Presbyterians Who Have Abandoned The Faith

[Cal]

PCUSA Leader: Ordain Homosexuals

http://www.sermonaudio.com/newsimages/16604.jpgThe Rev. Susan Andrews, pastor of Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD, moderator of the 215th General Assembly. Photo by Danny Bolin.

As the United Methodists voted to maintain their 30-year policy against ordaining homosexuals, the woman who helped keep the Presbyterian Church USA from voting on that same issue last year spoke about her position in Springfield.



The Rev. Susan Andrews of Bethesda, Md., who has served as moderator of the General Assembly of the PCUSA for the past year, visited the John Calvin Presbytery, which includes southern Missouri, Wednesday. Next month, when the denomination holds its 216th General Assembly in Richmond, Va., Andrews will turn over her office to a new moderator who will be elected at the session.



Andrews, who was one of three candidates for moderator last year, has been openly in favor of ordaining gays and lesbians, but she ran on a platform that called for dialogue and patience while a task force completes its study of the issue.



"I hope that in my lifetime I will see it happen," she said of ordaining openly homosexual people. "But I do not want it ... if it means a split in the church." Wednesday morning, speaking at Southminster Presbyterian Church, she addressed that issue head-on within the context of the church's call to "peace, unity and purity."

[Foundthelight]

As a Presbyterian, I am disgusted by her position and can say that is is supported by a minority of those in the denomination. I am a conservative, bible believing, member of a conservative bible believing congregation. Our delegate will vote against such a proposal.

At the same time, we welcome our homosexual brothers and sisters into our church. We do this in the hope that the Holy Spirit will work to change them through the Gospel.

There is also a growing movement among conservative congregations in the PCUSA to split off and join the PCA. I do not personally like this trend as it will leave the apostates stronger and more likely to pass such things.

[Cal]

As a Presbyterian, I am disgusted by her position and can say that is is supported by a minority of those in the denomination. I am a conservative, bible believing, member of a conservative bible believing congregation. Our delegate will vote against such a proposal.

At the same time, we welcome our homosexual brothers and sisters into our church. We do this in the hope that the Holy Spirit will work to change them through the Gospel.

There is also a growing movement among conservative congregations in the PCUSA to split off and join the PCA. I do not personally like this trend as it will leave the apostates stronger and more likely to pass such things.
I am a Presbyterian as well but not in the USA church. I didn't realize this was a minority in the USA, I always heard it was a majority which shocked me when I first heard it.

So you believe homosexuals should be admitted as church members?

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I am a Presbyterian as well but not in the USA church. I didn't realize this was a minority in the USA, I always heard it was a majority which shocked me when I first heard it.

So you believe homosexuals should be admitted as church members?

I am not officially a memeber of the PCA church I attend, therefore my views may be contrary to what the session would say. However, allow me to give my 2 cents.

My understand is that to become a member of a PCA church, at least mine, you need to have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as your savior. Personally, I would be highly questionable of any person claiming to be saved that still openly,unrepentedly and unshamefully lives a homosexual lifestyle. The devils have faith in Jesus, but that faith does not change their lives. A person who has been regenerated by God and has saving faith will not willingly continue in their fleshly desires, be they homosexuality or any other sin. Therefore, I would say that in the above circumstance, the session would not admit that person as a member of the church.

[Cal]

I am not officially a memeber of the PCA church I attend, therefore my views may be contrary to what the session would say. However, allow me to give my 2 cents.

My understand is that to become a member of a PCA church, at least mine, you need to have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as your savior. Personally, I would be highly questionable of any person claiming to be saved that still openly,unrepentedly and unshamefully lives a homosexual lifestyle. The devils have faith in Jesus, but that faith does not change their lives. A person who has been regenerated by God and has saving faith will not willingly continue in their fleshly desires, be they homosexuality or any other sin. Therefore, I would say that in the above circumstance, the session would not admit that person as a member of the church.
Nor would God.

[Bradford]

I am not officially a memeber of the PCA church I attend, therefore my views may be contrary to what the session would say... the session would not admit that person as a member of the church.
I'm only a deacon- so I can't speak for the session- but, I can not see our (PCA) session admitting a homosexual to the Lord's table. Come to church, yes. Participate in all the activities- sure. We hope that exposure to the Word and the Body would benefit them, but- like the warning says- "If any of you has sin you are not willing to forsake, you should not come to this table."

Same rule goes for membership.

[Knight]

I highly doubt that any PCA church would admit a non-repentant homosexual.

PCUSA typically has the more liberal reputation. (No offense to PCUSA members.)

[Bradford]

I highly doubt that any PCA church would admit a non-repentant homosexual.

PCUSA typically has the more liberal reputation. (No offense to PCUSA members.)
The PCA has her liberals, they're just not as visible.

(Not that there ever seems to be much visible about the PCA- as far as the media is concerned)

[Knight]

Individual churches, yes.... But aren't all PCA churches subject to the denominational leadership? I'm not completely sure how the PCA upper-level leadership is organized.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Well, I am not Presby - but do like the denomination (PCA, although I know there are conservative PCUSA members too).

Unfortunately this article surrounds an ordained women who wants to ordain homosexuals.See the wrong picture here? I am not in favor of ordaining women, nevermind the homosexuality issue.

But regarding homosexuality, I do not think anyone who is openly homosexual, and is living in the sin, not recognising it as a sin should hold ANY leadership over the church. Im not prejudice either. I believe the same way about men commiting adultery or any other unrepentent sin for that matter. Homosexuality is a sin - celebate or not. If you are not recognising the sin, turning from it, repenting of it - you are still guilty of it - and not worthy of leadership.

I would welcome a homosexual in our congregation - however, would not cover up the fact that how they are living is sinful. I would hope that I would treat the person with respect and love, guiding them gently...as I would any other person living in sin. i too, am a sinner, and would appreciate being treated in a loving manner when guided towards repentance.

Now I am just babbling...so I will leave it at that.

[rmwilliamsll]

The PCA has her liberals, they're just not as visible.

(Not that there ever seems to be much visible about the PCA- as far as the media is concerned)


The PCA has her liberals, they're just not as visible.


i think we ought to make a distinction between theological liberalism and social liberalism.
plus make a distinction between what is acceptable for a teaching elder to believe and what a member of the church can believe.....
theologically the PCA ought not to ordain any man who proposes theistic evolution as per the creation report. but it ought not be an issue for fellowship and church membership. likewise i suspect anyone holding that abortion laws as they exist are not morally wrong would never get past a presbytery examination for teaching elder, but again this issue doesn't come up at a membership examination, nor even annual elder's visitation.

why would a theological liberal go to a PCA church when there are lots more PCUSA churches around?

[theseed]

I've known/know Baptists that were former Presbyterians--does that count? :D

[Foundthelight]

I didn't say anything about membership, just attendance.

We must not take the Gospel only to those that are saved. We must take the Gospel to the unsaved. If Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners who are we to say that any sinner who wants to hear the Word is not welcome?

How many of us have secret sin that we have not truly repented of?

He who is without guilt may cast the first stone.

[Bradford]

Individual churches, yes.... But aren't all PCA churches subject to the denominational leadership? I'm not completely sure how the PCA upper-level leadership is organized.
Of course individual churches are subject to the Presbytery- and then to the General Assembly- but the decision to admit a person is not usually (ever???) reviewed above the local church's Session

[Bradford]

i think we ought to make a distinction between theological liberalism and social liberalism.
plus make a distinction between what is acceptable for a teaching elder to believe and what a member of the church can believe.....
theologically the PCA ought not to ordain any man who proposes theistic evolution as per the creation report. but it ought not be an issue for fellowship and church membership. likewise i suspect anyone holding that abortion laws as they exist are not morally wrong would never get past a presbytery examination for teaching elder, but again this issue doesn't come up at a membership examination, nor even annual elder's visitation.

why would a theological liberal go to a PCA church when there are lots more PCUSA churches around?So where do we draw the line? Today we let liberal theology into our membership- and remember we require new members to affirm they believe the theology (basically) according to the WCF... Today's new members are next year's Deacons- and next decade's Ruling Elders...

Liberalism is like yeast... a little can do a lot of harm.

[Bulldog]

As a (for the most part) conservative Presbyterian, I strongly appose what the PCUSA.

It's sad to see sme denomonations today trn away from biblcal teachings. :(

[Gabriel]

I'm only a deacon- so I can't speak for the session- but, I can not see our (PCA) session admitting a homosexual to the Lord's table. Come to church, yes. Participate in all the activities- sure. We hope that exposure to the Word and the Body would benefit them, but- like the warning says- "If any of you has sin you are not willing to forsake, you should not come to this table."

Same rule goes for membership.
You are correct. At least in my particular church. We have already discussed this and came to the above conclusion.

[Gabriel]

Of course individual churches are subject to the Presbytery- and then to the General Assembly- but the decision to admit a person is not usually (ever???) reviewed above the local church's Session
This is true.

[Gabriel]

So where do we draw the line? Today we let liberal theology into our membership- and remember we require new members to affirm they believe the theology (basically) according to the WCF... Today's new members are next year's Deacons- and next decade's Ruling Elders... Actually, we will allow a person who has made a credible profession of faith and does not bear fruit to the contrary to become a member even if they still struggle with election and infant baptism. However, they would never be considered for church office as a Deacon or an Elder until the truth is revealed to them and embraced. Furthermore, they would not be allowed to serve in a capacity that invloves teaching.

Liberalism is like yeast... a little can do a lot of harm. I'm really starting to like you!

[rmwilliamsll]

So where do we draw the line? Today we let liberal theology into our membership- and remember we require new members to affirm they believe the theology (basically) according to the WCF... Today's new members are next year's Deacons- and next decade's Ruling Elders...

Liberalism is like yeast... a little can do a lot of harm.


the issue of subscriptionism only comes up for elders, either teaching or ruling.
as a church member i only affirmed to:

To become a member in any PCA church, you will be asked these five membership vows.

1. Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving his displeasure, and without hope, except through his sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and savior of sinners, and do you receive and trust him alone for salvation as he is offered in the gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes a follower of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the church in it's worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to strive for its purity and peace?



unlike elders who promise to subscribe to the body of doctrine as taught in the WCF, and furthermore to tell fellow elders if their views change while they are elders.

so no today's members are not tomorrow's elders.
many acceptable views for a member are disqualifications from eldership.

[Gabriel]

Ooh, you just gave me an idea for a new thread!

[Donny_B]

Would Darwinists, freemasons, and white supremacists qualify as "Presbyterians who have lost the faith" any more than the present moderator of the PCUSA or anyone else for that matter? It just goes to show that we are all sinners in need of grace, and that not all local churches on this side of eternity are perfect.

[Cal]

Would Darwinists, freemasons, and white supremacists qualify as "Presbyterians who have lost the faith" any more than the present moderator of the PCUSA or anyone else for that matter? It just goes to show that we are all sinners in need of grace, and that not all local churches on this side of eternity are perfect.But churches are responsible for discipling members depending on the degree of sin don't you think. And they are also responsible before God to maintain godliness and order. If orgies and child sacrifice are being performed in a church we would want to put an immediate stop to it, wouldn't we?

Ordaining homosexuals is a very serious deviation from the Word of God, God has destroyed entire cities for this sin. Free masonary and theistic evolution doesn't seem to rise to the level of repobation that the bible puts homosexuality.

By the way, today is turning point for our nation with the legalizing of homosexual marriages. I am no prophet, but if the Lord reacts to America's current degeneration as He has to other similar nations in the past, 9/11 is going to seem like a minor event.

[Donny_B]

But churches are responsible for discipling members depending on the degree of sin don't you think. And they are also responsible before God to maintain godliness and order. If orgies and child sacrifice are being performed in a church we would want to put an immediate stop to it, wouldn't we?
I don't see where "orgies and child sacrifice" in a church are being proposed by anyone.

I thought it was just the moderator tabling a study supporting ordination of gays and lesbians.

The tabling was passed, and such ordination has been overwhelmingly defeated everytime it has been brought up.


Ordaining homosexuals is a very serious deviation from the Word of God, God has destroyed entire cities for this sin. Free masonary and theistic evolution doesn't seem to rise to the level of repobation that the bible puts homosexuality.

By the way, today is turning point for our nation with the legalizing of homosexual marriages. I am no prophet, but if the Lord reacts to America's current degeneration as He has to other similar nations in the past, 9/11 is going to seem like a minor event.
I think freemasonry and evolution are also very dangerous, especially if it is part of the "lie" Paul was referring to:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:25

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:11-12

[Cal]

I think freemasonry and evolution are also very dangerous, especially if it is part of the "lie" Paul was referring to:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:25

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:11-12
I hear ya but I don't think church discipline is appropriate for theistic evolution, but homosexuality or creating schism's to support ordination of homesexuals,you betcha! That's what the church can do this side of eternity. ;)

[rmwilliamsll]

I hear ya but I don't think church discipline is appropriate for theistic evolution


see: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/


A Note from the Session

At its regular meeting this past Tuesday, the Session took the following action to complete matters pertaining to the trial of Dr. Terry Gray. Last August, the Session found Dr. Terry Gray guilty of the offense of "stating that Adam had primate ancestors, contrary to the Word of God (Genesis 2:7, 1:26, 27) and the doctrinal standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (WCF IV 2, WLC 17)". Now that all appeals have been denied, the Session of Harvest Orthodox Presbyterian Church pronounced the proposed censure on Dr. Terry Gray.

"In the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, as an act of the whole church, the Session of Harvest Orthodox Presbyterian Church pronounces on Dr. Terry Gray the censure of indefinite suspension from the office of ruling elder."

Indefinite suspension means that although Dr. Gray remains a full communicant member of Harvest Church in good standing, and is free to all the privileges and responsibilities of such, he is suspended from being a ruling elder until he resolves his position in keeping with the ruling of the Church. Suspension is a temporary measure of discipline (as opposed to deposition) during which time the Session will be working with Dr. Gray in hopes that he might be restored as soon as possible.

The Session thanked Dr. Gray for his humility and godly demeanor throughout the trial process. We ask the congregation to join us in continual prayer that God will give great wisdom to Terry and Sheri as they respond to this ruling. The Session also wishes to thank the congregation for your prayers on our behalf as we sought to honor God and serve the church in this matter. Above all, we thank our Loving God who has enabled us to "keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3). May God's gracious love for us continue to be deeply reflected in our gracious love for each other as we continue to walk together for the glory of our Lord Jesus!


AFAIK the only church trial on the issue.
TE is NOT allowed in OPC or PCA for elders.

[Cal]

see: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/



AFAIK the only church trial on the issue.
TE is NOT allowed in OPC or PCA for elders.
Prasie God!!!!! I didn't think this was possible in America today. You have made my day!

:clap:

[Gamecock]

All,

Here is the issue, it is not Homosexuality!
(GASP!)

OK, slow down your little reformed hearts and hear me out.....

Ordaining practicing homosexuals is the fruit of the path that the PCUSA started down long ago.

When you start leaning towards universal redemption and when you downplay the authority of scripture these are the things that happen.

Don't fight homosssexuality, fight against the apostate influenece and homosexuality will take care of itself!

[calgal]

All,

Here is the issue, it is not Homosexuality!
(GASP!)

OK, slow down your little reformed hearts and hear me out.....

Ordaining practicing homosexuals is the fruit of the path that the PCUSA started down long ago.

When you start leaning towards universal redemption and when you downplay the authority of scripture these are the things that happen.

Don't fight homosssexuality, fight against the apostate influenece and homosexuality will take care of itself!
Dr Machen would have agreed. This is what he warned the PCUS about in 1935. He got excommunicated for his trouble and the OPC and BPC were formed by 1936 by folks who valued scripture over universalist heresy. The PCA came along in 1973 after the PCUSA refused to ordain a pastor who questioned women as teaching elders. The EPC came along in 1981 when the PCUSA went and ordained an agnostic. In 1996 when the PCUSA played with the Pagans, more churches left. So what the PCUSA meant for Evil, God used for good. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Filia Mariae]

Would Presbyterians oppose the ordination of a celibate homosexual?

[rnmomof7]

Would Presbyterians oppose the ordination of a celibate homosexual?

If it were known? No , I do not believe so ,we believe that sin is a heart matter ( as opposed to actions) . That belief saves us from a lot of scandals

[Bro. Gabriel]

Well, when you start making compromises in a Church (ordaining women as preachers for starters), you can expect more to come...

Horrible.

[Sola Gratia]

At first when I read this , I thought is was about people who were professing Presbyterians that left to go to a non protestant church . But perhaps the sccriptues fits this too


1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Tares blow where they will

[Gamecock]

Would Presbyterians oppose the ordination of a celibate homosexual?
An interesting question!



Celibacy is not the issue, but rather sin. Conservative Presbyterians have a strong sense of man's fallen nature. We recognize that all sin is offensive and detestable by a Holy God.



Now, speaking for myself, my sin is no more detestable to God than a homosexuals. A homosexual who renounces the homosexual lifestyle rather than expecting the church to embrace that lifestyle would be as welcome in the pulpit as any other sinner.

[tigersnare]

An interesting question!



Celibacy is not the issue, but rather sin. Conservative Presbyterians have a strong sense of man's fallen nature. We recognize that all sin is offensive and detestable by a Holy God.



Now, speaking for myself, my sin is no more detestable to God than a homosexuals. A homosexual who renounces the homosexual lifestyle rather than expecting the church to embrace that lifestyle would be as welcome in the pulpit as any other sinner.

x2

[calgal]

x2 Can we get a congregational vote? :D Seriously, Gamecock is correct. Sin is sin in God's eyes and there is no hierarchy of sin. Romans Chapters 1-3 is a nice illustration of sin.

[Bro. Gabriel]

There's a difference between someone who slips up and sins, than living a lifestyle of habitual sin (see 1 John..). A BIG difference.

[calgal]

There's a difference between someone who slips up and sins, than living a lifestyle of habitual sin (see 1 John..). A BIG difference.I agree and want to add to that point: There is also a world of difference between an unrepentant sinner and what our associate pastor called "a church full of filthy rotten sinners" (repentant ones). Repentant sinners are us. :clap:

[rnmomof7]

Can we get a congregational vote? :D Seriously, Gamecock is correct. Sin is sin in God's eyes and there is no hierarchy of sin. Romans Chapters 1-3 is a nice illustration of sin.


I disagree , God views some sins as more heinous than others. In the OT there were different sacrifices and different punishments ,

It is implied that some sin will be punished more in hell than others .


I think the question with the homosexual is a serious one .Because we can not know the heart of a man , we have no way of knowing if he has repented and turned.

Most of our churches would not keep a pastor that divorced and married his secretary

Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[tigersnare]

I disagree , God views some sins as more heinous than others. In the OT there were different sacrifices and different punishments ,



But now there is one sacrifice, that completely and totally covers all sins...right? To me this would explain how Paul could list something as serious as "murder", with something like "disobeidience to parents", together in the 1st Chapter of Romans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's why I here...

[Gamecock]

There's a difference between someone who slips up and sins, than living a lifestyle of habitual sin (see 1 John..). A BIG difference.
You are, of course, right.

But, don't forget, one sin is all it takes.

[Filia Mariae]

An interesting question!



Celibacy is not the issue, but rather sin. Conservative Presbyterians have a strong sense of man's fallen nature. We recognize that all sin is offensive and detestable by a Holy God.



Now, speaking for myself, my sin is no more detestable to God than a homosexuals. A homosexual who renounces the homosexual lifestyle rather than expecting the church to embrace that lifestyle would be as welcome in the pulpit as any other sinner.
Oh, I understand that celibacy is not an issue for Presbyterians.

My question is, would a Presbyterian church accept as pastor a man who had homosexual attractions/temptations, but was commited to living chastely?

[Gamecock]

Oh, I understand that celibacy is not an issue for Presbyterians.

My question is, would a Presbyterian church accept as pastor a man who had homosexual attractions/temptations, but was commited to living chastely?
I think I answered it in my quote that you posted.

The fact is we are all tempted with sin of one type or another. We all need to denounce sin, not embrace it.

[Filia Mariae]

Right, so my question is, would you consider it denouncing the sin if the man was committed to living celibately?

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Right, so my question is, would you consider it denouncing the sin if the man was committed to living celibately?


Hi!

Forgive me for jumping into this discussion to give my two cents. I would only consider it denouncing the sin if the person detested his desires and denounced those desires as sinful in the eyes of a Holy God and prayed for God to give him the stregnth to resist those temptations. As to celebacy, if the person chooses to do that, then so be it. He may be able to that much more give his life to God.

For those such as myself who would constantly find myself in a state of lust, it was good for me to marry. That and the fact that I love the girl! :0

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Can we get a congregational vote? :D Seriously, Gamecock is correct. Sin is sin in God's eyes and there is no hierarchy of sin. Romans Chapters 1-3 is a nice illustration of sin.
Sorry Calgal, the only vote that counts here is God's.

In as far as you have stated, you are correct. Sin is sin in God's eyes. Now as far as the Church is concerned, some sins are worse than others. The reason for this is that they damage the witness of the Church, and that they cause disunity within the church. Paul made a distinction in I Corinthians 5. The entire chapter is instructive.

Private sins are a matter between the sinner and God. Public sins affect the church, and call for sanctions by the church.

[calgal]

Sorry Calgal, the only vote that counts here is God's.

In as far as you have stated, you are correct. Sin is sin in God's eyes. Now as far as the Church is concerned, some sins are worse than others. The reason for this is that they damage the witness of the Church, and that they cause disunity within the church. Paul made a distinction in I Corinthians 5. The entire chapter is instructive.

Private sins are a matter between the sinner and God. Public sins affect the church, and call for sanctions by the church.
Excellent point and there would be a lot of issues I can foresee with a Celibate Gay as a Teaching Elder (PC(USA) heretics notwithstanding: NOTE: this does NOT include Confessing Churches and faithful members of said denomination who are attempting to turn the ship around. This DOES refer to the folks who are trying to destroy the church from within with too much success. Sorry PC(USA) folks). Not sure if such a person would be approved by Presbytery (that would be the OPC, PCA and EPC for this discussion). And for the lurking RC's our Teaching Elders (Pastors) are NOT members of the church they serve but are under the auspices of Presbytery (guys? wanna explain for the lurkers? I am sort of confused with the organization above the local church). The pastor can (and often is) removed by Presbytery. It is a sort of check and balance and avoids some power struggles (also protects the pastor from an abusive congregation and vice versa).

[Donny_B]

(PC(USA) heretics notwithstanding). Not sure if such a person would be approved by Presbytery (that would be the OPC, PCA and EPC for this discussion).
I'm now beginning to understand how some of the Catholics who come in here feel when they read things like this. Does this help in the argument? Are all PC(USA) members heretics in your view?

[Gabriel]

Calgal,

Please understand that there is a large portion of the PCUSA that is very unhappy with the way things are going. You can't label an entire denom heretical. While I disagree with many of the decisions they make, I do know that there is a large group who are trying to make things better.

Please edit your comment.

[Donny_B]

I am a conservative in the PCUSA, and recognize that the PCA is not without its challenges, too, both on the left and right, but mostly on the right, particularly from a group of white supremacists, led by Rev. Steven J. Wilkins, of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church PCA in Monroe, La.:

http://www.splcenter.org/images/imglib/I/ir113_wilkins_200x255.jpg



http://www.splcenter.org/images/static/spacer.gifConfederates in the Pulpit
Animated by extremist theology, a group of neo-Confederate zealots are seeking control of Southern churches
http://www.splcenter.org/images/static/spacer.gif http://www.splcenter.org/images/static/spacer.gif Key members of a white supremacist organization, the League of the South (LOS), are moving to take control of conservative churches around the South, prompting a possible split in a major Presbyterian denomination.

The central player in this little-noticed drama is the Rev. Steven J. Wilkins, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La., and a founder and current board member of the neo-Confederate LOS. Wilkins is an advocate of Christian Reconstruction, a theology that seeks to impose draconian Old Testament law on civil society.

The League's goal, Wilkins has said, is to save America from "paganism" and restore it as "the last bastion of Christendom" — a Christendom that, in Wilkins' view, sees slavery as "perfectly legitimate."

Last summer, Wilkins almost caused a rupture within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative Southern denomination founded in 1973 that has more than 300,000 North American members.

Persuading 10 churches to join him, Wilkins called a meeting of the PCA'S Louisiana Presbytery to consider the possible departure from the PCA of those with "theonomic" views — the idea that the Bible, not man-made civil law, should form the legal basis of society.

Although the debate was temporarily tabled, PCA officials say that a schism may be imminent.

Theonomists, and especially Reconstructionists, know their views are an anathema to most Americans. Reconstructionist ideologue Gary North, in fact, has written that Reconstructionists need "the noise of contemporary events" to hide their goals.

"If [non-believers] fully understood the long-term threat to their civilization that our ideas pose, they ... would be wise to take steps to crush us."

Wilkins and other LOS leaders have put a particularly Southern spin on Reconstructionism, melding theonomic ideology with the view that during the Civil War, the North was animated by "radical hatred of Scripture." For them, the idea is to reconstruct the South according to their hard-line view of Christianity — a view that sees government as necessarily an extension of Godly rule.

Wilkins is just the most obvious sign of growing League influence within the PCA and among Southern churches generally. The Rev. C. Richard Barbare of the PCA'S Edgefield Presbyterian Church in Edgefield, S.C., is also an LOS member.

John Thomas Cripps, the League's Mississippi state leader, has built up his own Confederate Presbyterian Church. And for a time, LOS leaders took over a former PCA church in York, Ala., by stacking the pews with their members.

No Room for Compromise
At the moment, Wilkins is fighting a two-front war. On the one hand, he is mobilizing churches to join with him in the possible split. On the other, he is putting pressure on more liberal PCA churches to conform to his rigid theology.

The pastor of one of the PCA'S largest churches told the Intelligence Report that Wilkins and two LOS members from South Carolina have repeatedly brought ecclesiastical charges against him for espousing relatively liberal theological positions.

ohn Wood, who leads the 5,000-member Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, Tenn., said the charges resulted in investigations by the PCA'S Standing Judicial Committee for failing to follow rules about the role of women. (Wood allowed a woman to give a presentation from the pulpit.)

Exhausted by the repeated charges, Wood said Cedar Springs may well join a "sister" black church, with which his congregation works closely, in entering a more liberal denomination. He said the black church would "find it too hard ... to go into the PCA."

If Wilkins fails to change the PCA, he has made it clear that he is serious about splitting away. And he would probably not be alone. The Rev. Kennedy Smartt, moderator of the PCA'S 1998 General Assembly, says that the PCA could lose "25 to 30 churches" pastored by men with "theonomic views."

"You have to believe as they do or you are wrong," Rev. Smartt told the Intelligence Report about these theonomists, men whose views he characterized as "extreme."

Even Dominic Aquila, the official spokesperson for the PCA, says that Wilkins' church appears to be the "mother church" to this theonomic movement. Wilkins, he said, "is very aggressive."

Aquila added that when "pulpits were without pastors" Wilkins and others who agreed with his religious views have tried to convince congregations to hire people "who thought like they did."

Wilkins did not return phone calls seeking comment.

In Alabama, A Movement Begins
The first evidence of a church take-over by League-linked theonomists came to public attention in 1998, when a court battle erupted over the control of a small church in the sleepy West Alabama town of York. York Presbyterian Church was originally part of the PCA, but departed for a more conservative denomination as key League members began to take control of the church.

In 1997, Pastor Martin Murphy — a man the York congregation had paid to put through seminary school in the late 1980s — joined the League of the South.

In the next year, new faces came to dominate the pews, including four leading League members. The most prominent of these was LOS President Michael Hill, who had to commute 120 miles to attend services each Sunday.

At the same time, Murphy's office filled with Confederate symbols, including a portrait of General Robert E. Lee and a toy Confederate soldier holding a battle flag on the pastor's desk.

"It was a slowly developing relationship," congregant Aubrey Green recalled. Pastor Murphy "approached me and my wife to join [LOS] and we, of course, turned him down. ... The next thing we knew Murphy had the national [LOS] president, the state president and the Sumter county chapter president, all of 'em in our church."

Soon, League rhetoric was being preached from the pulpit. "He openly advocated secession from the United States and all kinds of crazy ideas," said Green, who ultimately brought suit with another long-time church member, J. Everett Cobb, to wrest control of the church back from Pastor Murphy and the League.

In the end, Judge Eddie Hardaway ruled that LOS adherents "were admitted to [church] membership before the local congregation realized that the true intent and purpose of these new members was to promote the League of the South."

The church, he added, was used "as a staging ground for an increased membership for the League of the South and for promoting its purposes and missions." The PCA now describes the York episode as an embarrassment. Aquila told the Intelligence Report that the PCA "really ran into a real stink there" and that what occurred "was a total aberration from where we are as a denomination." At around the same time, the League's Mississippi state leader, John Thomas Cripps, was building up his own hard-line congregation. For at least the last year, Cripps' Confederate Presbyterian Church has been located in his Confederate States Research Center in Wiggins, Miss., the same one-story, gray storefront building from which his campaign for governor is being waged. Like Pastor Murphy, Cripps preaches the virtues of Southern secession and a form of theonomy.




...continued at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=235

Our challenges in the PCUSA are mostly from the left. We must all pray for the Lord's guidance in dealing with these challenges.

[Donny_B]

Here is a page that fairly summarizes the situation in the PCUSA with this issue, entitled "Presbyterian Church (USA) Rebuffs Homosexual Agenda"

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4056/CFI/cfreport/

[Donny_B]

York Presybterian Church of York, Alabama, which was referred to in the white supremacist article (2 posts up), is said to have left the PCA for a "more conservative denomination"...so you fellow Presbyterian denominations, be on the lookout!:eek:

[Knight]

Left the PCA for a MORE conservative denomination??????

I'd love to know where they found that. :)

[calgal]

Left the PCA for a MORE conservative denomination??????

I'd love to know where they found that. :) LOL! ARPC is their destination and IIRC, it is a smaller denomination and they allow Masonic lodge membership. :confused:

[calgal]

York Presybterian Church of York, Alabama, which was referred to in the white supremacist article (2 posts up), is said to have left the PCA for a "more conservative denomination"...so you fellow Presbyterian denominations, be on the lookout!:eek: York is apparently ARPC now. The RPCUS and OPC would qualify as more conservative than the PCA. And the above article is a bit confused regarding Auburn and theonomy itself. If Aubuirn was as "racist" as Mr Dees claims, what is Steve Schlissel (Jewish born Reformed pastor) doing preaching at a Pastor's conference? :confused: As for Theonomy, as I understood it is to occur in the post millenial Kingdom and working towards it is a good thing. I am not a Theonomist and won't speak for them. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

[Donny_B]

I noticed in the Eschatology poll, there were no post-mills. I think that was one of the motivating factors for the Reformation, to get away from post-mill, especially for those who were being persecuted.

[Bulldog]

Left the PCA for a MORE conservative denomination??????

I'd love to know where they found that. :)

I believe that the OPC (opc.org) is slighlty more conservative than the PCA.

[Donny_B]

York is apparently ARPC now. The RPCUS and OPC would qualify as more conservative than the PCA. And the above article is a bit confused regarding Auburn and theonomy itself. If Aubuirn was as "racist" as Mr Dees claims, what is Steve Schlissel (Jewish born Reformed pastor) doing preaching at a Pastor's conference? :confused: As for Theonomy, as I understood it is to occur in the post millenial Kingdom and working towards it is a good thing. I am not a Theonomist and won't speak for them. Anyway, sorry for the confusion.The RPCUS has called Wilkins' teachings a heresy

http://www.rpcus.com/aapc.htm

Brian Schwertley concludes:

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/auburn_avenue.htm



A brief examination of many of the peculiarities of the Auburn system reveals a new paradigm in theology that is a radical, heretical departure from the Reformed faith. By way of summary, note the following departures from Reformed orthodoxy. (1) The Auburn system perverts the doctrine of the atonement by rendering the blood of Christ non-efficacious in most cases and by separating the foundation or ground of salvation (the active and passive obedience of Jesus) from its application. Further, a number of statements at the Auburn conference can only be interpreted as a denial of justification alone. The attempt of the Auburn speakers to wed sacramentalism, medieval concepts of mother church and Arminian-style concepts of perseverance to the Reformed doctrine of atonement has resulted in a mass of contradictions and great confusion.

[calgal]

The RPCUS has called Wilkins' teachings a heresy

http://www.rpcus.com/aapc.htm

Brian Schwertley concludes:

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/auburn_avenue.htm
That is correct. I have not read up on the Auburn Ave issue much but thanks for the further information on the conference and what it taught. I do see why the RPCUS reached the conclusion they did (and the logic for the charge is partially correct: I don't think the RPCUS however was the correct Presbytery to bring charges (it would have been better to contact the PCA Presbyterie(s) and the Sessions/Consistories of the individual churches (independents) and presented the case to these folks. My reading of the history so far is that the RPCUS saw their actions as preventing heresy (a noble endeavour) BUT the methods were not the best for countering the problem. :sleep: Have a restful night.

[Donny_B]

If Aubuirn was as "racist" as Mr Dees claims, what is Steve Schlissel (Jewish born Reformed pastor) doing preaching at a Pastor's conference?
I was looking for some information on Schlissel, and found an interesting article from the Puritan News Weekly entitled "Biographical Sketches of 3 Theonomic Leaders: Steve Schlissel, Paul Murphy, Patrick Buchanan" suggesting possible roots of this movement.

http://www.puritans.net/news/theonomists011403.htm

[calgal]

I was looking for some information on Schlissel, and found an interesting article from the Puritan News Weekly entitled "Biographical Sketches of 3 Theonomic Leaders: Steve Schlissel, Paul Murphy, Patrick Buchanan" suggesting possible roots of this movement.

http://www.puritans.net/news/theonomists011403.htm
Interesting. Thanks for the information. :eek: I am starting to think the RPCUS was correct to censure these guys and call them heretics. Interesting (in a scary way).