Monday, December 24, 2012

Our Dear Saviour's Birth!!!

The Holy Gospel Of Jesus Christ, According To Luke

Luke 2, verses 1-52

Geneva Bible

 
 
 
Augustus Caesar taxeth all the world. 7 Christ is born. 13 The Angels` Song. 21 Christ is circumcised. 22 Mary purified. 28 Simeon taketh Christ in his arms. 29 His Song. 36 Anna the Prophetess. 40 The child Christ. 36 Jesus disputeth with the doctors.
 
01 And it came to pass in those days, that there came a decree from Augustus Caesar, that all the world should be taxed. 02 (This first taxing was made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 03 Therefore went all to be taxed, every man to his own city. 04 And Joseph also went up from Galilee out of a city called Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David,) 05 To be taxed with Mary that was given him to wife, which was with child. 06 ¶And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 07 And she brought forth her first begotten son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a cratch, because there was no room for them in the inn. 08 ¶And there were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock. 09 And lo, the Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone about them, and they were sore afraid. 10 Then the Angel said unto them, Be not afraid: for behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people, 11 That is, that unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign to you, Ye shall find the babe swaddled, and laid in a cratch. 13 And straightway there was with the Angel a multitude of heavenly soldiers, praising God, and saying, 14 Glory be to God in the high heavens, and peace in earth, and toward men good will. 15 And it came to pass when the Angels were gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said one to another, Let us go then unto Bethlehem, and see this thing that is come to pass, which the Lord hath showed unto us. 16 So they came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph and the babe laid in the cratch. 17 And when they had seen it, they published abroad the thing that was told them of that child. 18 And all that heard it, wondered at the things which were told them of the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all those sayings, and pondered them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God, for all that they had heard and seen, as it was spoken unto them. 21 ¶And when the eight days were accomplished, that they should circumcise the child, his name was then called Jesus, which was named of the Angel, before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification, after the Law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, 23 (As it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every man child that first openeth the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord,) 24 And to give an oblation, as it is commanded in the Law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon: this man was just, and feared God, and waited for the consolation of Israel, and the holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was declared to him from God by the holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen that Anointed of the Lord.
27 And he came by the motion of the spirit into the Temple, and when the parents brought in the babe Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the Law, 28 Then he took him in his arms, and praised God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word, 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, 32 A light to be revealed to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Appalachia: The "final" frontier

Bold, hearty and pious. This is the typical description of those hale and hearty Scotch and Scotch-Irish who settled in Apaalachia. Their general deference to Protestant William of Orange (above) is where the term "hillbilly" is believed by many to have originated.

Among the joys I have been blessed to savor in my worship life, one of the more eclectic actually takes place prior to it. There is no landscape on Earth, as far as I'm concerned, as captivating as the Autumn foliage in western Pennsylvania. I know I speak for untold millions in expressing my adoration for it. Settling centuries ago in those hills; some being perhaps unwittingly catalytical in the forging of a new nation. Others would boldly exude the vigilance to this end;either in the temporal or ecclesiastical vein, as the elect are called to do. Brings to my mind people like Lazarus Stewart from the Paxton Boys, who railed for parity in the then Quaker dominated commonwealth. Or Elder Hugh Wylie of Washington,Pennsylvania , who was expelled from the Presbyterian Church in 1809 for sorting mail on the Sabbath!


A rich heritage! Indeed, a most hale and hearty bequest that could only have been the result of Divine favor! Have we always been good stewards of that bequest? Or does the debacle of Presbyterian mission in the 18th and 19th centuries serve as a regrettable blueprint/ harbinger of the tendency of some of our most illuminated and academically inclined to misguage and confuse the methods with the objectives? The latter goes the distance in explaining why our faith is nowhere near as prevalent as it should be in our region.

Braving a relentless barrage of inclimate conditions, sleep deprivation and hostile Indians, itinerant Methodist circuit riders  spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Appalachia. If you believed in the Word of God and knew the mechanics of Scripture, horsemanship and the use of a firearm, you pretty much met the Methodist criteria for mission.

One of the more celebrated of the itinerant riders was a  Methodist cleric named James "Gip" Hardin. Rev Hardin travesed much of the Lone Star state; finally settling in Trinity County, Texas. He would establish a school there in honor of the mortal catalyst in the founding of Methodism, John Wesley.
It's sad that the man's son would become even more well known as the murderous outlaw that once killed a man for snoring.

The Baptist and Methodist traditions thrived in Appalachia due in part to their more practical approach to witness. I admit to a measured envy of their pragmatism.Presbyterians on the other hand were so engrossed in making certain a defender of the Gospel had his accreditative ducks in a row that we missed many a boat- in terms of timely and consistent witness for Christ; who is the SOLE author of all legitimate academia.

 We as Presbyterians pride ourselves on the scholasticism inherent in our walk with God. Consequently, we tend to blur the line between method and objective. I'm not saying we abandon Hosea 4:6. What I'm saying is we should bear Daniel 12:10 in mind a bit more consistently. I praise God that more and more light is being shed to on this and many have been led to a resolve not to perpetuate the near- debacle of centuries past!

Hats off the the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for its extensive grassroots work here at home! The enshrinement of pluralistic thinking has left no less an uncatechised vaccuum than that which exists in the former Soviet block.
 
 
 









Friday, September 21, 2012

Musical instruments, Biblical authority and liturgical integrity




This principle is deducible by logical inference from the great truth—confessed by
Protestants—that the Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith and practice, and therefore
supreme, perfect and sufficient for all the needs of the Church. "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
This truth operates positively to the inclusion of everything in the doctrine, government and
worship of the church which is commanded, explicitly or implicitly, in the Scriptures, and
negatively to the exclusion of everything which is not so commanded



There is no nobler pass than being allowed by the Father to delve in a manner more comprehensive than ever before, into His Word! Nothing is more ennobling than being led by His Providence to the point of conjecture which both causes us to more deeply respect the doctrine and fellowship of other defenders of the true Reformed faith and challenges us to re-examine our own. For the first time in many years, my faith has been challenged to the point of posing the question: "How well do I really serve Christ?" Finally, it reaffirms the gravity of God's Covenant with the elect; as we well know that all are not granted the mercy of this unmerited portion!!!!
To this end,there remains much in the vein of spirited discourse in the Reformed circles concerning what is and is not appropriate for worship. In the previous article, I gave reflections regarding hymnody in worship. I would feel derelict not to address the issue of the use of instruments.
Pictured above is the Rev Dr John Girardeau, a great champion of Old School Presbyterianism in the southern United States. This revered South Carolinian of French Huguenot blood served as GA Moderator in 1874. In the American South, his presuppositionalism is ranked with this great champion:
Robert Louis Dabney; who was a pastor, professor of systematic theology  and became the tenth GA Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1870.
Their soteriology was and remains a standard bearer for those truly Reformed and committed to the preservation of classical Reformed worship and doctrine! They championed the Regulative Principle of Worship ;which is considered compromised if the use of musical instruments is permitted in public worship.
The argument is that the use of instruments in the New Testament is simply not there and that  their use was permissible by God during the Old Testament as part of the Old Dispensation. Foreordained mortal vessels like Dabney, Thornwell and John Girardeau ( GA Moderator,1975) held that the ceremonial laws which applied to the Levites in the Temple of Jerusalem are tantamount to idolatrous worship if and when applied to public worship under the New Dispensation.

I'd be the last person on earth to object to any impregnable resolve to rail against its tide of revisionism. I'd never directly or tacitly endorse any vestige of the godless pluralism and the kind of blatantly uncatechised yokelhood that has exceedingly debased and vulgarized our faith in the mainstream. But I pose the same question to this discussion that I posed in my previous article. Is the intent of tenacity geared more toward the preservation of classical Reformed worship or worship intertwined with cultural tradition? What becomes of worship in the event the culture or heritage which enjoyed historical plurality would begin to ebb? The latter can and has threatened soteriological maladroitness; which in turn has flagged laxity in doctrine and hermeneutics. The results of can prove disastrous for bodies politic, in general and have relegated once hale and hearty Protestant denominations to the course of a slow, agonizing and self inflicted death!!



                                                               ........need I say more?

Yet in the endeavor to maintain liturgical rectitude and doctrinal soundness, even the more prolific defenders of the Reformed faith have committing the following errors.These errors include, but are not limited to:

  • Appealing to folkways, aesthetic tastes and the traditions of men in assertions regarding what is appropriate for worship and what isn't.
  • Excessive succinctness in distinguishing the Old Dispensation from the New Dispensation. So much so that some of their platforms or arguments appear dispensational.
  •     Dissociating with prelatics with such a fervor that proper emphasis on the Presbyterian construct is obscured.
And supplanting the emphasis in church matters from where it belongs...on Christ her bridegroom!

Here's a good case in point. Rev James Henley Thornwell wrote in the Southern Presbyterian Review, a magazine he established-by the way, that mankind is partitioned in the following way:

 the true children of God, among whom alone exists the genuine communion of saints; (2) those whom we have ventured to call the heirs apparent of the kingdom, to whom pertain what Calvin calls the outward adoption, and a special interest in the promises of the covenant; (3) Strangers and aliens, who though not excluded from the general call of the Gospel, are destitute of any inheritance in Israel. This class is properly called the world.
Collected Writings, IV, 340; and "A Few More Words on the Revised Book of Discipline", Southern Presbyterian Review, 13.1 p. 5


Rev Thornwell clearly was so preoccupied in chiding the Halfway Covenant and its promulgators, he ran afoul of the soundly Reformed doctrine of "elect on the Father's Right Hand...the reprobate on the Father's Left hand". Isn't it more important to be on point with Christ than to prove you would have been at odds with Rev Solomon Stoddard and other proponents of latitudinarianism ?

Rev R L Dabney, Thornwell's contemporary, should have been struck by the urge to repudiate Thornwell for his rather reckless abridgement of Biblical and catechetical warrant, on this position. I've found nothing to this end. What I did find on Dabney was an otherwise prolific entreaties against the use of instruments in worship in Watchman and Observer; which was published on Feb 22,1849. Therein he includes this among his reasoning:




The organ is incapable of accentuation. The alternate notes played upon it cannot receive any variety of ictus or force, as should be the case in all music. The rhythm of English poetry depends entirely on the occurrence of accented and unaccented syllables, in a certain order. In reading it, the emphasis, or ictus of the voice must fall on the alternate syllables, intended to receive it. To neglect this rule, and to pronounce the syllables indiscriminately with equal force, would convert the most spirited lines of Scott or Burns, into an intolerable drawl. Now, this rhythm is equally essential in poetry, when sung. The alternate notes, corresponding with the accented syllables of the metre, must receive a heavier or stronger tone. To neglect this, in singing, is as insufferable to a cultivated musical ear, as the neglect of the accentuation in reading poetry, would be to the elocutionists.
 Are we defending the Biblical positions regarding true Reformed worship or the rhythm of English poetry? Was the urge or notion to include this as part of the litany of redress of instruments in worship grounded in the Westminster standards or the quinquarticular considerations outlined in the Synod of Dordrecht? Is it not any less inappropriate to use the cadence of English poetry or literature as a gauge in determining the solvency of liturgy than Popish grandeur or that of the historic episcopate? Would the former be no less as brazen an attempt to cater to rhythmic tastes and/or linguistic/ aesthetic palates of the Anglophile who has yet to savor the fruit of effectual calling; which would render a particular style needless, in due course?

..............................Or is the Word of God the only gauge?

Again, I am no less mortally opposed to what Dabney and Girardeau termed "incipient ritualism" than they were. However I take umbrage with Girardeau's employment of the Biblical account of Cain's offering not being answered by fire. In his great work Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, he writes:




Cain and his offering. The brothers, Cain and Abel, had been in childhood beyond
all doubt instructed by their parents in the knowledge of the first promise of redemption to be
accomplished by atonement. They had, we have every reason to believe, often seen their father
offering animal sacrifices in the worship of God. To this mode of worship they had been
accustomed. Cain, the type of rationalists and fabricators of rites and ceremonies in the house
of the Lord, consulted his own wisdom and taste, and ventured to offer in God’s worship the
fruit of the ground—an un-bloody sacrifice; while Abel, conforming to the appointments and
prescribed usages in which he had been trained, expressed his faith and obedience by offering a
7
lamb. Abel’s worship was accepted and Cain’s rejected. "And in process of time it came to pass,
that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought
of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his
offering; but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect." Thus, in the immediate family of
Adam, we behold a signal and typical instance of self-assertion and disregard of divine
prescriptions in the matter of worship. This was swiftly followed by God’s disapprobation, and
then came the development of sin in the atrocious crime of fratricide, and the banishment of
the murderer from the communion of his family and the presence of his God



The issues I have with this analogy are these:

 I don't infer from that passage that Cain customarily brought firstlings of a lamb to the altar; only to do an about face and capriciously offer fruits of the ground as an alternative. More to the point, God's foreordaining Abel to have the gift of faith makes a lot more sense than the idea of the Father's wrath being conditional on His observation of Cain's disobedience! After all, if the latter were the case,it would mean God learned, now wouldn't it? To my mind,the account in Genesis Chapter 4 simply teaches us that God has provided the inclination as well as the means to serve Him (see Westminster Confession of Faith Ch 3, Article 6).

I find the analogy catechetically preposterous. Rev Girardeau was irresponsible in his abysmal failure to recognize what is a clear exercise in anthropomorphic license in the Word of God. Is Christ not the Sole Head of the Kirk Invisible? Or are we to infer that our behavior can directly cause the disapprobation of a God we know to be omniscient? Furthermore, the development of sin was when Eve willfully disobeyed the Divine injunction by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was at that point that man fell from his 'previous condition of rectitude'. It was when the fruit was eaten that man lost his free will and became totally depraved (as per the "T" in the acrostic T.U.L.I.P.!


First of all, rigorous defense of the faith is a call felt by God's elect. Indeed, we are to be ready to defend the faith at all times. That is, "in season and out of season" (as per 2 Timothy 4). In this vain, an indellible impression made by Professor Manfred George Gutzke was made on the mind of a young seminary student named Dennis James Kennedy.




The profanation of His kingdom on earth through the milieu of mainstream American Protestantism is the just result of the elect's unpreparedness in this vain! Yet, let us not be so quick be so quick to rail to the integrity of the Bride of Christ that we entertain precepts not unique to Reformed "biology" in the process. For instance, many understandably shy away from drawing such definitive lines between the Old Dispensation and the New Dispensation because of the dispensationalist tendencies such rigid clarity tacitly provokes. I humbly ask how one eternal decree of election can serve as an antecedent to some Covenantal multiplicity?????????

The answer's simple..it cannot and does not. Let the elect be reminded:


"The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" WCF XXVII sec V

Secondly, assuming the use of all manner of musical instruments is in keeping with sound doctrine, are we to consider that their use is objectively evil? I tend to disagree on the grounds that the Father would never decree or sanction the use of His trumpet to herald the return of Christ to claim the righteous ( as per 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Thirdly, the idea that animal sacrifice is to be categorized with the use of instruments fails to hold water, in my view. That rite was quenched when The Lamb was sacrificed on the cross. I believe it to be soteriologically unsound, to say the least, to lump the two practices. I base my belief on the words of Paul in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

Last-but not least-was it not Rev Dabney himself who described the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as "symbolic"?  He stood, very correctly-I would add, against both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Therefore we must consider that to wage war against ritualism and symbolism of all forms is to levy a de facto attack on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper itself!!??

Suprastantiation is what we believe in. That is to say, the Spirit of God transcends and parallels the plane of the liturgy and the Eucharist. Devoid of THIS caveat, we run the risk of elevating the sacrament to periculously idolatrous levels, if you really think about it.

From my vantage point, it seems as if the push for the preservation of cultural traditions, coupled with a stoic rejection of innumerable Biblical passages and an abysmally defective definition of what a "psalm" is form the basis for the defense of exclusive psalmody/ a capella worship.

 If our aim is to preserve our cultural traditions,more power to ya!!! My only bone of contention is that we should simply call it what it is....preservation of culture. It would certainly do more to maintain credulity than the employment of latently dispensational hermeneutics and dalliances with Arminianism in the defense of the Reformed tradition!

Until that gladsome morn when Christ Himself shall return to take His righteous chosen of the Father home...and at risk of being redundant....


Heralded by His Father's trumpet, the Bible says!!!









Friday, August 17, 2012

Exclusive Psalmody: A Reflection

To the western Pennsylvania foothills is where, by the mere grace of God, I have been led to respite following a sojourn through the apostate wilderness of mainstream Protestantism. My worship experience is indeed vital, ennobling and offers moral clarity and assurance through our Lord Jesus Christ. It has all the elements of that particular scholasticism, deliberately and consistently subordinate to the Scriptures, which has been the litmus for the Reformed faith since the early days of the Reformation. In such an environment, one may more perceptibly sense how, at times, academia has forged chasms of thought (scholastic/political/cultural) which have had a profound impact on doctrine and liturgy. I speak not of the type which has proven the bane of our faith in the mainstream.I'm referencing the "spoliation" in which those who truly believe in the Scriptures have been drawn to engage!


To this aim, I have been led to an issue thought mortally important to the liturgical vitality and continuity for those blessed with a genuine predilection to hold Christ alone as the sole way to salvation. This issue has rather appeared to transcend the words of John Knox, who made it clear what is appropriate for worship and what is not.In a rather (I'll call it "spirited") debate with a Romish priest, Knox said:
"It is not enough that man invents a ceremony and then gives it a signification, according to his pleasure. For so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles, and this day the ceremonies of Mohammed, be maintained. But if that anything proceeds from faith, it must have the word of God for the assurance. For you are not ignorant, that 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God'. Now, if you will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do please God, you must prove that God in expressed words has commanded them; or else you shall never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God; but that they are sin, and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' "


To this aim, are the songs of King David all we are supposed to sing in church or is there more in the vain of hymns that are not only acceptable,but vital? The gravity of the issue of exclusive psalmody is practically impossible to discern in the mainstream; as the culture of catechetical declension ecclipses it. Yet, among REAL adherents to the Reformed faith, it is more hotly contested than perhaps any other quinquarticular portion.

The great Van Tillian theologian John Frame says:

"In the 1950s the church carried out a study of exclusive psalmody at the General Assembly level but did not accept that position (despite its vigorous defense by Professor John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary), though some congregations in the denomination to this day sing only psalm versions in worship."


The Rev Dr J Gresham Machen loved hymns as well as psalms. He believed that just as much, if not more, regarding Reformed doctrine can be taught/reinforced to many in the Presbyterian laity than in depth studies of presuppositionalism. 


Why? The answer's obvious...Not all God's elect are going to be foreordained to scholastic inclinations! Let the elect never become unmindful that scholasticism is a reflection of the Father's grace, rather than an attractant for His grace! 

Frame,Machen, Steve F. Miller, Everett C. DeVelde, D James Kennedy, R C Sproul, Cornelius Van Til...the list is like a proverbial "who's who" of presuppositional powerhouses who are/were not exclusive psalmists. This applies even to Rev Jonathan Edwards! In his work " Some thoughts concerning the Present Review of Religion in New England", he wrote:  




“I am far from thinking that the book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church until the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God’s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of Scripture in our singing, than it does in our praying; we speak to God in both. And I can see no words, that we find in the Bible, in speaking to Him by way of praise, in metre, and with music than when we speak to Him in prose, by way of prayer and supplication. And it is really needful that we should have some other songs besides the Psalms of David. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Christian church should forever and even in times of her greatest light, in her praises of God and the Lamb, be confined only to the words of the Old Testament, wherein all the greatest and most glorious things of the gospel, that are infinitely the greatest subjects of her praise, are spoken of under a veil, and not so much as the name of our glorious Redeemer ever mentioned, but in some dark figure, or as hid under the name of some type. And as to our making use of the words of others, and not those that are conceived by ourselves, it is no more than we do in all our public prayers; the whole worshipping assembly, excepting one only, makes use of the words that are conceived by him who speaks for the rest.”




The Orthodox Presbyterian Church never directly mandated exclusive psalmody in our worship. In point of fact the Trinity Hymnal is regarded as the standard in our churches. In our most recent General Assembly, the decision was reached to create a new hymnal in collaboration with the United Reformed Churches of North America. The URCNA is decidedly of Dutch "lineage", regarding the "Three Forms of Unity" as its preeminent catechetical "arsenal". For the uninitiated, these are the Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordrecht.

On the other hand, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has ties which are stronger yet with the direct descendants of the Covenanters:
The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America


The RPCNA holds fast and dear to its Scottish roots (which I love, being partly of Scottish extraction,myself). This whole situation begs a few questions, in my mind. First off, could the federationism between the OPC and the URCNA in this particular outing threaten to exacerbate the subtle divide between the English/Scottish and Dutch within the OPC ? Secondly, could the publication of this new hymnal threaten the ties we have with those of Covenanter heritage? 

.....And finally, is this debate so adorned with cultural and historical implications that the debate itself becomes "extra-Biblical" ? In other words, are we defending a cultural tradition more than a Biblical one in this matter?


The "cultural/historical" argument carries precious little weight, by itself.  After all, even the Genevan Psalter has hymns and canticles!


Lord knows I neither can speak for every "luminary" in our faith, nor am I empowered to extinguish whatever fires have been/ may be set by federated/ ecumenical undertakings. What I can do is explain why, as much as I love my Anglo/Scottish heritage, I am not an exclusive psalmist.

Let the elect be reminded in the Westminster Confession of Faith 21:1
The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.


 I take this to mean all of the Scriptures,not just the psalms,for one thing. Secondly, Psalm 150:3-5 says:
3. Praise ye Him in the sound of the trumpet: praise ye Him upon the viol and the harp. 4. Praise ye Him with the timbrel and flute: praise ye Him with virginals and organs. 5. Praise ye Him with sounding cymbals : praise ye Him with high sounding cymbals.
That's right in the Psalms, themselves. What about 2 Chronicles 5:13? And 1 Chronicles 13:8? Should we consider the hymns sung in Luke Chapters 1 and 2; as well as those in Revelation 4 and 5?


While I'm at it, the argument that hymns could tacitly flag the kind of soteriological malaise that has ransacked many fundamental quarters doesn't fly, either. I take umbrage with that idea on two grounds. First of all, the Machen influence in much of the PCA is still very discernable, to my view. Secondly, many of the hymns which are in the Trinity hymnal are centuries old; rendering their authors blameless for the brazen Scriptural dismissiveness that has envenomated our faith in the mainstream.

I'd like to close by saying how utterly refreshing this argument is. After countless engagements against factions whose apparent aim was to nullify the Word of God, it's indeed a privilege to have the opportunity to address an issue in which both sides cling fervently to the belief that the Bible is the abiding rule!










Thursday, June 14, 2012

Just how effective is erudite speech?


Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Excerpt from Gen Washongton's Farewell Address 1796






The  question I used as a title for this article could open the proverbial Pandora's box of conjecture. Believe me, I've seen it all. From those who've respected erudite discourse to those who mock it in an attempt to conceal their fear of it. One thing that cannot be denied is the revisionist tendency to shun the perspectives of the Founding Fathers. Their intimate convictions regarding the role of faith in American government comprise the kryptonite of their vision of a soulless secularized model governed by the "Thought Oprichniki "! While perusing my files I ran across this essay I wrote for a class some years ago and I thought I'd share it......


  Almost since the very founding of our republic, the misnomer of a "separation between church and state" has definitively refined and, at times, trivialized the urgency of ethics and morality in government. In turn, revisionists will all but completely mock certain moral imperatives in government that were clearly engendered by Christianity. In point of fact, the two are actually inextricably linked. Due to the unfortunate enshrinement of this misnomer, certain plenary moral truths quite unique to the Judeo- Christian traditions are looked upon as not binding in governmental matters.

A scion of one of our republic’s most esteemed political families, whose ancestral bastion-incidentally- in Virginia was the site of the real first Thanksgiving, elucidated on the binding link between adherence to Christian truths and sound polity with these words:

“I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time.”

These remarks were delivered with the uttermost pious erudition as a portion of the inaugural address of Gen. William Henry Harrison, at his ascent to the US Presidency, on March 4, 1841. He believed, as does the writer of this essay, that the greatness and fruition of our nation lay warranted singularly on Divine favor and guidance. Hence, political, economic and military might are mere fruits of election and we are charged to be stewards of these gifts and beacons to the world, at large. In addition, it was the belief unanimously held by virtually all the founding families that there is a causal link between abridgements of God’s Law and all manner of national calamity!

To this end, in a manner befitting the progeny of a family of such venerated station, his grandson, the then future US President Benjamin Harrison, would expound on the context. Please note that these remarks were made while vacillating between a career in ministry or law; as yet a student on the campus of Miami of Ohio.

Strange as it may appear there are those who deem their Christian professions at variance with their civil duties, as if the church were the only institution of God’s own planting, the only sphere in which they are called to act, whose narrow minds can grasp but one class of duties and but poorly apprehend even those. Yet such is a prevailing notion among many Christians who glory in the shameful boast, “I’m no politician.” “I have nothing to do with politics.” Such should remember that civil society is no less an institution of God than the Church, that society can in no sense exist without government, and that man is the instrumentality appointed to administer this government. . . . The church, as a church, can take no part in the affairs of state but individual members of the church as embodying the only true morality and as members of civil society owe to that society of which they form an integral part certain duties for the neglect of which God will not hold them guiltless.”

Let me adjourn by saying, without equivocation, that this is the greatest, most forensically responsible elucidation of the proper context of morality and ethics- as applicable to civil government- I’ve ever heard. As an alternative to the apotheosizing of pluralism, the unanimity and clarity of purpose and vision for the nation more clearly resonated from the hallowed halls, chambers and corridors of government when the beliefs expounded on were more widely self-actualized by the bearers of civil magistracy. While not inclined to run the risk of exceeding the word limit for this assignment by speculating or measuring the degree of culpability for our nation’s domestic unrest due to its heterogeneity, it does appear that such discord corresponds with the descent of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant from his previous station of plurality. Sadly, it appears those of us of traditional thinking are left with only the memory of the bequests of spiritually hale and hearty stock such as the Harrisons, my distant kindred.



Calhoun, C. W. (2005). Benjamin Harrison. New York: Times.



New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961.

The inaugural addresses of the American Presidents : from Washington to Kennedy.
































Friday, June 8, 2012

From a Princeton great, the Rev Charles Hodge!

What is Meant by
Adopting the Westminster Confession?
(Princeton Review of 1867)


By Charles Hodge

Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Sacred Scriptures. There are three ways in which these words have been, and still are, interpreted. First, some understand them to mean that every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others say that they mean just what the words import. What is adopted is the "system of doctrine." The system of the Reformed Churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine; and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt. The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity and nothing more.
As to the first of these interpretations, it is enough to say— l. That it is not the meaning of the words. There are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian or Reformed system. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding. 2. Such a rule of interpretation can never be practically carried out, without dividing the Church into innumerable fragments. It is impossible that a body of several thousand ministers and elders should think alike on all the topics embraced in such an extended and minute formula of belief. 3. Such has never been the rule adopted in our Church. Individuals have held it, but the Church as a body never has. No prosecution for doctrinal error has ever been attempted or sanctioned, except for errors which were regarded as involving the rejection, not of explanations of doctrines, but of the doctrines themselves. For example, our Confession teaches the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is essential to the Reformed or Calvinistic system. Any man who denies that doctrine, thereby rejects the system taught in our Confession, and cannot with a good conscience say that he adopts it. Original sin, however, is one thing; the way in which it is accounted for, is another. The doctrine is, that such is the relation between Adam and his posterity, that all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, are born in a state of sin and condemnation. Any man who admits this, holds the doctrine. But there are at least three ways of accounting for this fact. The scriptural explanation as given in our Standards is, that "the covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression." The fact that mankind fell into that estate of sin and misery in which they are born, is accounted for on the principle of representation. Adam was constituted our head and representative, so that his sin is the judicial ground of our condemnation and of the consequent loss of the divine image, and of the state of spiritual death in which all men come into the world. This, as it is the scriptural, so it is the Church view of the subject. It is the view held in the Latin and the Lutheran, as well as in the Reformed Church, and therefore belongs to the Church catholic. Still it is not essential to the doctrine. Realists admit the doctrine, but, unsatisfied with the principle of representative responsibility, assume that humanity as a generic life acted and sinned in Adam; and, therefore, that his sin is the act, with its demerit and consequences, of every man in whom that generic life is individualized. Others, accepting neither of these solutions, assert that the fact of original sin (i.e., the sinfulness and condemnation of man at birth) is to be accounted for in the general law of propagation. Like begets like. Adam became sinful, and hence all his posterity are born in t state of sin, or with a sinful nature. Although these views are not equally scriptural, or equally in harmony with our Confession, nevertheless they leave the doctrine intact, and do not work a rejection of the system of which it is an essential part.
So also of the doctrine of inability. That man is by the fall rendered utterly indisposed, opposite, and disabled to all spiritual good, is a doctrine of the Confession as well as of Scripture. And it is essential to the system of doctrine embraced by all the Reformed Church. Whether men have plenary power to regenerate themselves, or can co-operate in the work of their regeneration, or can effectually resist the converting grace of God, are questions which have separated Pelagians, the later Romanists, Semi-Pelagians, Lutherans, and Arminians, from Augustinians or Calvinists. The denial of the inability of fallen man, therefore, of necessity works the rejection of Calvinism. But if the fact be admitted, it is not essential whether the inability be called natural or moral; whether it be attributed solely to the perverseness of the will, or to the blindness of the understanding. These points of difference are not unimportant, but they do not affect the essence of the doctrine.
Our Confession teaches that God foreordains whatever comes to pass; that he executes his decrees in the works of creation and providence; that his providential government is holy, wise, and powerful, controlling all his creatures and all their actions; that from the fallen mass of men he has, from all eternity, of his mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life; that by the incarnation and mediatorial work of his eternal Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the effectual working of his Spirit, he has rendered the salvation of his people absolutely certain; that the reason why some are saved and others not, is not the foresight of their faith and repentance, but solely because he has elected some and not others, and that in execution of his purpose, in his own good time, he sends them the Holy Spirit. who so operates on them as to render their repentance, faith, and holy living absolutely certain. Now it is plain that men may differ as to the mode of God's providential government, or the operations of his grace, and retain the facts which constitute the essence of this doctrinal scheme. But if any one teaches that God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents without destroying their liberty; that he cannot render the repentance or faith of any man certain; that he does all he can to convert every man, it would be an insult to reason and conscience, to say that he held the system of doctrine which embraces the facts and principles above stated.
The same strain of remark might be made in reference to the other great doctrines which constitute the Augustinian system. Enough, however, has been said to illustrate the principle of interpretation for which Old School men contend. We do not expect our ministers should adopt every proposition contained in our Standards. This they are not required to do. But they are required to adopt the system; and that system consists of certain doctrines; no one of which can be omitted without destroying its identity. Those doctrines are:—the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and the consequent infallibility of all their teachings;—doctrine of the Trinity; that there is one God subsisting in three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit, the same in substance and equal in power and glory;—the doctrine of decrees and predestination, as above stated;—the doctrine of creation, viz., that the universe and all that it contains is not eternal, is not a necessary product of the life of God, is not an emanation from the divine substance, but owes its existence, as to substance and form, solely to his will; and in reference to man, that he was created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and not in puris naturalibus, without any moral character;—the doctrine of providence, or that God effectually governs all his creatures and all their actions, so that nothing comes to pass which is not in accordance with his infinitely wise, holy, and benevolent purposes;—the doctrines of the covenants; the first, or covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience; and the second, or covenant of grace, wherein God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give, unto all who are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe;—the doctrine concerning Christ our Mediator, ordained of God to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world; unto whom he did. from eternity, give a people to be his seed, to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified; and that the eternal Son of God of one substance with the Father, took upon him man's nature, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; that this Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given to him;—the doctrine of free will; viz., that man was created not only a free agent, but with full ability to choose good or evil, and by that choice determine his future character and destiny; that by the fall he has lost this ability to spiritual good; that in conversion, God, by his Spirit, enables the sinner freely to repent and believe;—the doctrine of effectual calling, or regeneration; that those, and those only, whom God has predestinated unto life, he effectually calls, by his Word and Spirit, from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life, renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining their wills, thus effectually drawing them to Christ; yet so that they come most freely; and that this effectual calling is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything foreseen in man;—the doctrine of justification; that it is a free act, or act of grace on the part of God; that it does not consist in any subjective change of state, nor simply in pardon, but includes a declaring and accepting the sinner as righteous; that it is founded not on anything wrought in us or done by us; not on faith or evangelical obedience, but simply on what Christ has done for us, ­i.e., in his obedience and sufferings unto death; this righteousness of Christ being a proper, real, and full satisfaction to the justice of God, his exact justice and rich grace are glorified in the justification of sinners;—the doctrine of adoption; that those who are justified are received into the family of God, and made partakers of the Spirit and privileges of his children;—the doctrine of sanctification; that those once regenerated by the Spirit of God are, by his power and indwelling, in the use of the appointed means of grace, rendered more and more holy; which work, although always imperfect in this life, is perfected at death;—the doctrine of saving faith; that it is the gift of God, and work of the Holy Spirit, by which the Christian receives as true, on the authority of God, whatever is revealed in his Word; the special acts of which faith are the receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life;—the doctrine of repentance; that the sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but the odiousness of sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his own sins, turn from them unto God, with full purpose and endeavour after new obedience;—the doctrine of good works; that they are such only as God has commanded; that they are the fruits of faith; that such works, although not necessary as the ground of our justification, are indispensable, in the case of adults, as the uniform products of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers;—the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints; that those once effectually called and sanctified by the Spirit can never totally or finally fall from a state of grace; because the decree of election is immutable; because Christ's merit is infinite, and his intercession constant; because the Spirit abides with the people of God; and because the covenant of grace secures the salvation of all who believe;—the doctrine of assurance; that the assurance of salvation is desirable, possible, and obligatory, but is not of the essence of faith;—the doctrine of the law; that it is a revelation of the will of God, and a perfect rule of righteousness; that it is perpetually obligatory on justified persons as well as on others, although believers are not under it as a covenant of works;—the doctrine of Christian liberty; that it includes freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemnation of the law, from a legal spirit, from the bondage of Satan and dominion of sin, from the world, and ultimately from all evil, together with free access to God as his children. Since the advent of Christ, his people are freed also from the yoke of the ceremonial law. God alone is the Lord of the conscience, which he has set free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. The doctrines concerning worship and the Sabbath, concerning vows and oaths, of the civil magistrate, of marriage, contain nothing peculiar to our system, or which is matter of controversy among Presbyterians. The same is true as to what the Confession teaches concerning the Church, of the communion of saints, of the sacraments, and of the future state, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of the final judgment.
That such is the system of doctrine of the Reformed Church is a matter of history. It is the system which, as the granite formation of the Earth, underlies and sustains the whole scheme of truth as revealed in the Scriptures, and without which all the rest is as drifting sand. It has been from the beginning the life and soul of the Church, taught explicitly by our Lord himself, and more fully by his inspired servants, and always professed by a cloud of witnesses in the Church. It has, moreover, ever been the esoteric faith of true believers, adopted in their prayers and hymns, even when rejected from their creeds. It is this system which the Presbyterian Church is pledged to profess, to defend, and to teach; and it is a breach of faith to God and man if she fails to require a profession of this system by all those whom she receives or ordains as teachers and guides of her people. It is for the adoption of the Confession of Faith in this sense that the Old School have always contended as a matter of conscience.
There has, however, always been a party in the Church which adopted the third method of understanding the words "system of doctrine," in the ordination service—viz., that they mean nothing more than the essential doctrines of religion or of Christianity.
That such a party has existed is plain—l. Because, in our original Synod, President Dickinson and several other members openly took this ground. President Dickinson was opposed to all human creeds; he resisted the adoption of the Westminster Confession, and he succeeded in having it adopted with the ambiguous words, "as to all the essential principles of religion." This may mean the essential principles of Christianity, or the essential principles of the peculiar system taught in the Confession 2. This mode of adopting the Confession gave rise to immediate and general complaint. 3. When President Davis was in England, the latitudinarian Presbyterians and other Dissenters from the Established Church from whom he expected encouragement and aid in his mission, objected that our Synod had adopted the Westminster Confession in its strict meaning. President Davis replied that the Synod required candidates to adopt it only as to "the articles essential to Christianity." 4. The Rev. Mr. Creaghead, member of the original Synod, withdrew from it on the ground of this lax rule of adoption. 5. The Rev. Mr. Harkness, when suspended from the ministry by the Synod for doctrinal errors, complained of the injustice and inconsistency of such censure, on the ground that the Synod required the adoption only of the essential doctrines of the Gospel, no one of which he had called in question.
While it is thus apparent that there was a party in the Church who adopted this latitudinarian principle of subscription, the Synod itself never did adopt it. This is plain, because what we call the Adopting Act, and which includes the ambiguous language in question, the Synod call "their Preliminary Act;" i.e., an Act preliminary to the actual adoption of the Westminster Confession. That adoption was effected in a subsequent meeting (on the afternoon of the same day), in which the Confession was adopted in all its articles, except what in the twenty-third chapter related to the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. This is what the Synod itself called its Adopting Act... When in 1787 the General Assembly was organized, it was solemnly declared that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as then revised and corrected, was part of the CONSTITUTION of this Church. No man has ever yet maintained that in adopting Republican constitution, it was accepted only as embracing the general principles of government common to monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies.
The Old School have always protested against this Broad Church principle—1. Because, in their view, it is immoral. For a man to assert that he adopts a Calvinistic confession when he rejects the distinctive features of the Calvinistic system, and receives only the essential principles of Christianity, is to say what is not true in the legitimate and accepted meaning of the terms. It would be universally recognized as a falsehood should a Protestant declare that he adopted the canons of the Council of Trent, or the Romish Catechism, when he intended that he received them only so far as they contained the substance of the Apostles' Creed. If the Church is prepared to make the Apostles' Creed the standard of ministerial communion, let the constitution be altered; but do not let us adopt the demoralizing principle of professing ourselves, and requiring others to profess, what we do not believe.
2. A second objection to the lax rule of interpretation is, that it is contrary to the very principle on which our Church was founded, and on which, as t Church, it has always professed to act. 3. The Old School have always believed that it was the duty of the Church, as a witness for the truth, to hold fast that great system of truth which in all ages has been the faith of the great body of the people of God, and on which, as they believe, the best interests of the Church and of the world depend.
4. This lax principle must work the relaxation of all discipline, destroy the purity of the Church, and introduce either perpetual conflict or death-like indifference.
5. There always has been, and still is, a body of men who feel it their duty to profess and teach the system of doctrine contained in our Confession in its integrity. These men never can consent to what they believe to be immoral and destructive; and therefore any attempt to establish this Broad Church principle of subscription must tend to produce dissension and division. Either let our faith conform to our creed, or make our creed conform to our faith. Let those who are convinced that the Apostles' Creed is a broad enough basis for Church organization, form a Church on that principle; but do not let them attempt to persuade others to sacrifice their consciences, or advocate the adoption of a more extended formula of faith which is not to be sincerely embraced.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Deuteronomy 8:15 is indeed for real!!!


Nashua Presbyterian Church (OPC) ,amidst the backdrop of beautiful Pennsylvania foothills, has become, by God's 'mere and arbitrary Grace', my refuge from the dregs of a society seemingly cascading uncontrollably into Socialism.


Who was thy guide in that great and terrible wilderness (wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions and drought, where was no water, who brought forth water for thee out of the rock of flint:

Deuteronomy 8:15                                                             



By the grace and goodness of God, I was led out of the wilderness of revisionism and epistemological gymnastics into full communion with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It was on the campus of Westminster College in New Wilmington,Pa that I encountered the mortal vessel that would prove catalytical in my sojourn toward the empowerment and normalcy I now enjoy.  Deuteronomy 8:15 is indeed for real!!!!
For years I’ve been a patron of the New Wilmington Missionary Conference. I always was met by an aura of traditional values and commitment to Christ and His Kingdom while there; as the liturgical  and social tones in  no way reflect the apostasy of its parent denomination. In spite of this, the attendance is nowhere near what it was several years ago; which sadly and accurately reflects the flight of those of true Reformed thinking from the once hale and mighty denomination. Yet, there are those who’ve officially severed ties with Louisville that continue to show support for the annual conference and solidarity with those who remain and do their best to defend the faith in the PCUSA. That is to say, those who have yet to cultivate the resolve to make a clean break out of fear of Louisville’s corporate backlash (property seizures and so forth). To this end, I will even continue to visit the conference.
Anyway, during the evening gathering under the amphitheater, I felt thirsty and wanted some water. While making my way to the gymnasium door for the water fountain, I encountered a man about 6’5 having a rather spirited Biblical debate. Unable to restrain my curiosity, I drew closer to become a spectator. As it turns out, his “opponent” was a Quaker; which understandably sent my interest into maximum overdrive! Think about it, here I was witnessing an exchange between the Presbyterian and Quaker traditions  in the very commonwealth noted for the chasm between the two …..


Think about it, here I was witnessing an exchange between the Presbyterian and Quaker traditions in the very commonwealth noted for the chasm between the two which, at least on the partisan front, led the Rev John Elder to form the Paxton Boys centuries earlier! For those who self-actualize history...Need I say more?.........


As the cadence of the debate wound around, the Presbyterian named Michael introduces himself to me (as did the Quaker). When I knew anything, the ills of Protestantism in the mainline were being litanized by all three of us. It was at that point that Mike proudly declares that he is not affiliated with the denomination with which either the college or the conference is affiliated. He boldly stated that, after reading his Bible, he confronted his former minister with questions regarding the inconsistencies with Scripture that have regrettably become pandemic in the PCUSA. Upon being met with the assertion that the Spirit of God and His Purposes are no less discernible therein than in any other tradition, Mike thanked God for the resolve to immediately enjoin that church’s session to take his name of the roll.
He then tells me of Nashua (pictured above) ; which is part of the OPC and invited me to visit. The better part of a year rolled by before I did; during which I agonized over the incessant barrage of heterodoxy and parochial swill that continued to ooze from Louisville ( the headquarters of the PCUSA). Admittedly, by this time, it had been years since I actually looked forward to going to church. It seemed that over the course of these years the general climate in my former congregation became more brazenly intolerant of traditional apologetics and was endeavoring to completely supplant them with this no-fault morality which enjoys validation only in cliquish discourse.
I’m digressing to make a point. Bear with me, will ya?
In said interim, I got a phone call from my cousin Rick who lives in Penn Hills. He’s asking me to explain the craziness and mayhem among the Presbyterians in his town. Mind you, this was a rhetorical question. Rick was born in North Carolina,  is a veteran state trooper who’s lived in Pennsylvania since his college years and  knew full well what was going on. His point was that as long as I remained in that denomination it would be looked upon as a de facto endorsement of their official policies, good, bad or indifferent. He was right!!!
To top it off:


Long have I ruefully submitted that my most famous Presbyterian relative, President Benjamin Harrison, numbered among the harbingers of theological modernism. Yet,I can attest that he would vehemently oppose the predilections of my former denomination. In addition, the church in Indianapolis where he served as en elder has reopened as a PCA congregation.

I came to see these as fruits of election. That is, signs from above that the time had come for me to move on. So, feeling led to take Mike up on his invitation to engage liturgy in a climate serious about serving Christ, I went.
…..I’ll talk more later.