vol. 13, no. 1 ordained servant

Vol. 13, No. 1

ORDAINED SERVANT

Published by

The Committee on Christian Education

of

THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

January, 2004

2 Ordained Servant — Vol. 13, No. 1

ORDAINED SERVANT

Statement of Purpose

Ordained Servant exists to provide solid materials for the equipping of office-bearers to serve morefaithfully. The goal of this journal is to assist the ordained servants of the church to become more fruit-ful in their particular ministry so that they in turn will be more capable to prepare God's people for worksof service. To attain this goal Ordained Servant will include articles (both old and new) of a theoreticaland practical nature with the emphasis tending toward practical articles wrestling with perennial andthorny problems encountered by office-bearers.

Editorial Policy

1. Ordained Servant publishes articles inculcating biblical presbyterianism in accord with the constitu-tion of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and helpful articles from collateral Reformed traditions; how-ever, views expressed by the writers do not necessarily represent the position of Ordained Servant orof the Church.

2. Ordained Servant occasionally publishes articles on issues on which differing positions are taken byofficers in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Ordained Servant does not intend totake a partisan stand, but welcomes articles from various viewpoints in harmony with the constitution ofthe Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

All material in this periodical is subject to U.S. and International copyright laws and may not be re-

produced without prior written approval. Interested parties are invited to obtain permission to re-

produce material found in this publication by writing to the editor.

Copyright by the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

All rights reserved.

Published for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

under direction of the Subcommittee on Resources for Church Officers

Contents: Vol. 13, No. 1

Editorial Notes............................................................................................................................................................3The Duties of Elders, by Daniel R. Hyde................................................................................................................4What does it mean to Subscribe to the Westminster Standards? by the Editor.......................................................8On Being a Confessional Church, by Gregory E. Reynolds.................................................................................11Some Thoughts on Term Eldership, by John R. Sittema.....................................................................................14Turning Points in American Presbyterianism, Part Three, by D.G. Hart and John R. Muether..........................17Book Reviews...........................................................................................................................................................20CD Review - The Puritan Bookshelf and The Reformation Bookshelf.................................................................23

Please send materials intended for possible publication in Ordained Servant to the Editor, G. I. Wil-liamson, 406 Normal College Ave., Sheldon, IA 51201. (Or you can send a text file, by Email to: [email protected]).

3Ordained Servant — Vol. 13, No. 1

EDITORIAL NOTES

Three of the ordination vows taken by office bearers

of the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch are the same for Minis-ters, Elders and Deacons. Thesevows are as follows:

(1) Do you believe the Scrip-tures of the Old and NewTestaments to be the Wordof God, the only infalliblerule of faith and practice?

(2) Do you sincerely receive andadopt the Confession ofFaith and Catechisms of thisChurch, as containing thesystem of doctrine taught inthe Holy Scriptures?

(3) Do you approve of the gov-ernment, discipline, andworship of the OrthodoxPresbyterian Church?

In later issues we hope to de-vote attention to other vows aswell, but in this issue of Or-dained Servant we want to focusattention on the second vow. Assuggested in the editorial of theprevious issue of this journal, it isour conviction that we, as a con-fessional church, need to mani-fest a greater degree of integrityin our adherence to the form ofsound words that we have sol-emnly confessed to be a faithfulexpression of “the system of doc-trine taught in the Holy Scrip-tures.” As John Murray once saidwith respect to signers of the Au-burn Affirmation, these “ men…solemnly vowed belief in and ad-herence to these great veritieswhich they…either denied orbranded as mere theories.” Pro-fessor Murray rightly called this

a “blatant breach of trust, of thebasic principle of honesty” or inother words it is “moral perjury,and that in one of the most sacredrelations that exists in thisworld.”

“Can you say that there is norelation between a man's positionin the realm of doctrine and hisprinciples of life and conduct?”asked Murray. “No; they are onebecause they concern truth andthe sanctity of truth. Truth is one,and it is a moral and psychologi-cal impossibility for a man's be-lief with respect to what consti-tutes Christianity to be heterodoxand his beliefs with respect towhat constitutes the norm ofChristian life to be orthodox.”

“The primal necessity is truthin the inward parts, and error withrespect to God, Christ, sin and re-demption cannot co-exist therewith a true standard of moral obli-gation. Modernism in doctrineand modernism in ethics are ulti-mately one.” (The quotations arefrom Collected Writings of JohnMurray, Vol. 1, pp. 194,195.)

We are not Modernists, ofcourse. But, as Murray went on toshow in the essay quoted above, itis by no means impossible that“earnest men, believing men” cannevertheless “appear to be out ofsympathy with some of the dis-tinctive doctrines of that commun-ion whose doctrines they havesolemnly vowed to believe andmaintain.”

Now some will immediatelyask the question: “But isn’t this toput these man-made documents in

too high a position?” The answerto this is really quite simple: “No,it is not anything of the sort ifthey actually are a faithful sum-mary of the teaching of Scrip-ture.” And that is exactly whatwe said we believed when wesubscribed to them in the firstplace. We said we sincerely re-ceived and adopted the Confes-sion and Catechisms as faithfulexpressions of what the Bibleteaches. No, we did not say webelieved they were infallible orinerrant. We affirmed that to betrue only of the Scriptures. So, ifwe—for some reason that we nowfind compelling—come to believethat they are not in actual fact trueto the Bible we have two options.We can leave the OPC and join adenomination that has a creed wecan agree with. Or, if our disa-greement is relatively minor, wecan bring a revised creedal state-ment to my Session or Presbyteryin order to seek to persuade ourfellow office-bearers that the sec-ondary standards need improve-ment. This has actually been donein our history, and should be donewherever it can be shown to beneeded. In the mean time, whilethis process is going on, it is oursolemn duty to abide by the pre-cept of the Psalmist (Psalm15:4b). The man acceptable toGod is he who, when he finds outthat there is pain involved inkeeping vows, accepts that painbecause of his ethical integrity.

There is no more urgent needin the OPC today than Ministers,Elders and Deacons who are will-ing to honor their vows in themanner spoken of by the Psalm-ist.


Almost 60 years ago, J.L.Schaver lamented the deplorablecondition of the eldership in Re-formed and Presbyterian church-es, which “were sleeping at theswitch.”1 It is always a delicatematter when one wants to soundan alarm without sounding as analarmist. I do want to sound analarm, not that there is any specif-ic errors we are guilty of, but toalways keep us alert and sober,which is a Biblical virtue.

As Reformed and Presbyterianchurches, we need to ask our-selves the question, “What are wedoing to ensure that our churcheswill stay orthodox in doctrine andvibrant in witness for the nextgeneration?” There are countlessideas and topics that can fit underthis question, but I want to focuson one, namely, training up a newgeneration of elders to rule, toteach, to shepherd, and to counsel.

As a young church planter Ican say from experience, that oneof the most important foundationsof our churches must be a strongeldership. We need men with con-viction and passion to lead God’speople. This is of the essence ofbeing Reformed and Presbyterian.Too many of our churches riseand fall with the pastor; this is onedanger. But another is that too

many of our churches rise and fallwith the congregation. To remedythis and bring stability into a localchurch, a solid group of elders isneeded to safeguard the congrega-tion from the minister, and to safe-guard the minister from the con-gregation. In my own experience Iwitnessed a solid Consistory (Ses-sion) not only keep a church afloatwhen its pastor retired, but actual-ly see the church grow as theysearched for a year and a half for anew pastor.

What follows is a part of myelder-training manual that I am de-veloping in my congregation. It isan exposition of article 14 of theChurch Order of the URCNA,which I pray will benefit my col-leagues in the URCNA, but also inthe OPC as these principles apply.This article may also serve to fur-ther our common bond of fraterni-ty as historic Reformed and Pres-byterians.

Article 14 of our Church Order says

The duties belonging to the of-fice of elder consist of continu-ing in prayer and ruling thechurch of Christ according tothe principles taught in Scrip-ture, in order that purity ofdoctrine and holiness of life

may be practiced.They shall seeto it that their fellow-elders, theminister(s) and the deaconsfaithfully discharge their offic-es. They are to maintain thepurity of the Word and Sacra-ments, assist in catechizing theyouth, promote God-centeredschooling, visit the members ofthe congregation according totheir needs, engage in familyvisiting, exercise discipline inthe congregation, actively pro-mote the work of evangelismand missions, and insure thateverything is done decently andin good order (paragraph divi-sion mine).

The Elders’ Purpose

The goal and reason the elder-ship exists is “in order that purityof doctrine and holiness of lifemay be practiced.” The elders areto rule over the beliefs and lives oftheir flock, since Christians aremembers of a public community. Ilike how The Book of Church Or-der of the OPC states this, when itsays, “They are to watch diligentlyover the people committed to theircharge to prevent corruption ofdoctrine or morals” (X.3).

Ruling takes diligence. In achurch like mine, which began as asmall church plant but is now

THE DUTIES OF ELDERS

by

Daniel R. Hyde


growing month by month, theamount of guidance, visiting,counseling, and sin is exponential.But the elders must be diligent tokeep on top of who is in need,who needs correction, who is notat worship, what problems existamongst the members, etc. It mayseem overwhelming, but it is onlyoverwhelming when you are notbeing a diligent elder.

The Elders’ General Duties

The elders fulfill their purposeof keeping the church pure in doc-trine and life by doing certain du-ties. Article 14 begins with thegeneral duties of the elders andthen moves on to their specific du-ties.

In unity with the ministers (art.2) and deacons (art. 15), prayer islisted as the first duty. We can saythis is the primary duty of the eld-er. As he prays, his duties will beeffective and powerful; but if hedoesn’t pray his duties will be fu-tile and impotent. I especially ap-preciate how The Book of ChurchOrder of the OPC says this: “Theyshould pray with and for the peo-ple” (emphasis mine; chapterX.3). How strong would ourchurches be if the elders did notsimply pray for those under theircare, which is very important tosay the least, but as shepherdslived among their flock, knewtheir intimate needs, and offeredthose needs to the Chief Shep-herd?

In distinction from the minis-ters and deacons, the elders areto rule. They hold the analogous

office of the Old Testamentking.2 They are anointed for rul-ing, governing, and guiding. Buttheir rule is not according to theprinciples of the business world,but “according to the principlestaught in Scripture.” So how dothe elders rule? This leads us to aconsideration of their specificduties below.

The Elders’ Specific Duties

1. Oversee all office-bearers

The elders are to “see to itthat their fellow-elders, the min-ister(s) and the deacons faithful-ly discharge their offices.” Theelders hold the office of elder,have the task of overseer, andare to have the character of ashepherd. To be an overseer is tobe a watchman, always on thelookout (Acts 20:28). Andwatching out for the other offi-cers of the church is to be donewillingly, eagerly, and as an ex-ample (Greek: tupos, “type”; 1Peter 5:2). This is a huge task.But God fills the office with ca-pable men for the task. This iswhy the wisdom of the followingstatement is so good:

“Those who fill this officeshould be sound in the faithand of exemplary Christianlife, men of wisdom and dis-cretion, worthy of the esteemof the congregation as spiritu-al fathers” (BCO, X.2).

The elders are to oversee theminister of the Word. The Bookof Church Order especially em-phasizes this, saying, “They

should have particular concernfor the doctrine and conduct ofthe minister of the Word andhelp him in his labors.” Somequestions the elders need to askthemselves are these: Is the pas-tor faithfully preaching theWord? How can I free him fromadministrative tasks so he canpray, study, and visit? Is theflock growing in knowledge andpiety?

The elders are also to overseethe ministry of the deacons. Afew questions would be: Are thedeacons aware of benevolentneeds in the congregation? Arethey serving the pastor, also, byassisting him in daily administra-tive tasks? Are they visitingthose in need regularly, prayingand encouraging them withScripture?

These are the kinds of ques-tions that the elders must ask andevaluate to ensure the congrega-tion is being true to Christ’sgreat commission. This is the es-sence of what Paul told the eld-ers in Ephesus, when he said,“...take heed to yourselves and toall the flock, among which theHoly Spirit has made you over-seers, to shepherd the church ofGod” (Acts 20:28).

2. Maintain the purity of theWord and Sacraments

In order for an elder to knowif the Word and sacraments arebeing administered purely, hemust himself know the Word andbe “apt to teach” the Word (1Tim 3:2). One practical way this



can be worked out in a particularcongregation is to have a time of“sermon review” at Consistory/Session meetings. And in doingso, here are a few pointers to theelders: Be humble. Be specificabout a point the minister madethat you don’t understand or agreewith. Don’t make generalizedstatements as this shows an uncar-ing attitude – uncaring in takingthe effort to listen well and uncar-ing in burdening the pastor withdoubt and criticism. Have directquotes from the sermon you wouldlike to discuss. The minister mustalso be humble enough to receiveconstructive criticism, and actuallytrain the elders to be able to offerthis review.

Since the elders hold the officeof king, analogously, they are alsoto “maintain the purity of theWord and sacraments” by defend-ing the church (Acts 20:28-31).They are to defend the churchfrom enemies outside the church,as Paul says, “Savage wolves willcome in among you” (Acts 20:29);and from enemies inside thechurch: “From among yourselvesmen will rise up” (Acts 20:30). Asunder-shepherds of the ChiefShepherd, they too are to use therod of defense (Ps 23) and thesword of offense, the Word of theLiving God (Eph 6:17). Elders,know the Word! Know your Con-fessions!

3. Assist in catechizing the Youth

This is primarily the task of theminister, as the one trained toteach. But one joy in a healthy

ministry is to have the elders jointhis task. They are to “nourish andguard the children of the cove-nant” (BCO, X.3). Here is where Imust sound the alarm. In my expe-rience, most elders are not “apt toteach,” but in fact, shun the idea ofteaching at all. How can we reme-dy this? First, nominate and electonly those men who know theWord well enough to teach it. Sec-ond, we as pastors need to havethe elders/potential elders sit in onour catechism classes. They needto observe us and we need to ob-serve them in teaching situations.This is so important as elders needto be a part of the life of our cove-nant youth.

4. Promote God-centered Schooling

Elders are to be involved in thelives of their flocks, for example,in the education of their children.While education is primarily thesphere of parents, the church isalso involved as it seeks to see itsmembers applying the word ofGod in all areas of life. In our di-verse congregation we encourageparents to be involved in theirchildren’s education by applyingthe Reformed Faith, whether theirchildren attend a Christian school(in our area there is a URC/CRCschool, a Lutheran school, and anEvangelical school), are homeschooled, attend a public charterschool, or the public school.

5. Visit Those in Need

One of the blessings of beingan elder is the experience of visit-ing the people under your care,

whether they are sick, hospital-ized, or mourning. We have a glo-rious history as Reformed Church-es in visiting our people, whetherin Geneva with Calvin, or Scot-land with Knox. It is amazing tome that in so many evangelicalchurches that I was a part of in thepast that the pastors and elders didnot visit their members. But let usbe faithful shepherds, knowingwho is in need, not being afraid ofthose in need, and comfortingthem. Remember, you too will oneday need a visit just as someonetoday may.

6. Family Visitation

The practice of regular (yearly)visitation of the families in ourcongregations is also a blessing.To intimately fellowship withyoung and old, single and married,new convert or faithful widowwhere an elder will see the laborsof the minister, elders, and dea-cons in practical ways. Here are afew practical points for family vis-iting: First, be prepared. In ourchurch I prepare a basic outlinedlesson for the elders to use withevery family in that particularyear. Second, have questions forevery age group. I love to ask littlechildren to open with praying theLord’s Prayer. I also ask them torecite the Creed and a few of thecommandments. For older chil-dren I have them recite a cate-chism question or two, such asquestions 1, 21, and 60. I alwaysask children what baptismmeans. Ask the adult(s) abouttheir relationship, about theirdaily piety, and encourage themto become a part of the life of



ence to God. The eldership is aservice to God, and we serveHim best by letting His namearise in our midst and lettingours fade into the background.When things are done decentlyand in good order, we are not onthe stage performing in the eyesof men, but God is center-stage,performing through His Wordand Sacraments and receivingall the praise and adoration.

May you as elders decreasethat the Lord’s work and willmay increase.

1 J.L. Schaver, The Polity of theChurches: Volume 1 (Chicago:Church Polity Press, 1947) 153.

2 For an excellent explanation of theContinental Reformed view of theanalogy between the offices of Israeland the Church, see Derke P. Berg-sma, “Prophets, Priests, and Kings:Biblical Offices,” in The Compro-mised Church (Wheaton: Crossway,1998) 117-131.

Daniel R. Hyde is currently serving as Church Planter and

Pastor of the Oceanside United Reformed Church in Ocean-

side, California. This congregation, organized in 2002, is

Daniel’s first congregation and he is the congregation’s first

pastor. His email address is [email protected].

the church. Third, bring a jour-nal with you. After the visitwrite down the prayer requests,how you think they are doing,and your overall impressions.

7. Exercise Discipline

Discipline is a ministry ofreconciliation (cf. Mt 18:12-14;Lk 15; 2 Cor 5) and restoration(cf. Jn 21:15-17; Acts 9; Phil15-17). I think we can more ef-fectively exercise this, the thirdmark of the Church, if we do thefollowing: First, we need to bepraying as Consistories/Sessionsmore for those under disciplineto be restored. Second, we needto be prepared with the mindsetthat discipline is long, painful,and difficult work. Third, weneed to learn tact and boldnessin the interpersonal relation-ships that are involved with dis-cipline. Fourth, and very basic,sin should never come as a sur-prise to us, no matter whose sinit is or what sin it is.

8. Actively Promote the Work ofEvangelism and Missions

I think The Book of ChurchOrder gives us a very practicalkey in what this means when itsays that one of the ministries ofthe elders is to “instruct the ig-norant” (X.3). What better wayto “actively promote the work ofevangelism and missions” thanto be involved in those tasksoneself? As well, it the elders’job to invite missionaries topreach and present their work inour churches. It is the elders’ jobto be active in planting newchurches, by proposing to startthem, and by overseeing them intheir infancy.

9. Insure that Everything is DoneDecently and in Good Order

Finally, what this all boilsdown to is this: the elders arecharged with governing thechurches doctrine and life sothat all things are done in rever-



No one can be a minister, rul-ing elder and deacon in the OPCwithout first giving an affirma-tive answer to the followingquestion:

“Do you sincerely receive andadopt the Confession of Faithand Catechisms of thisChurch, as containing the sys-tem of doctrine taught in theHoly Scriptures?”

We are all familiar with thisvow, but what does it mean? Ac-cording to Charles Hodge ourvows have been understood inthree different ways in the historyof Presbyterianism. “First,” saysHodge, “some understand themto mean that every propositioncontained in the Confession ofFaith is included in the profes-sion made at ordination. Sec-ondly, others say that they meanjust what the words import.What is adopted is the ‘systemof doctrine.’ The system of theReformed Churches is a knownand admitted scheme of doctrine,and that scheme, nothing more orless, we profess to adopt. Thethird view of the subject is, thatby the system of doctrine con-tained in the Confession ismeant the essential doctrines ofChristianity and nothingmore.” (Editor’s emphasis.)

I

The first, says Hodge, wasnever the view even among OldSchool Presbyterians. Men havealways been free to say that theydo not think this or that word, orphrase, is the best way of sayingwhat the Bible teaches. And withthis I am in hearty agreement. Toexplain why, I want to cite twoexamples. (1) In Chapter VII,section 4, of the WestminsterConfession we read that the “cov-enant of grace is frequently setforth in Scripture by the name ofa testament…” The problem isthat while everything else in thisstatement is true, I do not thinkthe word ‘frequently’ is accurate.May I not, then, be free to statethis fact without anyone saying Idissent from the doctrine of thecovenant? (2) Or take the state-ment in Chapter XXI, section 8,where the Confession explainshow the Sabbath is to be sancti-fied. Here we are informed thatmen are not only required to “ob-serve a holy resting all that day,from their own works, words,and thoughts about their worldlyemployments and recreations, butare also [to be] taken up, thewhole time, in the public and pri-vate exercises of [God’s] wor-ship…” Now my problem here is

not that I disagree with the doc-trine, but that I do not think this isthe best way of stating the doc-trine. I do not think we should beinvolved in ‘worldly’ employ-ments or recreations on any dayof the week, any more than on theSabbath. I think a better term herewould be ‘daily’ or ‘everyday.’The other term that I would liketo see improved on is the word‘exercises.’ This term seems tome to conjur up the idea of a kindof mechanized spirituality, as inread the Bible and pray all daySunday. Sometimes I think thebest thing for me to do on Sundayis to take a short nap (whichcould hardly be called an exer-cise)!

Other examples could be giv-en. But my point is that the text ofthe Confession is not perfect asthe inspired text of the Bible is.So there ought to be the right todisagree with a particular expres-sion here and there, so long as thedisagreement really is with thewording, and not with the doc-trines.

II

The other view that CharlesHodge opposed was what can becalled ‘the substance of doctrine

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO

THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS?by

G.I. Williamson


view.’ And here, too, I am inhearty agreement with him. Ifthere is one thing that I havelearned from recent church histo-ry, it is the devastation that thisview has brought upon Presbyteri-an Churches around the world.

In 1879 the United Presbyteri-an Church in Scotland inventedwhat was called a Declaratory Actor Statement. Other churches soonfollowed their example (the FreeChurch in 1892 and the Presbyter-ian Church in New Zealand(PCNZ) in 1901). By this act, thePCNZ said “diversity of opinionis recognized in such points of theConfession as do not enter into thesubstance of the Reformed Faith,and full authority to determinewhat points fall within this de-scription is retained for thechurch.” Whatever may have beenthe intention in adopting this act,as Rev. Jack Sawyer noted “thehistorically observable effect ofthis Act was to allow the assem-blies of the church to permit in-creasingly significant deviationsfrom the express doctrinal propo-sitions of the Westminster Confes-sion, until at last the WestminsterConfession in reality ceased tohave any binding authority as asubordinate standard of thechurch.”1

As Dr. Hodge himself put it,“the substance of the doctrine isnot the doctrine, any more thanthe substance of a man is theman.” To say “I adopt the Confes-sion of Faith and Catechisms ofthis church, as containing systemof doctrine contained in the Scrip-tures” is one thing. To say “Iadopt the substance of the system

of doctrine contained in the Con-fession of faith and Catechismsteaching” is another.

The fatal flaw with this view isthat there is no definition of whatthe substance of the system ofdoctrine is. We know what thesystem of doctrine is because it isclearly (though not perfectly) ex-pressed in the Westminster Stan-dards. But no one know what ismeant by speaking of “the sub-stance of” this doctrine.

III

The only viable view, then—according to Dr. Hodge—is theadoption of the Confession ofFaith and Catechisms as contain-ing the system of doctrine taughtin the Bible. And concerning thisDr. Hodge says “the candidate hasno right to put his own sense uponthe words propounded to him. Hehas no right to select from all pos-sible meanings which the wordsmay bear, that particular sensewhich suits his purpose, or which,he thinks, will save his con-science. It is well known that thiscourse has been openly advocated,not only by the Jesuits, but bymen of this generation, in thiscountry and in Europe. The‘chemistry of thought,’ it is said,can make all creeds alike. Menhave boasted that they could signany creed. To a man in a balloonthe earth appears a plane, all ine-qualities on its surface being lostin the distance. And here is a phil-osophic elevation from which allforms of human belief look alike.They are sublimed into generalformulas, which include them alland distinguish none. Professor

Newman, just before his openapostasy, published a tract inwhich he defended his right to bein the English Church while hold-ing the doctrines of the Church ofRome. He claimed for himself theThirty-nine articles in a ‘non-natural sense’; that is, in the sensewhich he chose to put upon thewords. This shocks the commonsense and the common honesty ofmen. There is no need to argue thematter. The turpitude of such aprinciple is much more clearlyseen intuitively than discursive-ly.”

“The two principles which, bythe common consent of all honestmen, determine the interpretationof oaths and professions of faith,are; first, the plain, historicalmeaning of the words; and sec-ondly, the animus imponentis, thatis, the intention of the party im-posing the oath or requiring theprofession. The words, therefore,‘system of doctrine taught in theHoly Scriptures,’ are to be takenin their plain, historical sense. Aman is not a liberty to understandthe words “Holy Scriptures,” tomean all books written by holymen, because although that inter-pretation might consist with thesignification of the words, it is in-consistent with the historicalmeaning of the phrase. Nor can heunderstand them, as they would beunderstood by Romanists, as in-cluding the Apocrypha, becausethe words being used by a Protes-tant Church, must be taken in aProtestant sense. Neither can thecandidate say, that he means by“system of doctrine” Christianityas opposed to Mohammedanism,or Protestantism, as opposed to

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS?


possible the testimony of thesemen that they really mean it whenthey say they sincerely receiveand adopt the Confession of Faithand Catechisms as faithul (thoughnot infallible) statements of whatthe Bible teaches. It is my opin-ion that this—more than anythingelse—has enabled the OrthodoxPresbyterian Church to continuein the line of those men who sac-rificed so much back in 1936 be-cause they believed these doc-trines.

We, as officebearers of theOPC, need to be men of integrity.We need to examine our ownhearts before the Lord to makesure that we are faithful to ourcommitments. And one of theseis the duty to ascertain that thosewho are ordained by us give con-vincing evidence of their heartyagreement with the system ofdoctrine contained in the West-minster Standards.

1 Trust and Obey, A forty year historyof the Reformed Churches of NewZealand, by D. G. Vanderpyyl p.453.

2 All of the quotations from Hodge arefrom his Church Polity, which hasrecently been republished by, and isavailable from, Westminster Dis-count Books of Scarsdale, N.Y.(914) 472-2237.

Romanism, or evangelical Chris-tianity, as distinguished from thetheology of the Reformed (i.e.,Calvinistic) Churches, because thewords being used by a ReformedChurch, must be understood in thesense which that Church is knowto attach to them. If a man pro-fesses to receive the doctrine ofthe Trinity, the word must be tak-en in its Christian sense, the can-didate cannot substitute for thatsense the Sabellian idea of a mo-dal Trinity, nor the philosophicaltrichotomy of Pantheism. And soof all other expressions whichhave a fixed historical meaning.Again, by the animus imponentisin the case contemplated, is to beunderstood not the mind or inten-tion of the ordaining bishop in theEpiscopal Church, or of the or-daining presbytery in the Presby-terian Church. It is the mind or in-tention of the Church, of whichthe bishop or the presbytery is theorgan or agent. Should a Roman-izing bishop in the Church of Eng-land give “a non-natural” sense tothe Thirty-nine articles, thatwould not acquit the priest, whoshould sign them in that sense, ofthe crime of moral perjury; orshould a presbytery give an entire-ly erroneous interpretation to theWestminster Confession, thatwould not justify a candidate forordination in adopting it in that

sense. The Confession must beadopted in the sense of theChurch, into the service of whichthe minister, in virtue of thatadoption, is received. These aresimple principles of honesty, andwe presume they are universallyadmitted, at least so far as ourChurch is concerned.”2

Presbyterian and Reformedhistory demonstrates the fact thatthere is no absolute safeguard inany form of subscription. This isnot to say that no improvement ispossible. When the ReformedChurches of New Zealand adopt-ed the Westminster Confession ofFaith alongside the Three Formsof Unity, they also modified thewording of the form of subscrip-tion. The phrase “all the points ofdoctrine” was changed to read“the whole system of doctrine.”And it is my opinion that this is amodest improvement. But be thatas it may, the fact remains thatnothing will protect the churchfrom error but diligence on thepart of those who administer thisoath.

In other words the men who al-ready are ministers and ruling eld-ers must be diligent and careful asthey examine men who aspire tothe biblical offices. They must dothis in order to elicit as clearly as

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS?

“…the creed is the bond of fellowship…and an instrument for the preservationof both purity and peace. The persons subscribing to that creed are bound to ad-here to its teaching as long as they enjoy the privileges accruing from that sub-scription and from the fellowship it entails. They must relinquish these privileg-es whenever they are no longer able to avow the tenets expressed in the creed.”

— John Murray


In 1980, at my first GeneralAssembly, the late Bernard“Chip” Stonehouse exhorted usrookie commissioners to wait fiveyears before we opened ourmouths in debate. Fresh out ofseminary I thought my Old-School theology made my posi-tion superior to Chip’s on mostquestions. However, I am pleasedto have heeded his exhortation.Over the past several decades Ihave been privileged to observe—and to participate in—a system ofchurch government based on prin-ciples that are self-consciouslyBiblical. It has been difficult attimes to learn to think and com-municate in a way different frommy native egalitarian instincts. Asan outsider raised in liberal NewEngland Congregationalism, ittook a conscious effort, time andexperience to learn to participatein the culture of Presbyterianism.I am glad I waited. Chip gave usgood advice on this point.

With an increasing number ofministers entering the OPC fromoutside the Presbyterian tradition,and with the increasing variety ofseminary training of our minis-ters, I would like to pass on somethoughts on what I think it meansto be a confessional church. Myfellow officers and I have taken avow to uphold the purity, peaceand unity of the church. I believethat only a truly confessionalchurch has the ability to keepsuch a vow, because we have cor-porately agreed on what we be-lieve. If we cannot continue our

agreement we will face, as is per-haps already evident, a confes-sional crisis. As one astute ob-server of the last GeneralAssembly comments: “Thechurch is particularly ill-equippedto judge the way in which hersubordinate standards serve to es-tablish both the unity and the di-versity of its faith. In the moreconfessionally literate age [of]…the Synod of Dordt, the churchrecognized that a confessionserved both vital functions: it es-tablished boundaries for theologi-cal formulation and it offered lati-tude within those boundaries forthe development of varied theo-logical expressions…A partyspirit seems to be emerging with-in the church, with factions large-ly determined by where ministeri-al commissioners wereeducated.”1 The antidote is theculture of confessionalism.

Being a confessional churchmeans that we are exegetical.

As the body of Christ, thechurch is rooted in the text ofScripture. Being confessionalmeans that we have come to aconsensus regarding what Scrip-ture teaches. But we must alwaysbe testing the truth and accuracyof that consensus by the carefulexegesis of Scripture. Unlike theScriptures, our confessions arefallible. Yet, being faithful toScripture does not mean that be-cause I have a particular under-standing of a passage or passagesthat my interpretation supercedes

the confession of my church. If Icome to think the confession un-biblical, based on my understand-ing of Scripture, I am bound totest my findings with the mind ofthe church, and then if othersagree, take proper constitutionalsteps to revise the confession. Imust be careful not to think thatmy interpretation trumps thechurch’s understanding. The Bib-lical alternative to authoritarianclericalism is not an egalitarian-ism, in which my opinion sets theagenda, but confessional Presby-terianism.

Being a confessional churchmeans that we respect our

history.

When examined by the Pres-bytery of New York and NewEngland John Murray, who dif-fered with the confession on atleast eight points, stated only oneexception and that was his con-viction of exclusive psalmody.What is ironic and instructive isthat the ipsissima verba of theconfession supports exclusivepsalmody! But because Murraythought historically about theconfession he knew that hischurch had decided in the nine-teenth century that it was permis-sible to sing hymns, since thesinging of psalms was not essen-tial to the system of doctrine.2

Furthermore, Professor Mur-ray taught his points of differenceto seminary students and even de-fend them in his writings. He ad-

ON BEING A CONFESSIONAL CHURCH

BY

Gregory Edward Reynolds


mitted that his view of the cove-nant was a significant recasting ofthe historic reformed doctrine.However, even in teaching con-trary to these non-essential pointshe always did so with great re-spect for the confession, whilenever treating it as if it is infalli-ble. “It is with something of anapology that attention is drawn tothese blemishes” he wronte. “Butthey serve to point up and con-firm…that any amendment neces-sary does not affect the system oftruth set forth in the Confession,and they remind of the imperfec-tion that must attach itself to hu-man composition so that we maynever place human documents orpronouncements on a par with theone supreme standard of faith.”3

Murray is worthy of our emula-tion.

Tradition is a living reality [L.traditio = hand down]. Culture is“the ideas, customs, skills, arts,etc., of a people or group, that aretransferred, communicated, orpassed along, as in or to succeed-ing generations.”4 All culturesare in dynamic growth, but whencultures grow properly they culti-vate themselves in the soil of theirpast. The church decides what itconfesses. And it often does so onnon-essential points, teachingwhat is not part of the system ofdoctrine, without changing thetext of the confession, as withhymn singing. Its commitment tothe authority of Scripture meansthat it is always seeking to main-tain what is Biblical, and correctwhat is not. Thus, the confessionis, in this sense, a working docu-ment. Like any constitution itmust be revised or amended withgreat care and deliberation, but itis open to revision.

Some might object that this is

judicial activism. The answer isno, judicial activism is interpret-ing the constitution in a new way,as it is applied to a particular case,which is out of accord with thehistory of interpretation. As a con-fessional church our courts mustnot act as if no one before us hadread, interpreted or subscribed tothe confession, but we must ratherask: How have our forefathers in-terpreted it? If we seek to under-stand it differently then it is thewhole church that decides throughthe arduous process of amendingthe constitution. Substantivechanges to the system of doctrinemust be made by amending theconstitution. This is a legislative,and not a judicial action. In decid-ing judicial cases, it is importantnot to reverse the church’s formerunderstanding. Such a reversal isjudicial activism. It is unjust be-cause it is unpredictable. This canonly be corrected by understand-ing the animus imponentis (“theintention of the party imposingthe oath”) of the church, which isthe meaning of “the system ofdoctrine.”5

Being a confessional church

means upholding the “system ofdoctrine.” The recent and ongoingdebate among conservative Pres-byterians over subscription needsto be understood in terms of theways that we American Presbyter-ians have understood the nature ofsubscription.

The ways in which words areused to communicate ideas is es-pecially important in maintainingand developing a culture. Thewords “strict” and “full” have re-cently been used to define “sys-tem” subscription as subscriptionto every single teaching or doc-trine of the confession. The im-pression is given that anyone who

differs with this view is not strict,but “loose” and therefore suspect.In fairness to men like MortonSmith and George Knight, whouse these terms, they grant thatnot every word, phrase of evenproposition is required. But everydoctrine is. Thus, the idea of the“system of doctrine” is narrowedin a way never intended by theauthors, or subsequent interpret-ers, of the second vow. JohnMurray quotes Charles Hodgewith approval: “The words ‘sys-tem of doctrine,’ have a definitemeaning, to serve to define andlimit the extent to which the con-fession is adopted.”6 Hodge be-lieved that to require the adoptionof every proposition or teachingis to invite hypocrisy and fosterdisunity. “We are not sure thatwe personally know a dozen min-isters besides ourselves, whocould stand the test”7 he said.

Hodge took his cue from theoriginal Adopting Act of 1729,which refers to the “essentialand necessary articles, goodforms of sound words and sys-tems of Christian doctrine” anddefined “scruples” as “only aboutarticles not essential and neces-sary in doctrine, worship, or gov-ernment.”8 Thus the “system”excludes articles not part of the“whole system in its integrity.”9

Hodge was careful to distancehimself from the view that essen-tial refers only to the “doctrinesof the gospel.”10 Essential refers,rather, to the entire “system ofdoctrines common to the Re-formed Churches.”11 This in-cludes all teachings on doctrine,worship and government, whichare essential to that system.There are three categories of suchteachings: 1) those common to allChristians, expressed in the earlycouncils of the ancient church; 2)



Practice of Confessional Subscription(New York: University Press ofAmerica, Inc., 1995) 220-221. DavidUrish lists the other seven points ofdifference, which Murray apparentlydid not consider essential to the re-formed system.

3 John H. Skilton, Scripture and Con-fession: A Book about ConfessionsOld and New (Presbyterian and Re-formed Publishing Company, 1973)148.

4 Webster’s New World Dictionaryand Thesaurus. Accent Software In-ternational, Macmillan Publishers,Version 2.0 – 1998, Build #25.

5 I owe some ideas in this paragraph toT. David Gordon. For the expressionof them I take full responsibility.

6 John Murray, “Creed Subscription inthe Presbyterian Church U. S. A.”David W. Hall, ed. The Practice ofConfessional Subscription (NewYork: University Press of America,Inc., 1995) 259.

7 Charles Hodge, Discussions inChurch Polity (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1878) 331.

8 Ibid., 321.9 Ibid., 323.10 Ibid.,, 329.11 Ibid., 326.12 Ibid., 333.13 Ibid., 334.

those common to all Protestants,as distinct from Romanism; 3)those peculiar to ReformedChurches, as distinct from Lu-theran and Arminian.12 On theother hand Hodge gives examplesof doctrines not essential to thesystem which are consistent withthe kind of exceptions noted bythe Adopting assembly. Theseare doctrines “relating to civilmagistrates, the power of thestate, conditions of Church mem-bership, marriage, divorce, andother matters lying outside of the‘system of doctrine’ in its theo-logical sense...”13 As importantas the Confession’s teaching onthese doctrines is, Hodge main-tains, the Church has been wisenot to make them conditions ofministerial communion.

Being a confessional churchmeans that we are the church.

The church is not a group thatsupports the particulars of myagenda. The confession is notwhat I interpret it to mean, butwhat the church has said it means.It is decidedly un-confessional toseek to impose my own set of par-ticular cherished beliefs on the en-tire church. The very concept ofconfessionalism is that the wholechurch comes to a consensusabout its system of belief. To be-have otherwise is to be sectarian.Thus, Murray always taught hispoints of difference with defer-ence to the confession. WhilePresbyterianism in the nineteenthcentury moved in the direction ofconfessing less than it should, ourown reaction may lead us to seekto confess more than we should.The prudence of confessionalismdemands that we strike a carefulbalance between these two ex-tremes, nothing less and nothingmore.

Being a confessional church re-quires substantial humility.

The first time I heard the term“consensus document” used ofour confession I was taken aback.Surely, I thought, this smacks ofcompromise. It is not wrong tohold convictions narrower thanthe confession, or even at oddswith the confession, as long asthese do not undermine the systemof doctrine. Consensus requireshumility and submission to theothers. Even the most cursorylook at the history of the extendeddeliberations of the Westminsterassembly will demonstrate thatmany particular views were con-sciously and humbly set aside inorder to agree upon a doctrinal po-sition.

When debating and decidingjudicial cases we must considerthe nature of the case itself in lightof our tradition, consciously set-ting aside our own particularviews or views imputed to but notpart of the case. Humility also re-quires deferring to older eldersand ministers. Theological train-ing in our circles is a heady aca-demic experience. That is neces-sary, but often leaves us with thefalse impression that we are wiserthan those who have been in-volved in the life and work of thechurch for decades. Only then willjustice be done and the culture ofconfessionalism preserved.

We need to work much harderat this critical point in our historyat being a confessional church.

1 Bryan Pieters, “Synod of Dordt, theLesser,” (Nicotine Theological Jour-nal October 2003) 4.

2 James E. Urish, “A Peaceable PleaAbout Subscription: Avoiding FutureDivisions.” David W. Hall, ed. The


Gregory Reynolds is

currently serving as

Pastor of the Amos-

keag Presbyterian

Church (OPC) in Man-

chester, NH. He is also

a member of the Com-

mittee on Christian

Education, and of the

subcommittee that

has oversight of this

publication.


Some time back, a readerwrote to ask me to address a col-umn to the subject of the practiceof “term eldership.” For those un-familiar with the practice, allowme to explain: In many Reformedchurches, elders are selected by“election” by the congregationfor a specified term of office.“Ordained” to office only once,these brothers are eligible for re-election, and subsequent “instal-lation” to office, again and againthroughout their lifetimes. Thepractice differs markedly fromthat in most churches who hold tothe Westminster creedal traditionwhere the manner of preparationand selection to office for a rul-ing elder is much more rigorous,and the term is considered to belifelong.

The reader implied some criti-cism of the term-eldership prac-tice, as I recall, opining that no-where in Scripture was thepractice to be found, either expli-citly or implicitly. Further, thewriter went on, it is a waste ofGod’s precious gifts to the localchurch if several of the men towhom He has given the wisdomand spiritual ability to pastor theflock are on “vacation” fromtheir responsibilities for a year ormore at a time. And, as anothercorrespondent observed not toolong ago, the practice of “termeldership” tends to tilt the empha-sis of the office from pastoring tothat of a committee position or a

board member term of office—hardly appropriate for an officewith such weighty Biblical re-sponsibilities.

PROBLEMS WITH TERMELDERSHIP

Allow me to make a few ob-servations up front. The first isthat the practice of “term elder-ship” today seems to be especial-ly prevalent in those churcheswhose legacy is that of theChurch Order of Dort (the greatsynod that answered the challeng-es of Arminius with the Canonsand also wrote a comprehensiveChurch Order whose fundamentalprinciples serve to undergird sev-eral such documents, representingmany denominations and/orgroups of churches today). Termeldership is not customarily thepractice in those Presbyterian andReformed churches whose con-fessional legacy is that of West-minster, rather than the Continen-tal standards.

Second, among those churchesthat practice “term eldership,”several bad habits seem to goalong hand in hand. One of theseis, as the correspondent abovenotes, that the view of “election”to office carries with it such non-Biblical political connotations asto corrupt the high and holy prac-tice from the start. In the USA es-pecially, where the image of thepolitical process is so low, it is

difficult to imagine “election” tothe office of elder not being cor-rupted by association with popu-larity, the notion of the elder asthe democratic representative ofa group within the church, andeven the practice of “campaign-ing” for office. Sadly, I haveheard much that would indicatethat these practices and attitudesare widespread.

In addition, the practice of“term eldership” does, at least,suggest a temporary, and thus aninsufficient view of the work ofthe elder. I have railed for yearsin this column against an “admin-istrative” view of the office ofelder, insisting on one shaped bythe Biblical image of the shep-herd. It is difficult to imagine atrue shepherd, in Biblical times,working an eight hour shift, andthen forgetting about his flock forthe remainder of the day. Jesus,in John 10, called such a care-giver a “hireling,” and would noteven dignify such a man with theterm “shepherd.” But this wouldseem to be the inevitable conse-quence of electing elders to athree year term. Service in officeas an elder is viewed as no differ-ent than service on the Christianschool board. lt’s a committeeposition. And once that notionsinks roots, it is almost impossi-ble to cultivate a strong and Bib-lical view of an elder as a pastor,daily and deeply concerned aboutthe spiritual life and walk of the

SOME THOUGHTS ON TERM ELDERSHIP

by

John R. Sittema


flock of God throughout theirlong discipleship.

Further, if the concept of“term eldership” twists the viewof elder even a few degrees offBiblical center, the result also af-fects the preparation process forthose entering the office. My con-tacts within several conservativePresbyterian bodies convince methat their view and practice of thepreparation and examination ofelders is superior to that in theCRC tradition with which I ammost familiar. ln the CRC, myexperience has been that trainingoften discusses policies, proce-dures and practices. Newly elect-ed term elders are helped to be-come acquainted with the routineof the meeting schedule, assignedtheir “district,” partnered with avisiting teammate, and briefly ap-prised of “cases” in process. Sucha pragmatic approach is neces-sary with only three (and in somecases two) years in office, onehas to “hit the ground running.”

In the Presbyterian churcheswith which I am familiar, eldertraining involves years of as-signed reading and study, thor-ough grounding in Reformed the-ology and the creeds, carefulexamination of the existing pasto-ral involvement of the potentialcandidate. (Is he already teach-ing? How well? What is the levelof his discernment? Is he alreadyinvolved in counseling? Is hiswork up to Biblical standards?Does he “desire the office ofoverseer/elder?” Is he willing todo the work necessary to be spiri-tually prepared?) Only after suchcareful and lengthy reflection dothe existing elders present thecandidate to the flock, often ex-

amining him in the presence ofthe congregation, and only thenproceeding, should they concur,to his ordination. The result ofsuch a careful process is that aweight of respect and trust is giv-en to the elder by the flock. In myexperience, election to a threeyear term often (usually?) doesnot bestow such respect and trust.(Should you desire to read a bitmore of the theory and practicebehind such a view and practiceof office, I highly recommend alittle booklet by Lawrence R.Eyres entitled The Elders of theChurch, Presbyterian and Re-formed Publishing Co., 1975.)

By this point, you have nodoubt noted that I am critical ofthe “term-eldership” concept.Clearly I am, and not only for thereasons listed above. I have chal-lenged several of my friends whohold passionately to the “term-eldership” concept to point to anypassage that suggests, not to men-tion insists, that the Bible viewsan elder in any other way than aman appointed for life. None todate has risen to the challenge. Infact, the “defense” of the practiceamong theologically competentpeople is usually apologetic, notpassionate. All I hear is appealsto tradition, that “Church Orderprescribes it thus and so.” OK,but Church Order isn’t infallible,remember? At the same time, as aminister of the Word in the CRC,I am bound to that Church Order,and am aware that my options arelimited. And so, although I writeas l do above, hoping and prayingto change attitudes and perspec-tives, and thus practices withinthe CRC and other churches thathave adopted term eldership, here

at Bethel CRC in Dallas, wepractice term eldership. And, tobe honest, I’ve never met an eld-er with whom I’ve worked in theCRC who doesn’t like the “term”concept (especially in the lastthree months of the last year ofthe term)! So. . .

“IF YOU CAN’T SAY SOME-THING NICE. . .”

To be fair, I must note somebenefits in the practice of “termeldership.” For one, gifted menare more likely to serve inChrist’s church as elder if theirservice has specific term limits.That benefit is worthy of note inlight of the many kingdom causeswhich place demands particularlyupon the most gifted of the menof God among us. They simplydo not have the time to serve allwho ask; a limited term in eachministry enables them to serveseveral, in sequence.

Again, the practice of “terms”does allow for the practice of“sabbaticals,” periods of rest andrefreshment from the weightyburdens of office. Such sabbati-cals, between terms of office, areparticularly beneficial for thosewho serve in very large congre-gations, with many pastoral du-ties, or those who serve in young,new or smaller congregations,where the amount of work is notable to be spread around as manywilling workers. Of course, grant-ing a temporary “sabbatical” isnot inappropriate for thosechurches that practice life-tenureeldership. In fact, it is quite com-mon.

I will report a benefit whichProfessor William Heyns alludes



come too great, due to some unu-sual circumstance or set of cir-cumstances, the sabbatical elderscould be called in to relieve theactive elders of some of the rou-tine (but nonetheless important)pastoral duties.

Finally, even if your congre-gation practices term eldership,make clear to the flock and toany potential candidates thatyour local requirements for of-fice are those weighty require-ments set forth by Scripture, andnot merely a list of “functionaryskills” needed for a committee-type position. Far too often localchurches get what they deserveelders unqualified for office be-cause they were neither appropri-ately trained nor screened. Godforbid that should happen to anyof you. His church is too pre-cious to Him to be placed underthe care of unqualified, un-trained, ill-equipped hirelings!

This article was

originally pub-

lished in the Sep-

tember, 1995 issue

of The Outlook

magazine. Dr. Sit-

tema is presently

serving as the Pas-

tor of Young Fa-

miles in Christ

Covenant Church

(PCA) in Matthews,

North Carolina.

to in his venerable Handbook forElders and Deacons (eventhough I find it a spurious argu-ment). He suggests that term eld-ership profits the church by al-lowing the work to be spread outmore equitably among the con-gregation, and that it profits thechurch by avoiding “hurt feel-ings” in those who would other-wise not be able to take a turn.As I said, I find the argumentspurious, because in my view itpromotes a non-pastoral under-standing of the office of elder. Ionly mention it because it is oneof the most popular explanationsI've heard for the term eldershipview in twenty years of ministry(sad to say).

“IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS...”

I would prefer, for the overalldignity of the office, and to pre-serve the pastoral character of it,that the office of elder be clearlyunderstood to be for lifetime ten-ure. I believe it is the testimonyof Scripture that God makes menelders (Acts 20:28); the churchonly receives and recognizesthem as such. This, of course,would demand a change in themanner of selecting elders (notelecting them, but examining andapproving them), and may wellinclude the needed admission thatthe church cannot, indeed maynot, determine in advance howmany elders it will have. If Godmakes men elders, he alone deter-mines how many he will raise up.Those whom he has equipped, towhom the church identifies andrecognizes as possessing theseSpirit-endowecl qualifications,should be ordained to office.

However, I am unlikely tosway easily the views and practic-es of Reformed churches and indi-viduals who have several hun-dreds of years of tradition behindthem, I’ll settle for securing youragreement to a couple of smallerpoints. (If you can’t beat ’em, join’em, but convince ’em in the pro-cess!)

First, even if you practice (anddefend) term eldership, please re-member that those once ordainedremain elders for the rest of theirlives, even if they are not in activeoffice all that time. That this pointis valid even in churches that holdto term eldership is demonstratedby the difference in “ordination”and “installation.” An elder is or-dained once; after that, he is in-stalled. Constant reminders of thisfact may assist those making nom-inations, and help those in thecongregation as well to grasp theseriousness and weight of the of-fice, and to avoid the “democraticprocess” corruption discussedabove.

Second, if your congregationelects elders for terms of office,and then grants them release fromactive duty for a time, make clearto all that they are still in service,even though the nature of theirservice may be changed for atime. For example, sabbatical eld-ers (call them that!) ought to beinvited to regular and periodic(quarterly?) elder conferences, tobe apprised of the status of thespiritual care of the flock, to beinvolved in prayer on behalf ofthe other brothers and the flock it-self, and to be consulted on mat-ters in which their wisdom wouldbe beneficial. Further, should theburden of the care of the flock be-



Almost like clock work Amer-ican Presbyterians have endureda major division in the church re-sulting in two separate denomi-nations. Orthodox Presbyteriansare generally well aware of theirown break with the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A. in 1936 un-der the leadership of J. GreshamMachen. Fewer in our church,but still many, also generallyknow the contours of the 1837split between the Old andNew School branches of thePresbyterian Church (still tobe featured in this series).Rare however is the Ortho-dox Presbyterian who canidentify the chief causes ofthe split between the OldSide and New Side Presby-terians that occurred in1741 only thirty-five years afterthe formation of the Presbyteryof Philadelphia.

The most popular read on thatdivision is correct in that it gen-erally pits the anti-revival OldSide against the pro-revival NewSide. But where that interpreta-tion falters is in attributing to thepro-revival party the mantle ofconservative Presbyterianism.As it turns out, the revivalistswere generally the innovators (ifone can be novel in a church soyoung), while their Old Side op-ponents were not the proto-liberals many have assumedthem to be.

The differences that emergedover the nature and value ofsubscription at the time of theAdopting Act of 1729 (see parttwo of this series) revealed twotypes of piety within the youngPresbyterian communion. Onthe one side, many Presbyteri-ans to the north of Philadelphia,in New Jersey and New York,who shared theological sympa-thies with New England, were

less enthusiastic about subscrip-tion than their Scotch-Irish andSoutheastern Pennsylvaniapeers. For the Presbyterians ofNew England descent, subscrip-tion was a violation of liberty ofconscience, a way of bindingconscience with the words ofmen rather than the yoke ofChrist. On the other side, thosePresbyterians who were recentimmigrants to the New Worldand generally of Scotch-Irishdescent, having settled in Phila-delphia and beyond to Chesterand New Castle, believed sub-scription to be valuable for pro-tecting the church from error

among her ministers. Creedalsubscription had become thepractice in the Old World andthese pro-subscriptionist Pres-byterians held that it shouldalso be the practice in Ameri-ca.

The revivals that broke outduring the First Great Awaken-ing only contributed to this rel-atively minor tension. Smallerawakenings had already oc-

curred locally in 1729among Dutch Reformedin northern New Jerseyunder the ministry ofTheodore Freylinghuysenand then again amongNew England Congrega-tionalists in 1735 underJonathan Edwards’preaching. Presbyterians

also experienced first hand theeffects of these local revivalswhen Gilbert Tennent followedthe example of Freylinghuysenand in the 1730s began topreach the “terrors of the law”to Presbyterians in Pennsylva-nia.

What turned these minorawakenings into a great onewas the arrival of GeorgeWhitefield in 1739 in NorthAmerica. His itinerancy andpowerful preaching caused animmediate sensation that inturn generated controversywithin the churches and, be-cause of Protestantism’s social

TURNING POINTS IN AMERICAN PRESBYTRIANISM - PART III

Old Side versus New Side, 1741-1758

Darryl Hart and John Muether

For the Presbyterians of New Englanddescent, subscription was a violationof liberty of conscience, a way ofbinding conscience with the words ofmen rather than the yoke of Christ.


standing, also in the surroundingsociety.

Whitefield complicated theexisting tension between thosePresbyterians who favored sub-scription and those who did not.Three specific issues emergedduring the years between 1739and 1741 and each of them hadto do not with the gospel and itsdenial or the personal holinessof Presbyterian ministers—assome attempted to interpret it.Instead, all three concerned thenature and authority of theChristian ministry.

The first issue that White-field’s revivals brought to a headwas the question of itinerancy.Whitefield perfected the practiceof itinerant preaching, that is, oftraveling from city to village,speaking to crowds of believersand the unchurched whether in-side church buildings or outsidein the market square or in theriver-side pasture. But itineran-cy had been an issue before hisarrival. The specific conflictstemmed from pastors, like Gil-bert Tennent, who went into acommunity and began to preachwithout the invitation of the lo-cal pastor. Revivalists felt justi-fied in so doing because soulswere at stake. Established pas-tors, however, rightly consideredsuch occasions of preaching as arebuke to their own ministry.After all, if a church were al-ready in place with a duly or-dained minister, why were therevivalists necessary?

A second issue, much relatedto Gilbert Tennent, concernedthe proper training of pastors.William Tennent, Sr., with sup-

port from his sons, in 1735 hadfounded the Log College justnorth of Philadelphia, as a“school of the prophets.” Notonly was the Log College a fore-runner of the American Protes-tant seminary, but it alsoschooled its students in themarks of revivalistic Presbyteri-anism. Many of the pastors inPhiladelphia and southeasternPennsylvania, who were Scottishor Scotch-Irish, had trained atScottish universities. Accord-ingly, they put a premium on Eu-ropean educational standards.For some opposed to revivals,the issue of theological educa-tion was a smokescreen since itgave conservatives a way of op-posing the Log Collegemenwithout addressing the isue of re-vivalism itself. Still, the LogCollege raised important ques-tions about the proper theologi-cal education for ordination.

Here the second issue, theo-logical education, merged withthe third, qualifications for ordi-nation. The pro-revivalist partyin the church (led by the Ten-nents) insisted that candidatesfor ordination give evidence of aconversion experience. Presby-terian conservatives, such asJohn Thomson, the author of TheGovernment of the Church ofChrist (1741), disagreed andargued that presbyteries couldwell dispense with such personalquestions since licentiates werecoming before presbytery aschurch members. Instead, whatchurch officers needed to consid-er during ordination exams washow well trained were candi-dates for the ministry. Log Col-

lege graduates were suspect fromthe conservatives point of viewbecause those who studied withthe Tennents were betterschooled in the ways of experi-mental religion than in Calvinistdogma. Related to this debatewas the older one about sub-scription. Those who took asofter view of subscription tend-ed to stress the need for minis-ters to give evidence of a person-al religious experience. Thosewho thought the creeds gave thechurch proper boundaries want-ed to hear candidates under-standing of theology, not theirpersonal testimonies.

In 1740 these matters came toa head when Gilbert Tennentpreached the controversial ser-mon, “The Danger of An Uncon-verted Ministry.” He not onlyaccused those who were criticalof revivals of being unconvert-ed—a group that included thosewho had plausible scruples aboutitinerancy, the Log College andthe necessity of ministerial can-didates to relate a conversion ex-perience. Tennent also encour-aged church members to flee thecongregations of such anti-revival ministers and find safeecclesiastical havens. Thomsonshot back by asserting that min-isters and presbyteries had legiti-mate authority, delegated byChrist, to execute the Christianministry. What Tennent and oth-er pro-revival Presbyterians wereguilty of, then, was no less thanusurping Christ’s authority by ei-ther refusing to submit to the judg-ments of presbytery or synod, orby telling church members to re-sist the ministrations of their own

TURNING POINTS IN AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM - PART III


standing of revivals and the pietyfostered by them. It stated thatcandidates for the ministry wouldhave to demonstrate an “experi-mental acquaintance” with thegospel in addition to having therequisite learning. The plan alsodeclared that the Great Awaken-ing was “a blessed work of God’sHoly Spirit,” an assertion very

much at issue at the time ofthe split.

The Reunion of 1758 wassignificant, then, for settlingthe identity of American Pres-byterianism. Two versionshad vied with each other dur-ing the colonial period, oneshaped by pietism (NewSide), the other content withold world forms of creed andpolity (Old Side). The Plan

of Reunion, to be sure, represent-ed a compromise between thetwo sides, trying to affirm both.But as the subsequent history ofAmerican Presbyterianism wouldreveal, the combination of pie-tism and confessionalism is anunstable compound.

pastors. Thomson wrote, “theRelation between a Minister ofthe Gospel and his Flock, yeaand every Person belonging to it,[is] a sacred and religious tie.”As such, revivalism represented a“new-fangle Method of Relig-ion.”

With fighting words likethese, a split was inevitable. InMay of 1741, in a movethat foreshadowed the ac-tion of the Old School Pres-byterians a century later,the Old Side declared thatthe Presbytery of NewBrunswick, the judicatoryestablished as a releasevalve for Log College grad-uates, was no longer part ofthe Synod of Philadelphia.And with that decision, theOld Side and New Side Presby-terians would remain separateuntil 1758, with the former beingstrongest among the recentScotch-Irish settlers in the Sus-quehanna and Shenandoah rivervalleys and in parts of the Phila-delphia region, the latter prosper-

ing in upper New Jersey and theNew York city area.

Like so many splits in the his-tory of the church, part of whataccounted for the reunion of1758 was a change of personali-ties. Some of the old antagonistsdied, others like Gilbert Tennent,apologized for their youthful ob-streperousness. Even so, the re-

union was generally a victory forthe New Side. Although theterms affirmed the Old Side’sconcerns about subscription andthe legitimate authority of churchofficers and judicatories, the planof reunion overwhelmingly af-firmed the New Side’s under-

TURNING POINTS IN AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM - PART III

John Muether teaches Church History at the Orlando Campus

of the Reformed Theological Seminary. Darryl Hart is now the

Director for the Honors Programs and Faculty Development at

the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Delaware.

Both are also Ruling Elders in the Orthodox Presbyterian

Church.

Although the terms affirmed theOld Side’s concerns about sub-scription and the legitimate au-thority of church officers and ju-dicatories, the plan of reunionoverwhelmingly affirmed the NewSide’s understanding of revivalsand the piety fostered by them.


What is a True Calvinist? byPhilip Graham Ryken, P&R,2003, 32pp. List price $3.50. Re-viewed by Sam Allison, pastor atCovenant Community OPC,Evansville, IN.

Ryken, the successor to JamesBoice at Tenth PresbyterianChurch, early in his booklet,quotes an Arminian critic of Cal-vinism who makes the claim thatCalvinism produces deadness andkills prayer, faith, zeal and holi-ness. Ryken uses this to sharpenthe issue: “What is a true Calvin-ist?” Admitting that some whoclaim to be Calvinists have beennarrow minded, proud and unkind,he states that the true Calvinist ismuch more like Isaiah or theApostle Paul, full of love, faithand hope. The author uses Isaiahas his example to show that thetrue Calvinist is a miserable sinnerwho has seen the majestic andholy glory of God that pervades allthe creation and who now seeks tolive for God’s glory. Ryken givesa profile of the true Calvinist un-der six topics: • (1) a God-centered mind, 4pp., • (2) a penitent spirit, 3pp., • (3) a grateful heart, 2pp., • (4) a submissive will, 5pp., • (5) a holy life, 5pp., and • (6) a glorious purpose, 3pp. All but the last topic are developedby beginning with the man Isaiahand opening up another facet ofthe teaching in Isaiah 6. Rykencredits Al Martin for namingIsaiah 6 as the “historical accountof how God ‘makes a Calvinist.’”

The five points of Calvinismare listed four times in the booklet:pp 5, 6, 17, and 22-25. Three ofthese are each a one- or two- sen-tence summary of TULIP. Under

“a holy life”, pp 22-25, Ryken re-lates each of these five points toholiness. This is excellent.

Calvinism might be set forthby expounding TULIP, or by start-ing with the most abundantly testi-fied fact in the New Testament,which is the substitution of Christin the place of the sinner, and iden-tify Calvinists as those whouniquely refuse to compromisethat fact. Or Calvinism might beset forth by selecting a set of threeconcepts (Reformed worship, Re-formed Church Government andReformed Doctrine) and giving thenecessary doctrinal Bible texts, orCalvinism might be set forth by in-troducing its major teachers andorganizations from church history.Ryken does none of these; he de-velops everything out of Isaiah 6and further opens the topic or an-swers stock objections from manyportions of the New Testament.

If you want a booklet to handout when the Mennonites or fol-lowers of John Wesley have sched-uled their Anti-Calvinism lectures,I recommend this one. If you havepeople who are totally unfamiliarwith the particular atonement andunconditional election, this is oneof your better choices of readingmaterial for them. If you need tocounter a carnal and prideful atti-tude in some of the young people,or others in the church, this will beone of your best choices of litera-ture. If you want to set forth didac-tically the TULIP doctrine, thisbooklet will not do the task direct-ly.

Overall this is a gracious, well-written, well-edited booklet pub-lished in fine style by P&R. Ifound no printing errors.

The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, byLewis Bevens Schenck. Publishedby P&R, 2003. Paperback 208pages. List price $15.99. Re-viewed by the Rev. Mike Ericson,Pastor of the Presbyterian Re-formed Church in Johnston, Iowa.

Schenck’s basic thesis is thathistoric Reformed theology and itscreeds are clearly presumptionis-tic, with the vast majority holdingto the presumptive regeneration ofchildren in the visible church.This, in his view, is what justifiesand explains infant baptism. Therelationship between presumptiveregeneration and infant baptism isrevealed in the original subtitle ofthe work: An Historical Study ofthe Significance of Infant Baptismin the Presbyterian Church inAmerica. As Schenk conceives ourtradition children are baptized be-cause they are presumed to be re-generate members of Christ’sbody, the church. Schenk’s con-cern is that a low view of the spiri-tual condition of children in thecovenant community has resultedin a lack of nurture and improperunderstanding of education.

To substantiate his thesisSchenk brings before the readerwhat he believes to be an accuratehistory of Reformed and Presby-terian teaching and creeds on thesubject. He seeks to show that thehistorical majority view has beenthat children born in the visiblechurch are already believed to beregenerate, or at least presumed tobe such. He doesn’t significantlydifferentiate this from the view ofpresumptive election—whichholds that children may or may notbe regenerate from the womb, butare presumed to be among the

BOOK REVIEWS


elect who will one day be regener-ated and come to faith in Christ.The main point is that childrenhave been considered as possess-ing vital life in union with Christuntil they prove otherwise. In otherwords, children are presumed re-generate until they give evidenceto the contrary. He spends no timeon any possible evidence to thecontrary.

When the historic doctrine ofpresumptive regeneration as thebasis of baptism is lost, accordingto Schenk, one is left with a coldformalism or a heated fanaticismof subjectivism. This he sees ascoming to play in the 18th and19th century revivals in America,which presentation takes up a sig-nificant portion of the work. Theinfluence of the revival paradigmgave rise to revivalism and thepopular notions of conversions asalways being of a crisis nature,with everyone going through sucha crisis. The pains and torments ofsome persons’ consciences havebeen held up by the revivalists asthe norm for everyone else.

If one were to read Schenk’swork and implicitly receive hispresentation of history and doc-trine it would lead to serious prob-lems. The reader is cautioned,therefore, on several counts. First,it is not the case that historic Re-formed and Presbyterian churcheshave been presumptionistic. TheSecond Helvetic Confession(1566), for example, XIX:11, ofthe Word and the sacraments,states that “the unbelievers receivenot the things which are offered.”The Westminster Confession ofFaith, likewise, speaks about thegrace signified in baptism “to suchas that grace belongeth unto ... in

His appointed time” (28:6). All thegreat creeds agree that only theelect, through faith, receive what issignified in the sacraments, andthat not all in the visible churchare of—or presumed to be of—theelect.

Classic Reformed and Presby-terian theology has always strong-ly maintained the distinction be-tween the visible and the invisibleaspects of the church. This is notto deny that some in the camphave held varying views includingthe element of presumption, but topresent it as the majority view is toignore a vast wealth of theologicalwriting to the contrary. Schenckconsistently argues from what the-ologians have said may be the casein some infants to what is the case,or presumed to be the case, withall infants.

A second serious concern isSchenk’s development of a falsedilemma between revivalism andformalism, with his view of pre-sumptionism as the only alterna-tive historically. To be sure, thereare those extremes. It is also truethat revivalism has had a majornegative impact in some regards.This, however, is not Schenk’smain point. His main point is toseek to show, in a scholarly man-ner, that there has been no alterna-tive to presumptionism in themainstream of the Presbyterianand Reformed tradition. He clearlyreveals that he assumes his ownthesis throughout and thereforedoes not bring to light much thatought to have modified his theo-logical viewpoint. This is illustrat-ed by the fact that, in his treatmentof the subject, Schenck quotesnearly every Princetonian, except,as far as I can tell, one particular

writing that deals directly with hissubject. That book is Archibald Al-exander’s Thoughts on ReligiousExperience, which is a masterpiecethat details the varying aspects anddegrees of the work of God uponthe soul in conversion.

While there are abuses on everyside, there has been a portion ofthe church that has held on to theclear, biblical teaching on the sub-ject, such as espoused by thosedoctors of the soul, the Puritans,Alexander, and many others. Thisseems to be lost to Schenk. It sim-ply is not true that the revivalisticnotion of conversion became thecenter of Old School Presbyterian-ism or any other orthodox branch.

There is another alternative and

that is experimental religion,which brings us to our third con-cern. While Schenck speaks ofnurture, historic Calvinism hasspoken of bringing the gospel toour children. Experimental religionis the practical application of thedoctrines of sacred Scripture toparticular individuals by the HolySpirit in vital union with Christ. Itinvolves testing fruits, in theirlives, by the Word of God to seeevidence that they are in the faithand walking accordingly. It ismaking our calling and electionsure, relying on the grace of Godin Christ alone, by faith alone, towork His mighty work of salvationin us (2 Pet 1:5-11).

The Puritans, Reformed, andPresbyterian writers were zealousfor a head and heart religion—fora faith that was objectivelygrounded and also experienced bythe subject of election. If someoneis already presumed to be regener-ate then what is needed is to nur-

BOOK REVIEWS


ture and help to grow what isthere. This covenantal nurture, inSchenck’s view, is a sufficient in-strumental condition of the cove-nant. Faithful parents will have be-lieving children. Rather thanholding forth the gospel, lookingfor its sprouting, then aiding intesting by the Word to see and beassured of saving faith—or con-vinced of the contrary by a lack ofsuch evidence—presumption leadsto a practical loss of gospel appli-cation to the heart and soul.Schenk’s work, I fear, leads in thatdirection.

Preaching Christ, by Charles P.McIlvaine. Published by Banner ofTruth, 2003. Paper, 86 pages, listprice $6.99. Reviewed by LarryWilson.

Charles McIlvaine (1799-1873)was converted in a revival whichtook place during his studies atPrinceton College. He entered theministry of the Episcopal Church.He served as a chaplain to the Sen-ate and to the West Point MilitaryAcademy (where God used himmightily among the cadets), and aspastor of St. Ann’s Church, Brook-lyn, New York. In 1832, he wasmade Bishop of Ohio. This bookconsists of what was originally acharge to the clergy of the Dioceseof Ohio at their annual conventionin Akron, Ohio in June 1863 andpublished shortly later in NewYork.

On the front cover, this book issubtitled The Heart of Gospel Min-istry. Inside, it is subtitled An Ad-dress to Those Entering the Chris-tian Ministry. Both subtitles areaccurate. Evidently believing thathis ministry was drawing to aclose, McIlvaine addressed the one

issue that he deemed most crucialto press home to other ministers:“What is embraced in the work ofpreaching Christ according to themind of the Spirit, as exhibited inthe teaching of his Word, and inthe practice of his Apostles?” (p.3).

This is one address, but thepublishers have helpfully dividedit into five chapters: (1) How didthe apostles preach Christ?; (2)How some fail in preaching Christ;(3) What is it to preach Christ?; (4)Truths connected with preachingChrist; (5) Qualifications forpreaching Christ. To give an exam-ple, and to reinforce the theme ofthe book, the publishers includedas an appendix the first sermonthat Charles H. Spurgeon preachedin the newly-opened MetropolitanTabernacle, London, in 1861—asermon on Acts 5:42 (“And dailyin the temple, and in every house,they ceased not to teach andpreach Jesus Christ”).

How we ministers and men in-tending the ministry need to hearand heed McIlvaine’s exhortationin our day. Just listen to Christianradio. With a few notable excep-tions, some of the most articulate,oratorically gifted, and even doc-trinally orthodox preachers, in thename of “relevance,” do every-thing that McIlvaine warns againstin chapter two, “How some fail inpreaching Christ.” Nor are ourOPC pulpits exempt from thesefailures. “Sometimes,” McIlvaineexhorts, “it seems as if the preach-er could preach just as he does ifChrist and his work were a mereincident in religion, a name, andlittle more—answering now andthen as a convenience to a sen-tence introduced occasionally, be-

cause, under some texts, it is noteasily avoided, but never as theroot and foundation out of whichour whole ministry proceeds. Butwhat awful condemnation to bethus essentially defective at thevery heart of the great work com-mitted to us! Nothing can in theleast atone for it. You might aswell attempt to turn night into dayby lighting a candle as a substitutefor the sun.” Do we who arepreachers preach Christ “as theroot and foundation out of whichour whole ministry proceeds”?

Unhappily, for the most part,we cannot trust that our seminariesare adequately preparing men topreach Christ from the wholeBible. They didn’t when I was astudent, and they aren’t today. Norshould we expect them to. Timo-thy was mentored by the ApostlePaul himself. If he needed to heedthe exhortation—“Until I come,devote yourself to the publicreaching of Scripture, to exhorta-tion, to teaching.... Practice thesethings, devote yourself to them, sothat all may see your progress” (1Tim. 3:13-15)—how much moredo we need to! Every ministermust seek opportunities to contin-ue to learn and to grow and tomake progress. Every sessionshould see it as its duty to enableand encourage their pastor to“sharpen the saw”—as part of hisresponsibilities and not as part ofhis family time.

It seems that we should prepareand proclaim our sermons withtwo mandates equally in mind:“preach God’s Word” and “preachChrist.” On the one hand, what weproclaim should be the Word ofGod and not the wisdom of man.The people in the pew should be

BOOK REVIEWS


able to see our emphases as theyfollow along in their own Bibles.At the same time, the subject ofthe whole Bible is Jesus Christ(Lk. 24:27; Jn. 5:39). Believers, aswell as unbelievers, desperatelyneed the gospel. And so, everysermon must preach Christ—andnot as a “Jesus ex machina” artifi-cially inserted into the sermonwith no real relation to the text,but as a natural explanation andapplication of the text. To do so,we need to muster every resourcethat exegesis and biblical theologyand systematic theology andchurch dogmatics and Christianethics can give us. (This is why Ifind 1 Timothy 3:15 to be so en-couraging. To be a faithful minis-ter, one need not “have it all to-gether.” He can and should makecontinual progress.)

But preaching Christ is not justa matter of learned knowledge andskills, McIlvaine urges; it is aboveall a spiritual matter. Every part ofour ministry must be done in des-perate dependence upon the gra-cious working of the Holy Spirit.Accordingly, a faithful ministrywill be marked by at least twothings. A minister first needs a vi-tal faith. “I mean faith, not merelyin such of its exercises as makethe minister a living Christian,and a growing, vigorous Chris-tian, but in that special exercisewhich enables him to go on pa-tiently, persistently, hopefully, im-movably, preaching the gospel aswe have seen the Apostlespreached it, in like simplicity andspirituality—with as little of thedevices and mixtures and dilu-tions and subterfuges of man’swisdom, no matter what the obsta-cles or what the apparent fruitless-ness—believing it is God’s own

way, to which alone his blessing ispromised, and, which he will blessas his own ‘wisdom and powerunto salvation’” (p. 58). Second,faithful ministry will be markedby “a very earnest, tender, andovercoming love” (p. 63). “Hewill preach best who loves most”(p. 64).

Preaching Christ is a welcomeexhortation. It is as timely for the21st century as it was for the 19th.It is not so much a book whichteaches new doctrine that we havenever learned. It’s rather onewhich takes the heart of the matterand addresses it to our hearts. Itdoesn’t take long to read in itself,but if one reads it correctly, hewill frequently pause for prayer. Itcould be excellent devotionalreading; a pastor would do well toreview once each year. Highly rec-ommended for ministers (who arecalled to preach Christ), for menintending the ministry, and for eld-ers (who are responsible to over-see our pulpits and to guard thesheep).

On Being Black and Reformed—A New Perspective on the African-American Christian Experience,by Anthony J. Carter. Publishedby P&R. 2003. Paperback. 154pages, list price $9.99. Reviewedby the Editor.

I still have a vivid memory ofthe shock I received—as a youngsoldier stationed in Georgia duringWorld War II—when I first sawour American version of Apar-theit. It has helped me to under-stand the depth of pain still felt byblack people in our country. It istherefore, for me, a wonderfulthing to read a book such as this.The fact that this book was written

by a man who feels deeply the in-justice of the slavery his ancestorsexperienced makes all the morepowerful his clear affirmation ofthe great classic doctrines of theReformed Faith.

The Reformed faith is Biblical,Historical and Experimental andtherefore “in no way… limited toany cultural expression and raceof people. In fact” says Carter,“the Reformation will only becomplete once the elect from eve-ry tongue, tribe, and nation haveembraced these truths” (p. 103).

The book includes an appendixentitled “Limping toward Recon-ciliaiton.” It contains statementsmade by three Christian denomi-nations dealing with the sin of ra-cism (the Assemblies of God, theSouthern Baptist Convention andthe Presbyterian Church in Ameri-ca). These certainly have their val-ue. But, as the author says, “thedisconnect that exists betweenblack Christians and white Chris-tians in America can be traced toour lack of understanding of thehistorical commonality that existsbetween these two groups. In or-der to bridge this divide, blacksmust study the history of thechurch and see howtheir beliefsare rooted in the historical truthsof the faith. Also, whites muststudy the history of the church,particularly as it has been devel-oped among African Americans,to see just how similarly God hasworked in the midst of bothgroups to bring out the truths wehold so dear… the historical truthshanded down through the churchby the Holy Spirit.” (p 120).

This book is a worthy contribu-tion to this much needed goal.

BOOK REVIEWS

The Puritan Bookshelf, and TheReformation Bookshelf, a largecollection of antique books onCDs created by Stillwaters Revi-val Books. Price: $650 for TheReformation Bookshelf, withwhich The Puritan Bookshelf isadded free. We understand that thepurchase can also be made by timepayment. Reviewed by the Editor.

A few weeks ago I received afull set of these—sixty-two CDs inall—from the Stillwaters RevivalBooks company in Edmonton, Al-berta, Canada. I did not order themand it was not my intention to doso because I cannot in good con-science support a work that seemsto me to have so little good to sayabout churches outside their ownimmediate fellowship.

Yet serious as this issue is to me,it does not prevent me from sayingthat this set of CDs contains somevery rare material—from many out-of-print volumes—not readilyavailable anywhere else, some ofwhich is quite valuable. The materi-al is recorded on the CDs in AdobePDF files. When you open themyou are presented with a digital pic-ture of book’s pages. Most of theseare quite readable, showing thepainstaking effort that has beenmade to produce these CDs. But atthe same time it must be said thatsome are difficult to read (just asthey would also be if you had the

original book, from which thesewere made, in your hands).

Thirty-two of these CDs are en-titled The Puritan Bookshelf. Theother set of thirty are entitled TheReformation Bookshelf. And justabout everything you can think offrom the great Puritan and Presby-terian divines of the past can befound in these CDs somewhere.But that is just the problem. Forthese to be of much use to a busypastor a unified and complete in-dex would have to be provided. Iwas told by Reg Barrow—ofSWRB—that just such an index iscurrently being prepared. If such acomplete and well-organized indexactually does become available,this library could be a very usefultool for anyone interested in thegreat Puritan and Presbyterianwriters of the past. But unless anduntil a good index is available I'mafraid this set would not be ofmuch practical value.

At present there is no way toknow, in any convenient way,what is on a given CD. To find outwhat is on a CD you just have toopen it up and see for yourself.One could, of course, laboriouslygo through the sixty-two CDs andmake one's own index. But thiswould certainly be a very time-consuming task. There is somerather vague indication of the con-tents of each CD in the form of a

short description of subject matteron the end of the CD case. There isalso a list of the authors printed onthe CD itself. But I did not find ei-ther of these two rather crypticsources sufficient to facilitate prac-tical usage. In my opinion the priceis much too high until there is atleast an index of this sort.

It should also be mentioned that

there is a considerable volume ofmaterial on these CDs, sandwichedin between the older works of greatvalue. This material, which isfound on most (if not all) of theseCDs, comes from the pastor of theEdmonton Church, from Mr. RegBarrow and others who belong tothe denomination known as the Re-formed Presbytery of North Ameri-ca (RPNA). Because of their se-verely negative attitude towardvirtually all other Reformed andPresbyterian churches, the inclu-sion of a large amount of materialreflecting this point of view reduc-es the value of these two CD setsconsiderably.

There is certainly some finegold to be mined in this amazingcompilation, no doubt about that.But there is no easy way to locateexactly where to find it. This beingthe case I cannot recommend buy-ing this collection—at this price($650 USD)—unless, and until,the promised index of the wholecollection is made available.

A REVIEW OF TWO BOOK COLLECTIONS ON COMPACT DISKS

Ordained Servant Periodicals5645 73rd St. SWCarson, ND 58529

Address Service Requested

vol. 13, no. 1 ordained servant

Documents