More impiously maladroit hogwash from the mainline.

Recently, the apostate Presbyterian Church USA triggered yet another firestorm of controversy for itself by not including the hymn "In Christ Alone" in its new hymnal. Such an omittance reflects the tragic, frightening and impious predilection toward grotesque inclusiveness championed by the godless left wing. Indeed, this latest vignette underscores the en masse rejection of sound Christology and validates the departure of the 281 people daily who adhere to the Scriptural and catechetical summons to renounce the heretical jurisdiction of Louisville and leave forever. 
 Truth is, we've abandoned long ago any hope for the slightest vestige of punctilious soteriology from this sad shell that was once a bastion of rectitude and defense of the true faith! Once led by great stalwarts whose proprietary commitment to God, faith and nation was unquestionable; it's now helmed by those who think SOLI DEO GLORIA is a sub compact convertible built in Stockholm!!!
 
Their "rationale" on their blog reads as follows:

"In Christ Alone"

There has been a great deal of conversation this week about the absence of the Getty/Townend hymn “In Christ Alone” in Glory to God: The Presbyterian hymnal
The Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song had hoped to include a previously published version of “In Christ Alone” that altered a line in the second stanza from “the wrath of God was satisfied” to “the love of God was magnified.” Unfortunately, the copyright holders declined this request. After discussion and deliberation, the Committee voted and failed to reach the two-thirds majority that is the threshold for inclusion of a song in the final list of contents.
 For a more detailed and nuanced account, see hymnal committee chair Mary Louise Bringle’s Christian Century article “Debating hymns.”
Some have argued that this decision reflects a defective theology or unwillingness to reckon with the judgment of God. But the absence of one text, however popular, should not be construed as a failure to address this theological theme. Scripture speaks in a variety of ways about what happened in Christ’s death, and a model of atonement that understands the cross as satisfying God’s wrath and saving us through the blood of Christ is already richly presented in this collection. For instance, “Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me” and “Judge Eternal, Throned in Splendor,” beloved hymns from the 1955 Presbyterian Hymnbook, are both included in Glory to God, as is “Lamb of God” by Twila Paris from the contemporary praise and worship canon, and a praise hymn from Korea that speaks powerfully of how Jesus “with his blood has washed and healed me / paid the heavy cost.” Other views of the atonement are represented as well. These models do not reject the reality of God’s wrath, but they do not see the cross as an expression of it. Finally, it should be noted that Glory to God includes an entire section devoted to “Christ’s Return and Judgment.” Indeed, this hymnal adds significant entries on the theme of judgment to material brought forward from earlier Presbyterian hymnals. 
We are confident that this collection of hymns and songs—shaped by the biblical story of God’s mighty acts in history—reflects the breadth and depth of our theological tradition. The absence of one song, readily available through other sources, doesn’t change that. We pray that Glory to God will equip the church to sing of God’s love and justice, and give thanks for poets and composers in every age who help us to offer new songs to the Lord.



Who do they think they're kidding??? Really!!!




 

An emphatic, yet loving rebuke of Dr Bob Terry of Alabama

For the past 18 years, Dr Bob Terry has edited The Alabama Baptist. Earlier this month, he triggered a maelstrom by "recognizing" the "rationale" for the heretical PCUSA's removal of  "In Christ Alone" from its newest hymnal. The PCUSA has not championed SOLUS CHRISTOS as a whole in decades.  Hence, any defense of their general motus operandi, direct or tacit, from any member of an evangelical denomination is as utterly stupefying as a Neo- Nazi in an Afro Sheen commercial!

 Yesterday, Terry issued a retraction for his injudicious assessment. Yet one question will regrettably remain: Just how prevalent are these kinds of soteriologically negligent appraisals in his thinking at the end of the day? Or, for that matter, among his immediate peers?


This type of fence straddling enjoys little plurality in the Yellowhammer State among evangelical Protestants, in general. Lord knows I would bristle at the very notion; as the State of Alabama is the bastion of the virtual whole of my maternal line! A notable exception would be my great great grandfather, the Rev Gilbert Dickson; who was a native South Carolinian. He relocated to Lowndes County, Alabama as a young man and answered the call to ministry in the Primitive Baptist tradition.  Notwithstanding the Strict Baptist position on infant baptism, his theology was otherwise as solidly to the quinquarticular right as any teaching elder in the  OPC.

That's why this struck such a deep chord!!!!

Here's what started the firestorm



Aug. 8 editorial: Why Disagree About the Words of a Hymn?
Who would expect the words of a popular modern-day Christian hymn to cause a theological dust up? That is exactly what has happened after a decision by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) not to include the hymn “In Christ Alone,” released in 2001, in its new hymnal “Glory To God: The Presbyterian Hymnal.”
Originally the committee voted to include “In Christ Alone” but with a change to one phrase. The committee proposed changing a line in the second verse that says “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied” to read “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.”
Changing the words of a hymn to reflect theological teaching is a common practice. The first verse of the beloved hymn “At the Cross” by Isaac Watts originally read, “Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I.” Compilers of the “Baptist Hymnal” changed that line to read, “Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I.”
This time the song’s authors Keith Getty and Stuart Townend would have none of it and refused permission to make the change. The hymnal committee then voted 9–6 not to use the song because the theology of the disputed phrase reflected the view of a part of the Presbyterian Church but was not appropriate for the diverse membership as a whole.
That decision prompted an outpouring of protest. At least one blogger cited the decision as an example of liberalism in the denomination. Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George was more balanced in his reaction. He wrote, “God’s love is not sentimental; it is holy. It is tender but not squishy. It involves not only compassion, kindness and mercy beyond measure, but also indignation against injustice and unremitting opposition to all that is evil.”
George cautioned that to ignore God’s wrath can result in “a less than fully biblical construal of who God is and what He has done, especially in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.”
George is exactly right. The Bible speaks clearly about the wrath of God and warns that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God (Ps. 90:11).
Yet there remains a question about whether God was an angry God at Golgotha whose wrath had to be appeased by the suffering of the innocent Jesus. Sometimes Christians carelessly make God out to be some kind of ogre whose angry wrath overflowed until the innocent Jesus suffered enough to calm Him down. It is the ultimate “good cop/bad cop” routine where God is against us but Jesus is for us.
Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. That is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase “the wrath of God was satisfied” even though I love the song “In Christ Alone.”
I take the incarnation seriously when the Bible teaches “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). According to Scripture the One who died at Golgotha was One with the Father (John 10:30). The apostle Paul added, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19).
As I understand Scripture, Jesus opened a new window through which people could see what God is like. God has always been like Jesus and Jesus has always been like God. That is why Jesus said to the apostle Philip in John 14:8–11, “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father.”
That humankind was estranged from God by sin is not in doubt. Nor is there any question that the place of that reconciliation was the cross or that Jesus was the instrument of that reconciliation.
Mankind could not overcome being separated from God by itself. God is the one who took the initiative for reconciliation, the One who continues to take the initiative. God wants to forgive. That is why He sent His Son (John 3:16).
God is always the active agent in reconciliation. He is not reconciliation’s object.
One well-known Baptist theologian said it clearly: “Reconciliation is not the appeasement of God. It is God’s own work in restoring man to proper relationship with Himself.”
Certainly the holiness of God means that sin cannot be condoned. That is why the atoning sacrifice of Christ satisfies the demands of God’s holy law. The sacrifice also demonstrates God’s boundless love that goes beyond the law.
An entry in the Holman Bible Dictionary, published by LifeWay Christian Resources, under “expiation” makes this point. The author writes, “God was not waiting to be appeased (as in the pagan, Greek conception). Rather God condescended to meet us on our level to remedy the situation.”
Scholars will continue arguing about whether the sacrificial system of the Bible, of which Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, had God as its subject or its object. If He is the subject then God acted to cover and forgive sins through the sacrificial system. If He is the object then God received the offerings for sin that in some ways pacified His anger and need for justice.
Again the Holman Bible Dictionary says, “In the New Testament setting, this would mean that on the cross Jesus either dealt with the evil nature of human sin and covered it so that God forgives it (subject) or it means that Jesus satisfied God’s holy anger and justice so that forgiven sinners could freely enter the presence of the holy God” (object).
That is the essence between the disputed phrases in the song “In Christ Alone.” One emphasizes “the love of God was magnified” (subject); the other “the wrath of God was satisfied” (object). Whichever phrase one chooses to sing it must be remembered that it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished.
But God is not the enemy. He is our seeking Friend (Luke 15). That is why I prefer to focus on His love evidenced at Calvary rather than on His wrath.

Here is his subsequent offering from four days later



Before I arrived at the office on the morning of Friday, Aug. 9, I received a phone call telling me the editorial “Why Disagree about the Words of a Hymn?” had generated a lot of response overnight. I was shocked when the caller added that I was being accused of not believing in penal substitutionary atonement — the teaching that Jesus paid the price for sin when He died on the cross in our place.
That anything I write would call into question the atoning work of Jesus Christ is inappropriate and to those who read this editorial that way, I apologize.
Let me be clear. I believe in and unapologetically preach: 1. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); 2. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life (Rom. 6:23); 3. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19); 4. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8); 5. If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom. 10:9); 6. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13).
Consistent with that belief I wrote in the editorial “…it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished.” I believe that is an affirmation of the penal substitutionary atonement understanding of salvation.
Again, sin separates us from God. Sin has a price that has to be paid before sinful man can be reconciled to a holy God. Jesus paid the price for our sin on Calvary and only because of what was done for us on the cross can we be reconciled to God. I understand that to be bedrock Christian beliefs.
For those interested in my writings about the atonement, let me suggest two examples: March 25, 2010, and April 5, 2012. Other references to the atonement can be found in numerous editorials over the years and most can be found on this website. But let me emphasize again, the Aug. 8 editorial was not about the atonement.
I am beginning to wonder if part of the confusion surrounding the Aug. 8 editorial relates to different meanings of the word “wrath.”
If the meaning is that on Calvary God’s punishment for our sins was poured out on Jesus, then that is certainly biblical and something I would never question. That is my understanding of penal substitutionary atonement and is what I have written through the years.
If the meaning of “wrath” is that God is vindictive and took joy in punishing His Son then that is not how I find God described in the Bible. As I understand the Bible, it was because “God so loved the world” that He was willing “to crush him and cause him to suffer” and become a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10 NIV). Sin had to be punished to satisfy the righteous justice of a Holy God and only the Son of God could satisfy that demand.


And the conveyance of his regrets

For the past few days I have been caught in a social media storm like nothing I have experienced before in my years as editor of a state Baptist paper. On Aug. 8 and 9, about 10 times as many people came to the The Alabama Baptist website as usually visit each day. Practically all clicked on the Aug. 8 editorial “Why Disagree About the Words of a Hymn.”
The result was an avalanche of tweets and blogs, most condemning the editorial and claiming it denied penal substitutionary atonement — that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin and died on the cross in our stead. I was called a heretic among other things. Baptist Press news service did a lengthy story on the accusations, which the press service released two consecutive days — Aug. 12 and Aug. 13.
To all Alabama Baptists and other readers I owe a sincere apology for writing in a manner that allowed some readers to conclude that I denied such a basic biblical doctrine — penal substitutionary atonement. I do not deny that belief, as an examination of my editorials over the years will clearly show.
Through the years I have written repeatedly affirming the doctrinal position of penal substitutionary atonement. In the March 28, 2013, editorial titled “The Hero of Easter,” I wrote, “In Christ, God Himself took on the sin of the world. He became the sin bearer. Again, Colossians 1:19–20 says, ‘For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him (Jesus), and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood shed on the cross.’”
In the April 5, 2012, editorial one reads, “Jesus was at one time both the Lamb being sacrificed — ‘He offered Himself’ — and the High Priest offering the sacrifice of atonement. That is why the writer of Hebrews referred to Jesus as ‘the Great High Priest.’ The imagery is of Jesus entering God’s presence with the blood offering of the sacrificial lamb to be poured out on the altar.”
Both examples are clear affirmations of the doctrine that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. There are many more examples. I have never written or preached anything to the contrary.
But because many readers understood the editorial differently than I intended, I scheduled a private conference with Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson School of Divinity at Samford University in Birmingham, to see if he could help me see blind spots I might have that prevented me from recognizing an inadvertent denial of penal substitutionary atonement. For more than an hour we talked about God’s holiness, God’s love and God’s wrath.
His appraisal was kind and direct. He pointed out that I had used some “unwise and incautious” statements. He also pointed out that it is dangerous to raise a question about something so dear to people as the hymn “In Christ Alone.”
On the critical issue of denying penal substitutionary atonement, he said for the record, “Particularly, the next- to-last paragraph in the original editorial is a very clear statement of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. (Bob Terry) affirms both — there are two dimensions of this — he affirms both expiation and propitiation. He doesn’t use those words but what he says here in this paragraph affirms both of them.”
So why the confusion over the editorial? First, the editorial in question was never about atonement. It was about the mindset of God. It was about the false notion of God’s wrath that describes God as a vengeful and vindictive being who enjoyed punishing Jesus. The editorial tried to make a caricature out of that understanding and argued against it to show that the cross is not about vindictiveness but about God’s love.
Unfortunately some readers concluded that I believed that caricature and blogged about me holding heretical positions. I was wrong not to make more abundantly clear that I was opposing the caricature of God’s wrath and not the orthodox biblical teaching itself.
Some readers felt the editorial indicted all who love the phrase “The wrath of God was satisfied” and implied they were wrong. That was never the intention. When wrath is understood as God’s punishment for sin poured out on Jesus at Calvary, that is exactly what the Bible teaches as I understand it. The editorial comments were directed only at the unbiblical understanding of God being vindictive, or a bully or having a temper-tantrum toward His Beloved Son. While to the orthodox Christian, these caricatures may seem far-fetched, they are ideas about wrath one finds in Christian history and ideas that some hold today.
Other unhappy readers charged the editorial created a false dichotomy between love and wrath. They point to the paragraphs about “expiation” as ruling out “propitiation.” Expiation is the forgiveness we have through Christ and His removing the guilt of sin. Propitiation is that on the cross Jesus experienced the
righteous wrath of God against sin. I affirm both.
The editorial attempted to be a “both/and” approach when I wrote, “Whichever phrase one chooses to sing (‘the wrath of God was satisfied’ or ‘the love of God was magnified’) it must be remembered that it is God’s grace that initiated the sacrifice of Jesus to provide covering and forgiveness for our sin (expiation) and that His sacrifice satisfied the holy demands of God’s righteousness for sin to be punished (propitiation).” There was no attempt to label one right and the other wrong.
The wrath of God is a biblical teaching. But at Calvary wrath is best understood as an expression of God’s righteousness and holiness. Sin had to be punished and Jesus as “God made flesh” absorbed into Himself that punishment. God, moved by His love for us, sent Jesus to the cross to pay the price for our sin. Jesus was always the Beloved Son of God. God was never malicious or vindictive toward Jesus as some people understand human wrath.
No editorial can contain everything one believes. Hopefully readers understand a particular column in light of what has been written over the past 18 years I have been editor of The Alabama Baptist rather than expecting every column to express the whole of my theology. And when questions arise, please know I invite conversation to clarify understandings.
Still be assured that I will attempt to be more careful and more clear in all that I write and that I sincerely regret my unwise and incautious comments in the Aug. 8 editorial.

My personal reflection:


Dear Dr Terry,

The enemies of the true faith seem poised like never before to visit their hatred and intolerance upon us. The visceral contempt exuded by the promulgators of the liberal agenda    make the rancor of an Al Qaeda operative seem tame-at least more honest- by contrast! To this end, we can never be too careful- too guarded-too word perfect, in our ecclesiological rulings.

Affording benefit of the doubt has, in my experience in the mainstream, been taken by the revisionists as carte blanche in the furtherance of their crass agendas. It is therefore a remedy that I am, to say the absolute least, hesitant- bordering on loathe- to prescribe... make no mistake!

 Yet, taking into account the tireless dedication to Christ's work and mission you have displayed over the years, I believe it prudent to afford you latitude-this one time- in attributing this latest outing to

"grossly incognizant misadventure"....

But going forward, be a bit more careful.....Hear Doc?

Your most affectionate brother in Christ,

Laird Eric Wells


 

When temporal responsibilities clash with those owed to Kirk and Sabbath

“For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God's Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God's service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation-including, above all, the callings of husband, wife, and parent--is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God's truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.”  

Well said from the most relevant Calvinistic theologian of our age, Rev Dr J Gresham Machen.

A question has been entertained by many a potential detractor from without and pious steward from within our faith. How and why are at times the more prolific and steadfast in our faith become eviscerated by the very temporal and ecclesiastical  mechanisms they are inclined by God to uphold and protect? Indeed, we are covenantally bound to promulgate the true faith in every sphere of life; as Machen so eloquently said. We are commanded to this end; as evidenced in Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy the Fourth Chapter. Yet, at times, the best stewards (like Machen himself) have found themselves under the gun for doing precisely that!

It is an understatement that the role of the Presbyterian was jugular in the forging of American Independence. The function of Presbyterianism during those critical years went far beyond thirteen of us having signed the Declaration of Independence. Or, for that matter, Washington's close friend and personal physician, Presbyterian Dr James Craik, becoming the Physician General of the Army ( forerunner to US Surgeon General). The governmental construct itself was "grandfathered" by a sermon preached by the Puritan Rev Thomas Hooker on May 31, 1638. Presbyterianism was, in an incalculably pervasive way, the pulse of the young nation and Presbyterians themselves were the most convicted, steadfast and reverently militant of its stewards.


 So much so that, when asked what he would do should the war take a ghastfully dismal turn (paraphrase), Washington said "Should it come to the worst, I will fall back into the mountain region of Pennsylvania, and make my stand among the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians"

Revisionists hold Washington's statement to have been, at best, apocryphal.....I seriously doubt that!


That being said, there is another case that has made no less an indelible impression on me than the cavalier defrocking of Machen in 1936. This case carried far more reaching national implications than the politicized witch hunt that felled Machen ; as it proved the lynchpin of the national Sabbatarian movement. To my mind, it was a gross miscarriage of diaconal jurisprudence because it was meted out on one equally entrenched in the religious and temporal vein. To top it off, it took place where our faith tradition is most deeply rooted in this quarter of the earth! That's right.........Western Pennsylvania- the region regarded as a citadel by the Hero of the Monongahela, himself!!


Rev John McMillan

Rev Matthew Brown

The two men pictured above were at the forefront of evangelism and education in what was then the very edge of the western frontier. The Rev John McMillan was known as the "Apostle of Presbyterianism in the West". He founded the first school west of the Alleghenies and was one of the founders of Washington and Jefferson College. The Rev Matthew Brown was the first president of Washington College; which would later become Washington and Jefferson College. In addition, he was the first pastor of the Presbyterian Church there that was founded in 1793. They numbered among several divines and operated under the jurisdiction of the Redstone Presbytery; which began a couple months prior to the surrender of the redcoats at Yorktown! Yet, as the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the struggle continued and Presbyterians continued to be at the forefront.


In the early 19th century, American independence from Mother England seemed more in theory than in fact.

• The British trade laws impeded the young republic's trade with France
• Young Americans citizens continued to be forced into the Royal Navy
• Indian raids were being instigated/ supported by the British
• ...and let's not forget about the Chesapeake Affair....

Hence, a second war with England was a foregone conclusion. Particularly after the Chesapeake Affair, it was looked upon as a question of "when" rather than "if" war would commence. Men remaining at their designated posts (governmental/administrative) came to be seen as jugular to our survival as a young nation.  Such was the case for Hugh Wylie; who became postmaster in Washington, Pennsylvania in 1803. Quite probably akin to Rev Andrew Wylie; who succeeded Matthew Brown as president of Washington College, he also was an ordained Presbyterian elder. He executed both offices with a most punctilious resolve. Is this not in accord with Scripture?

Matthew 22:20-22

²⁰ And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

²¹ They said unto him, Caesar’s. Then said he unto them, Give therefore to Caesar, the things which are Caesar’s, and give unto God, those things which are God’s.

²² And when they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.

 

Yet, we as Presbyterians have long been vigilant against the politically dangerous and Scripturally unsound practice of meshing temporal and ecclesiastical authority.

 

The elect are reminded in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) in its 23rd Chapter, Article 3 

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and. it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure. and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed,. all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline. prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly. settled, administrated, and observed. For the better. effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present. at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them. be according to the mind of God. or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance..

 

 

Historically, Presbyterians have maintained a credible fear of a "democratization" of liturgy and worship for the aforementioned reasons and a slew of others; as it would certainly threaten the single emphasis on Christ and His glory. That being said, a neighbor of Wylie's complained; as did several members of the church in Washington, Pennsylvania. They determined that sorting the mail on the Sabbath amounts to a desecration of the Lord's Day. This was even if it was only for a few hours prior to the services-which, by the way, he never missed. It was around that time, in a totally unrelated case, that an overture was made to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which reiterated the question:

 

"May a man hold the office of the Gospel Ministry and the office of an Associate Judge at the same time? , or Is it expedient for Presbytery to continue a person in the office of Gospel Ministry in such circumstances?"

 

Bear in mind, Washington, Pa was the link  between the east and the very edge of the frontier in those days. To heighten matters, the Postmaster General of the United States, Gideon Granger, maintained "it becomes the duty of all of us to rally and stand at our posts". This again was because a second conflict with Mother England was imminent!

Finally, the matter was brought to the attention of the Synod of Pittsburgh and he was barred from the Table of the Lord's Supper in October of 1809. Wylie would appeal to the General Assembly. The GA not only upheld the synodical verdict but saw fit to expel him from the Presbyterian Church altogether. His religious life having sustained a most ignominious portion, he remained undaunted to the civil end of the Great Commission and continued on as a merchant and postmaster of Washington, Pennsylvania. In 1812, the citizens sent a petition to the GA urging them to reevaluate their decision against Wylie. it was quickly dismissed and his expulsion stood.

These events triggered a huge Sabbatarian push in this nation. Members of clerical and laical vein alike rallied, petitioned and championed for the preservation of the integrity of the Lord's Day in matters of government and commerce. The impact of this movement was so far reaching that it wasn't until 1949 that Sunday games were officially recognized by the NFL, for instance.

Scarred, besmirched but at least afforded the solace of a grateful nation, Hugh Wylie went home to be with his Lord during the wee hours of Sunday February 24th 1828. He sleeps in an unmarked grave at the center of town near a school. His bones were never moved to Washington Cemetery. A rather ignominious portion, indeed, for such a stalwart servant leader.

Revelation 2:10

Fear none of those things, which thou shalt suffer: behold, it shall come to pass, that the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto the death, and I will give thee the crown of life.

I feel in no way conflicted with the umbrage I take with the GA's handling of the Wylie matter in 1809. My epistemological convictions have come, through the mercy of God alone, to singularly dictate the cadence of my political and historical assessments. The American nation was clearly approaching a second conflict with the mightiest military power on Earth and the civil and religious independence afforded to us by the merciful hand of God Himself would doubtlessly have been impressed had England prevailed!

        This is a case of extreme temporal duress-not some moral lapse on Wylie's part.


Not only the livelihoods but the very lives of thousands were threatened. Hugh Wylie's post was jugular in the defense of the young republic begat by the Presbyterian governmental construct (yet-lots of luck finding a public school administrator to relate that truth). He endeavored, with God's help to serve as a Divinely appointed steward of Presbyterianism in his role as a ruling elder in God's garden of the Kirk militant and as postmaster in Washington, Pennsylvania. The measure of his resolve is, in the view of this bearer of a title that supported  Knox, reminiscent to that of the Thundering Scot, himself:

                                              Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God

Should Wylie be issued a posthumous apology or restoration?

Such redress for ecclesiastical breaches enjoys no precedent in the Presbyterian church. The aggrieved are satisfied or made whole, by the power of God, at the hour of death, regardless of the severity of the afforded injustice. Man does not have the power to either indict or vindicate the dead. Such parliamentary overtures would threaten to elevate the government of the Kirk militant to levels periculously idolatrous. It wreaks of the very Romish tendencies that flag everything from sacerdotalism to ad hoc theology and worship!

When a man reaches the end of his life's journey, all matters of ecclesiastical jurisprudence become subject to the authority of the Kirk Triumphant with Christ as the SOLE advocate for the elect.



...................it's as simple as that.............................



However, there is a more practical way to exonerate Wylie and countless others who suffered for their moral convictions. Our civil and religious freedoms are under attack like never before. The expositors of liberalism have a hatred for our Christian faith, heritage and history which is no less visceral than any current or former stowaway in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan. It is waged with a banality and intrusiveness exponentially greater than that which compelled the patriots to rally against Mother England in 1776 or 1812. If you think this to be an exaggeration, consider the following:

Could you possibly imagine a case presided over by this Commander-in Chief of the Continental Army involving a military chaplain brought up on charges for merely extolling the virtues of the faith!!??

The attacks are systemic, indeed pervasive! Indeed, the goal of the godless left in the United States is to see our way of life go the way of the Passenger Pigeon! Call upon God to embolden us in this silent- but deadly war! If it is His will, he will give us the bravery of John Knox, the academic clarity of Machen, the pious resolve of Stonewall Jackson and the militant aggressiveness of Lazarus Stewart from the Paxton Boys! That's what it will take if we have any hope of turning the tide!!


            In the meantime.............Honor the Sabbath!!




  

Glencairn's Psalm

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Since expressing dissent in the matter of exclusive Psalmody in worship on Biblical grounds, people have asked me what my favorite Psalm is.
 As an avid outdoorsman, I praise and thank God He allowed me to live, roam and hunt on some of the richest, most challenging and picturesque terrain on earth. The Autumn sheaves and foliage of this past year, incidentally, was by far the most beautiful that THIS Appalachian ridge runner has ever seen! That being said, as strongly as I know God commands us to sing hymns as well as the Psalms of David,  I love this one to the point I wouldn't mind it being sung a bit more often on the Lord's Day. At Nashua, it's sung to the tune of Clarksville in D Major.
Glory to God!



 

 

http://psalter.org/tunes/show/clarksville