures to be "the unique and authoritative witness
  • speaker
    to Jesus Christ. In the Church Catholic and by the Holy Spirit God's word
  • speaker
    to you." I would not like personally to come
  • speaker
    to the place where we, as a church, would be saying to the world that we no longer
  • speaker
    look upon the Bible as the Word of God, but instead as a human book, subject
  • speaker
    to error. This actually is the implication of the new statement we
  • speaker
    are asked to adopt on subscription for ordination. I would like to
  • speaker
    believe that Presbyterians across this wonderful
  • speaker
    country of ours still believe the Bible to be the Word of God,
  • speaker
    completely trustworthy and infallible throughout. This is the position
  • speaker
    we now have in our present doctrinal standards. It's a position
  • speaker
    we will be turning aside from in the adoption of
  • speaker
    the Confession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven with the change in subscription.
  • speaker
    Does not all this raise the question of the final authority in matters
  • speaker
    of faith and practice? If we no longer attest
  • speaker
    that we accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, what
  • speaker
    then will be the final authority? You have been hearing a discussion
  • speaker
    of the Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians USA as to the proposal
  • speaker
    to revise the confessional position of the United Presbyterian Church.
  • speaker
    This comes to us as a package. We vote on it Yes
  • speaker
    or no. We feel that it would be unwise
  • speaker
    to adopt this proposal with these obvious defects.
  • speaker
    And, we recommend that the church vote "No" to the proposal and
  • speaker
    ask it to come up with a new proposal, which would be truly evangelical
  • speaker
    and not sacrifice the glories of our past or turn
  • speaker
    aside with vigor from a challenge to the future.
  • speaker
    We should like to see this proposal defeated. It will be defeated when
  • speaker
    sixty-three presbyteries have voted against it.
  • speaker
    When we began our effort, we thought that we were few in number. It seemed that we were voices crying in
  • speaker
    the wilderness. But there has come such an enthusiastic and
  • speaker
    heartening response from all parts of America as to
  • speaker
    give us real hope that this proposal can be defeated. All over
  • speaker
    our church, we are finding those who are not fully satisfied with
  • speaker
    this proposal. Others who frankly say they don't like it, though many of them
  • speaker
    thought they had to live with it. And more and more, these
  • speaker
    and many others are coming to the conviction that this proposal does not represent
  • speaker
    our best effort. They believe that, given more time,
  • speaker
    we can do much better. Since the present proposal
  • speaker
    cannot be revised, we have only the choice
  • speaker
    to reject it. If you too have these convictions, make them known to
  • speaker
    some of your friends throughout your church. And especially, encourage the representatives that go from your church to your presbytery. Encourage them to
  • speaker
    vote 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
Details
Title

Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians discussion on Confession of 1967.

Description

Meeting of the Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians on proposed Confession of 1967. Discussion led by David Baker. Recorded at Great Valley Presbyterian Church, Malvern, Pennsylvania, between General Assemblies of 1966 and 1967.

Date

ca. 1966
1966

Type of resource

sound recording-nonmusical

Genre

sound recordings

Form

audiotapes

Extent

1 audiotape reel : analog, 7 1/2 ips ; 7 in.

Language

English

Subject names

Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians, U.S.A.
United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.--Doctrines.
United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.--Creeds.

Geographic subjects

North and Central America--United States--Pennsylvania--Malvern--Chester

Rights status

IN COPYRIGHT; http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Physical location

TAPE 653; Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA

Related item

Discussion on proposal to adopt the Confession of 1967 [sound recording].--http://catalog.history.pcusa.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumbe...

Identifier (local)

tape653_fellowship_1967

PID (Persistent Identifier)

islandora:116507

Bookmark

BookBags: