Posted by: reformedmusings | May 3, 2014

A tale of two letters

The Founding

On 7 Dec 1973, a new denomination sent A Message to All Churches of Jesus Christ Througout the World from the General Assembly of the National Presbyterian Church. The NPC changed names to the Presbyterian Church in America shortly thereafter. The PCA had split from the liberal-and-becoming-worse PCUS. The Message to All Churches laid out the reasons for the split (similar to the U.S. Declaration of Independence) and served as a notice of the new denomination’s beliefs. At the top of the list stood the inerrancy of the Scriptures, and their role as “the only infallible and all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.”

Against the big-tent liberalism of the PCUS, our founders wrote:

We declare also that we believe the system of doctrine found in God’s Word to be the system known as the Reformed Faith. We are committed without reservation to the Reformed Faith as set forth in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. It is our conviction that the Reformed faith is not sectarian, but an authentic and valid expression of Biblical Christianity. [my bold]

Note the “without reservation” adherence to the Westminster Standards. There was no “good-faith” subscription in view there. The PCA has already headed down the PCUS road on this issue. More on that later.

On the subject of theological error and church discipline, our founders wrote:

Views and practices that undermine and supplant the system of doctrine or polity of a confessional Church ought never to be tolerated. A Church that will not exercise discipline will not long be able to maintain pure doctrine or godly practice.

When a denomination will not exercise discipline and its courts have become heterodox or disposed to tolerate error, the minority finds itself in the anomalous position of being submissive to a tolerant and erring majority.

Anyone watching the two most recent cases against blatant teachers of the Federal Vision errors (pdf file), both of whom are now fellows at the latest incarnation of an attempted Federal Vision seminary, knows that the PCA has already started down the PCUS road in that regard. The PCA has become a tribal congregationalist denomination where particular errors find toleration in specific presbyteries that remain unaccountable to the denomination as a whole.

Please read that open message as it provides an anchor for the PCA as it considers its future. As the philosopher Santayana wisely observed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The PCA is showing that it is not immune from that wisdom.

The Revision

A small group of 18 teaching elders who were around during the founding of the PCA in 1973 recently signed a letter (pdf file) to the new generation. I want to be clear up front that I respect these 18 elders for their sacrifices for, and contributions to, the church of Jesus Christ over many years. Nothing that follows is meant to reflect negatively on that respect. Nonetheless, my respect for them does not negate my critical thinking on the matters that they publicly present.

Early in the letter, the 18 signers endorse “good-faith subscription”:

Several years ago, after lengthy discussion, we affirmed “good faith” subscription which was a declaration of our commitment to love and respect each other and affirm doctrinal orthodoxy without becoming too broad or too narrow in the way we embrace our confessional standards.

So, since our 1973 founding, the PCA has “progressed” from “committed without reservation” to our Standards, to a “good faith subscription” approach that has opened the PCA’s door to paedocommunion, intinction, female pseudo-officers, Federal Vision, theistic evolution (e.g., Biologos), et al, all of which depart from the Scriptures and the Standards.

After observing that some think that the PCA is too strict and narrow while others think that the PCA is too broad, the 18 opine that:

…these differences of opinion reflect a healthy breadth of views and perspectives that produces an ever present need for love and mutual respect. It does, however, present the PCA with the need for our leadership to always be searching for the center so that unity might be maintained and our mission might be accomplished.

With all due respect to the 18 signers of this letter, that argument represents a significant departure from the vision laid out by the bulk of our founders in the Message to all Churches in 1973.

Keep in mind that only 18 men who were present at our founding signed this letter. Although many founders have gone to be with the Lord, many remain and did not sign the letter. Dr. Morton Smith comes immediately to mind for one. As our first Stated Clerk he had his finger on the pulse of the initial direction of the PCA. Dr. Smith’s How Thy Gold Has Become Din provided a PCA manifesto in the months leading up to the separation. Please read Dr. Morton’s address at the link.


While I do not believe that the positions from the new letter accurately reflect the consensus of the bulk of elders who founded the PCA in 1973, and hope that I have demonstrated this from original documents, I do believe that the letter agrees well with the more recent Original Vision Network started by TEs Paul Kooistra and Larry Hoop. While I appreciate the contributions that these men have made to PCA missions, their network steers us back to the PCUS “big tent.” For instance, they revised our founders’ words in the Message to All Churches to a vision that would now have us believe that our founders wanted:

a denomination committed to a broadly Reformed theological position, steering clear of both a formless evangelicalism with sketchy theological commitments and a narrow sectarianism that could consume our energies building a theological fortress;

Please go back and read the Message to All Churches and see if you can find a vision for a “broadly Reformed theological position.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Back? Couldn’t find it? That’s because “committed without reservation to the Reformed Faith as set forth in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms” doesn’t describe a “broadly Reformed theological position.” The latter represents a slide back to towards the old PCUS “big tent.” If the founders had really wanted a big tent, they would have stayed in the PCUS committed “to love and respect each other.” Instead, our founders left an apostate denomination that trampled on both the Scriptures and the Standards.


The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics – the chief weapons buyer for the U.S. Department of Defense – has a great sign on his door. It reads: “In God we trust, all others bring data.” The point being that opinions are nice, but we need to see the data on which one based those opinions.

So, when I read the letter by the 18 elders, the first thing that I did was hunt up the original Message to All Churches and read it to see if the two documents were consistent. That’s what everyone should do whenever any assertion is made from history. History is best learned from original sources, not commentators decades or centuries later.

In this case, the recent letter by the 18 elders seems more in line with the revisionist and euphemistically-named Original Vision Network than the bulk of the PCA founders’ intent in 1973. The original vision is readily available for all to read in the Message to All Churches and Dr. Smith’s How Thy Gold Has Become Din. Please take the time to acquaint yourselves with these documents if you have not already done so.

In closing, I again want to be clear that I respect these 18 elders for their contributions to the church of Jesus Christ over many years. That said, I am not prone to hero worship, so although their work and sacrifices earn them a hearing by other elders like myself and the denomination at large, it does not earn them automatic agreement without the original historical context being considered. In this case, I find that the original documentation does not support their thesis.



  1. […] (sometimes known as a ‘Beltway Bandit’). Bob served on the PCA’s Committee to Study FV/NPP. This article first appeared on the Reformed Musings blog and is used with the author’s […]

    • Thank you for this, Bob,
      I am a sort of disenfranchised RE in the PNW Presbytery where we have heard “broad stream” so-called confessionalism for some time now (men openly admitting to 50 and counting exceptions with WCF). I appreciated reading Carl Trueman’s book Creedal Imperative wherein he referred to those who actually want their new departures from confessional Reformed standards to become new articles of faith, and that some of these men have been carrying on a “perpetual guerrilla warfare” against the WCF and Standards to bring that about. I’m weary of the warfare cloaked in rhetoric. Thanks for this piece and thanks to Dominic for posting it on AR.

      • Hi Doug! Thank you for taking the time to comment, for your kind assessment, and for sharing your sad experience with the FV tribe in the PCA. I pray that things change for the better for you and that the unembellished gospel will once again be preached in PNWP. The “perpetual guerrilla warfare” which you continue to experience highlights the importance of orthodox, Reformed church officers like yourself to the battle for the gospel. By the power of the Spirit, hang in there!

        • Hi Bob, Thanks for your encouraging words. If you wouldn’t mind getting a mailing address to me (email address removed), I would like to send you a complimentary copy of my forthcoming new release with P&R, Grace Works (and Ways We Think It Doesn’t).

  2. Hi, Bob:

    I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need to look at the sources. However, simply going to the “Message” as the source and reading “without reservation” in a narrow fashion is not really a good historical method.

    I spent eleven years actually working with the archival and magazine sources; my book actually makes the case that these men made; and I have to say that wasn’t my original thesis when I started working back in 2003. You have to follow the evidence and the evidence is pretty clear that, for most of the key leaders on the steering committee that formed the PCA, they wanted a conservative, evangelical Presbyterian, mainline denomination.

    Best wishes,

  3. Hi Sean,

    I have taken an action to look at your book again. We just moved, so my entire home office is in an impressive pile of boxes. When I unpack the shelf that held your book, I will review it in light of this discussion. At this point, all I have access to are the files on my computer and the Internet. That included old Presbyterian News articles leading up to that time, but those are difficult to search en mass. Thank you for your hard work on the history of our denomination.

    Yours in Christ,

  4. Bob,

    Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your interaction with this letter that many of our ‘founding fathers’ signed. I’m grateful for Dr. Lucas’ response, because while I’m not a historian, I do believe that the way you’ve cast the argument is a bit misleading. Everything must be read and understood in the context that it was written, and when we have eye witnesses that can attest to that history, their word (interpretation) should carry much weight. In fact, that’s one of our main arguments for validity of the resurrection… the writers were saying, “go talk to those who were there, they’ll affirm what I’ve said.” To cast aspersions upon these men as ‘not knowing what they’re talking about’ (my interpretation of what you’ve written), you are making a very big presumption. That you can read into the intentions of those at the founding, purely from what was written. You’re taking your own cultural situation, and reading the documents from your position. You see, having grown up in a much more strictly Reformed denomination, I read the original documents differently than you do. I see a much less rigid interpretation, seeking a solid core yes, yet not desiring to be so sectarian that we exclude believers that should be in our tent. From my reading, it seems to me that the intent of the founders was to create a denomination that had a big enough tent for all Reformed Presbyterians so that we could truly be united as one Church. And while you may point and say that many of those denominations are strictly confessional (as we should be), yet they have practices (such deaconesses), which would exclude them in your eyes from what the PCA should be. You see, it gets messy, not as neat and tidy as you’re making it out to be. Instead of trying to convince us what the founders meant, lets listen to what the founders are saying, and by God’s grace seek a denomination that is know for it’s purity and peace.

    • Hi Jon,

      Thank you for your thoughts. I have to observe that you made some presumptions in your reply. First and most importantly, I have gathered the thoughts of other PCA founders who were uniformly dismayed at the letter of the 18. I didn’t mention that because they don’t want to be dragged into the situation at hand, and I cannot blame them.

      Also, the debate isn’t about who can sit in a PCA pew, but who can become and/or remain a PCA officer. For me, the latter defines the tent. I did not take the letter from the 18 as a standalone document, but rather took it in the context of our founding and our current context in our denomination.

      What is lacking here are clear definitions. What does the OVN and National Partnership mean by “broadly Reformed”? Maybe I missed it, but it has been several years and I haven’t seen a clear definition. Since both groups prefer to operate in secret without accountability in violation of their oaths to be in submission to their brothers, I doubt that we’ll see any clarity anytime soon. For instance, you talk about including all Reformed Presbyterians. Does that include PC(USA)? CRC? EPC? Or just the orthodox Reformed like the RCUS? That distinction makes a big difference.

      In a day when PCA officers advocate for paedocommunion, egalitarianism with women officers, baptismal regeneration lite and grace + works for salvation in Federal Vision, and theistic evolution devoid of a personal, historic Adam, we must be very clear on where the PCA as a denomination stands. IMHO, at the moment, too many officers are working hard to blur those lines. Context and solid definitions are critical.

  5. Thank you. I was ordained in the PCA, but ended up in the OPC. I weep for the PCA, but I don’t miss it. Thankfully, good faith subscription in the OPC means you can hold exceptions, but you can’t teach them. G.I. Williamson has sympathies towards paedocommunion but readily admits the position is contraconfessional and cannot be taught without constitutional change. We have our battles and our General Assembly is more work than fun, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    One last thing . . .it’s How the Gold Has Become Dim, not Din.

  6. […] My good friend and fellow laborer-in-the-gospel TE Billy Boyce called me with some thoughts on my original post. We had an amicable discussion in which Billy differed with me in some areas. I offered Billy the […]

  7. Actually it’s “How is the gold become dim” per
    W. Aardsma

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: