Historic Documents in American Presbyterian History
"LAW AND PROCEDURE
or, HOW AND WHY IN 1973"
A Message delivered to
THE CONVOCATION OF SESSIONS
Atlanta, Georgia, 18 May 1973
by Mr. W. Jack Williamson
The Law is the law of love;
and the Procedure is to the rescue of the perishing. As our Lord Jesus
walked the streets of Jerusalem on his way to Golgotha to the greatest
demonstration of that law and to enable that procedure, He turned
to those following and said: "For if they do these things in a green
tree, what shall be done in the dry." (Luke 23:31)
When God thus saw Jesus in the sinner's place,
He did not spare Him; and where He finds the unregenerate without
Christ, He will not spare them. Yet it is not His will that any should
perish. We are called to declare this law of love and to proceed to
rescue those perishing: "for whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)
This Law and this Procedure is
foolishness to an unbelieving world; but it is the commission and
the compulsion of these who have been truly reborn into the true church
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here is the nature and mission of that church.
Now, over 25 years ago a group of men from The Presbyterian Journal
met at the Biltmore Hotel here in Atlanta. They came to preserve a
Presbyterian Church in America true to that nature and that mission.
We gather again in Atlanta today, a product of their original initiative.
Most of us on this program are novices in this battle compared
to those veteran defenders of the faith. We were recruited by them,
trained by them, directed by them, and sent out to the battlefront
by them. Although they may not all agree with us now as to the best
course for the immediate future, all are committed to these same basic
principles as to the nature and mission of the Church. We honor and
respect these men; and we give thanks to Almighty God for their gallant
faithfulness. They have led us to this place and this hour. Praise
God for each of them.
As this Convocation of Sessions comes to consider
the possible procedure of forming a new ecclesiastical entity in 1973,
the question is often and properly asked -- "Why 1973?" Or as one
has put it -- "If I could work in the PCUS in 1972, why must I not
continue to do so in1973, when there is no development radically changing
the picture of things? Why '73, instead of '70, '72, '74 or '80? Let
us address ourselves to this issue of procedure. In a word, my reasoning
is that my vows of ordination as a Ruling elder, as I understand them,
require me to separate from my beloved church. It is with genuine
sadness, many tears, and much soul-searching that I have come to thus
see my duty before God. On ordination, I promised to study the peace,
unity, edification and purity of the Church. For a decade now I have
diligently sought to fulfill this vow at various levels in our Church.
I have reluctantly concluded that I -
(a) Can find little peace in a structure that in its official acts
and doings is constantly and consistently contradicting my faith.
(b) Can find little unity in a structure that advocates a pluralism
and diversity that tolerates unbelief -- for me "two cannot walk together
less they be agreed."
(c) Can find little edification in a structure that continues to embarrass
me in its official acts and doings and forces me to spend most of
my time in negative reaction and apology.
(d) Can find little hope for purity in a structure that permits unbelief
to run rampant and has lost its will and ability to discipline.
Thus as I see my duty, it is not that I wish
to go but that I must. Others may see their duty differently. We must
respect their views as "God alone is Lord of the conscience" and we
ask them to respect ours. But, why 1973?
I believe I can best answer this question by
summarizing the history of this movement in the past decade. It was
at this point in time that some of us were recruited from our comfortable
positions in our local churches to enter the battle on a broader scale
in Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly. At this time, these aforesaid
gallant warriors had won a great victory in the Union fight of the
mid-50s. But they had been unable to stem the tide of modernism, liberalism,
and radical ecumenism in our Church. The situation continued to get
worse rather than better: and they realized it. The Church had already
violated its faith and order on several constitutional issues; but
they hoped we could return the Church to her former faith and order
through a concerted effort by Ruling and Teaching Elders. This we
undertook to do; but after about 5 years of much intensive effort,
it became obvious to us that humanly speaking it would be impossible
to recapture our church. Instead of being able to stop the trends,
they seemed to get worse as the liberals intensified their efforts
in reaction to our opposition. During this period many more serious
constitutional violations of our faith and order were officially adopted
and practiced by our Church. I won't list them as Dr. Morton Smith
has already pointed to many of them. Suffice it to say that it became
clear that the historic witness of our beloved Church was gradually
being liquidated; and for those who felt a duty to preserve it, division
became the only answer. From that point on the issue of division has
been settled; and the only issue was timing and procedure. It was
then we sought a method of peaceful realignment hoping that men of
good will would prevail. Not the only but the best method for such
peaceful realignment seemed to be an acceptable escape clause in the
Plan for Union with the UPCUSA. Our liberal friends promised us this
method; and we accepted their promises in good faith. We chose and
recommended this method as the best constitutional procedure for such
a division. We warned that unreasonable delays would be taken as a
breach of good faith. We made preparation for the division we humanly
saw as inevitable. But, in February, 1973, our liberal opposition
in the PCUS succeeded in closing this door for peaceful realignment
by discarding the Plan of Union and delaying its presentation for
vote indefinitely. Even though strenuously requested by me as the
conservative representative thereon, this Union Committee refused
to commit itself to any "escape" clause. Thus this best method for
constitutional division became no longer a viable possibility in the
foreseeable future. The abandonment of this method by the liberals
was an act of pure ecclesiastical political expediency. They broke
faith with us in 1973 and have forced us to move to an alternative
procedure. One of their frank leaders said to me in Dallas -- "We
will force you conservatives to do what you must and after you have
done it we will regroup and reevaluate our position; and in the meantime
we will push for more union Presbyteries and more de facto union at
the administrative level of the Boards and Agencies; and after you
have gone we will redraw the Presbytery lines so that we won't have
any trouble passing any plan we want. It may take 10 years but we
can wait."
This is what has happened; and this is why 1973.
We have never contended that the use of the "escape" clause in the
Plan of Union was the only constitutional issue for division or only
constitutional method for realignment. We have always felt and maintained
that many constitutional breaches exist that justify division; but
we thought the "escape: clause was the best method to accomplish it.
We now feel that method has been taken away by the liberals for this
decade, at least, and perhaps forever. This happened in 1973. We have
always maintained that we who agree in principle should move together.
We are convinced that if we wait longer, major fragmentation will
occur. In order to maintain the significant corporate witness of a
Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith, we must move now
in 1973. Perhaps it is important for some of you that we document
this historical progression. Let me summarize my statements published
in the Presbyterian Journal as documented proof of the truth and consistency
of our position.
1. Almost a decade ago, we began by trying to return our beloved Church
to its primary mission. In 1965 we wrote:
"To my mind the Church being the Bride of Christ has as
her primary mission to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ
for the salvation of the souls of sinners and thereafter
to nurture them in the faith. But there seems to be designed
a deliberate effort in the Church to change the attitude
of the average church member toward this fundamental message
and mission ..."
"There is a great danger that the Church will become just
another social agency with tremendous potential for good
community service but with only an incidental relationship
to salvation of souls through faith in Jesus Christ . "It
has been my observation that wherever and whenever the inspiration
and authority of the Word as Inscriptured is attacked, the
person and work of the Word Incarnated is demeaned. The
work of Jesus Christ in the world becomes equated with all
the noble causes laid before society. The zeal for the Gospel
of Jesus Christ is lost and the temper of the times dictates
the religious cause for the day..."
"Our principal effort should be toward the development of
a constructive program of inspiration, information and instruction
which the Holy Spirit may rightfully use to pour out a real
spiritual revival in the pew..."
|
2. But by the time of the General Assembly in 1969 it was obvious
that we would not be able so to return our Church. We wrote then that
this Mobile Assembly with its change in our position on evolution,
its unconstitutional enactment of the union presbyteries amendment,
its authorization of a committee to draft a new Confession of Faith;
its appointment of a Committee on Union with UPCUSA, and its endorsement
of our continued participation in COCU made these facts clear:
"It is capitulation not reconciliation they offer.
"They do not understand that we cannot and will not negotiate
some things ... "
"They are determined to force their program even at the
cost of a split Church . . . "
"Their ecclesiastical, political machinery will be organized
for this final hammer blow ... "
"The result of all this will be to force a decision by each
minister, each member, each congregation in our Church...
"
|
3. By 1970 a number of major constitutional violations had been enacted;
and we were forced to look for the best method for peaceful realignment.
We suggested such a unique method at the Memphis Assembly that year
in the form of the creation of provisional bodies for those who wanted
to remain in the Church for the time being and preserve their right
to vote and yet be guaranteed the right to withdraw with their property.
During the Assembly we were called into conference in the minister's
study at this great Second Church in Memphis by the two co-chairmen
of the union committee. They promised such a method of peaceful realignment
through an acceptable escape clause in the plan for union. We agreed
to wait, but wrote:
"The scoffers of our day are the radical, determined ecumenists
who have a timetable for the liquidation of the historic
witness of the Presbyterian Church in the United States
. . ."
"In my judgment, our timetable should be flexible because
we are committed to a principle rather than a structure.
We are committed to the preservation of a corporate witness
to the truth as revealed in the holy Scriptures. This involves
us in several possibilities:
"1. The possibility of revival within the present structure
does exist ..."
"2. Peaceful realignment might be accomplished as the existing
structure is divided among men of good will ..."
"3. Finally, it is always possible that a sufficient number
of the issues proposed in the timetable of the radical ecumenists
will be defeated and they will then leave us with our existing
structure . . . "
|
4. After the 1971 Assembly in evaluating our position, a consensus
was reached and published as follows: "We accept the apparent inevitability
of division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a division
caused by the program of the radical ecumenists, and agree to move
now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal
to Scriptures and The Westminster Standards." But to implement this
consensus we suggested guidelines dictated by Christian statesmanship,
to-wit:
(1) We must move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us. "For it is not
by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."
(2) We must curb our human impatience and impetuosity and not take
precipitous and premature action.
(3) We must move together.
(4) We must move with honor.
But in suggesting that we wait on the promised
"escape clause" in the plan of union, we wrote:
"I am aware of the tactic of unreasonable delay. Those
in control have said that a plan would be presented to the
1973 General Assemblies. I will accept the good faith of
those who have so promised until they have proven otherwise.
But all these considerations are mere speculations on the
future. Only God can control that door. Until He closes
it or permits it to be closed through unreasonable delays,
I believe Christian statesmanship requires us to wait, for
when we move, we must move with honor. "We must prepare
for the move. We would still hope and pray that God would
bring a great revival or give us victory in this present
structure; but Christian statesmanship requires us to prepare
for the alternative of a new structure ..."
|
And so the Steering Committee was appointed
to make such preparation.
5. By 1972 we had suggested a plan for a continuing Church. It was
to support any plan of union with the UPUSA which contains an acceptable
escape clause permitting local congregations and ministers to elect
not to enter the union. We supported the plan as the most effective
constitutional method for peaceful realignment. And we still believe
it was the best method for the reasons we cited. But we were careful
to write:
"Notice we say `a' plan and not `the' plan, and we use
the indefinite article for several reasons:
|
"We recognize that the sovereign Holy Spirit may be pleased
to so revive our Church that revisions in this plan may
be necessary..."
"If proponents of union were to seek to defeat us with
unreasonable delays, our plan would need to be changed..."
|
6. In August 1972, we wrote of a deliberate effort to postpone indefinitely
the vote on the plan of union. We restated our often announced position
on such a delay, as we wrote of the plan:
"It can be ready and presented to the respective General
Assemblies in May and June, 1973. In my judgment to do otherwise
would be breaking faith with the people ..."
|
In view of this possibility we outlined alternatives
to the plan such as General Assembly walk-out, Presbytery withdrawal,
Presbytery dismissal of individual churches, and individual church
withdrawal.
7. And so we come to the meeting of the Committee on Presbyterian
Union in Dallas, Texas, in February, 1973. We came after spending
6 days in the preceding six weeks with a subcommittee on drafting.
We came with a plan ready to be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies
for vote. In its three day session in Dallas the Committee never discussed
the substance of the plan they had been working on for almost four
years. Instead they voted to cast aside this plan and start anew writing
another plan. This new plan will not be presented until 1974 and then
"for study only". The members of the Committee from the PCUS had succeeded
in getting an indefinite delay. Before the vote to delay, I made it
clear to the Committee that I felt that you would consider such a
delay as a breach of faith. They voted the delay with only two dissenting
votes -- mine and that of Mr. William Thompson, Stated Clerk of the
UPCUSA. Next morning, in full open session, Mr. Thompson stated to
the Committee that he thought the Committee had been "dishonest" and
betrayed the confidence placed in you by the conservatives in the
PCUS." These were his words -- not mine. He then spent 30 minutes
chastising the Committee for their conduct and particularly blaming
the PCUS members. Other members of the Committee from the UPCUSA privately
apologized to me for what they felt was unfair conduct by the PCUS
members and a breach of good faith by them.
We had accepted the promises of these PCUS leaders,
the overt and covert, and trusted them in good faith as men of good
will. They have broken that trust and confidence. We cannot put our
faith in them again -- for they admit candidly that their decisions
are not motivated by principle but by expediency. And those who wait
for the constitutional issue of union with UPCUSA wait at the whim
and the mercy of the liberals as expediency dictates, both as to timetable
and the probability of an acceptable escape clause.
Some say they will be with us but must wait
on the UPCUSA union issue. They reason that they feel a justifiable
division requires such a grave constitutional issue. They say that
such a union would raise a major theological issue as it would require
them to be united with a group with whom they cannot agree as to doctrine.
They cite the Confession of 1967 as a major theological, doctrinal
deviation by the UPCUSA; ;and they say they cannot be linked in union
with a body which subscribes thereto. To those who so reason, I would
respectfully suggest that such a judgment is a matter of degree rather
than a matter of principle. I would suggest two reasons -
1. Most of us would admit that the PCUS has violated its
Constitution on numerous occasions in the past 20 years.
So it is not a matter that UPCUSA union would be the only
constitutional deviation. It would be only one among many.
For you it might be "major" enough to justify division.
But the mere fact that you use the adjective "major" proves
to me that you are relegating these other Constitutional
breaches to the "minor" category. And when you thus begin
to reason between "major" and "minor" Constitutional violations,
I suggest that your conclusion must be based on the degree
of the violation and not of the principle of Constitutional
breach.
2. The Constitutional change of the Book of Church Order
which permits Union Presbyteries has already violated the
principle of our union with a body with whose doctrine we
do not agree. UPCUSA union would not change that principle;
it would only change the degree of the union. Our BCO 18-6
(13) provides that our General Assembly can receive under
its jurisdiction only those "other ecclesiastical bodies
whose organization is conformed to the doctrine and order
of this Church." In approving the Union Presbyteries Amendment
to the BCO, our Church has constitutionally concluded that
we agree in doctrine and order with the UPCUSA. This would
include the Confession of 1967. We are as fully linked in
Constitutional principle with the UPCUSA now as we would
be under a full plan of union. The difference is only matter
of degree. We now have only 9 presbyteries united and then
we would have them all. But as a Constitutional principle,
we sit with them as fully and duly elected representatives
in the courts of the Church -- General Assembly, Synod and
Presbytery. Without any further Constitutional change, every
single presbytery in our Church could be united with the
UPCUSA. Union with the UPCUSA is already a Constitutional
fact. Now you say that you will leave when three-fourths
of the presbyteries adopt a plan of union with UPCUSA. To
be logically consistent would you not have to leave when
three-fourths of the presbyteries become united as union
presbyteries? Then do you not see that your conclusion is
not based on the violation of the principle of Constitutional
union with UPCUSA but on the degree thereof.
|
Thus I would contend that in Constitutional
principle we are already united with the UPCUSA. And those, who see
this union as intolerable, have now every Constitutional principle
violated which will be violated with full organic union. You may be
reluctant to move now because the degree of union is not sufficient
for you; but you cannot logically argue that the principle of Constitutional
union has already been settled.
Now let us turn to consider alternative procedures
for those who are ready now, in 1973, to raise the banner for a new
Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. We can eliminate
a General Assembly walk-out; for most conservative commissioners have
decided not to even attend this General Assembly. This leaves three
alternatives: (1) withdrawal of entire Presbytery, (2) Presbytery
dismissal of individual churches, and (3) unilateral withdrawal of
individual churches by congregational action. Presbytery withdrawal
still remains a good method; but since few Presbyteries have any real
possibility of such an action, we feel it better to discuss the details
of this method directly with these Presbyteries. A Presbytery can
dismiss a church with its property; but the present attitude of the
liberals poses problems with this method. They have taken hard line;
and I predict will even get tougher. It is difficult for me to understand
how men, who bear the name of Christ, can display to a watching world
such a harsh, mean and vindictive attitude toward their brothers in
Christ. A few months ago they seemed willing to heed the advice of
our beloved Moderator, Dr. L. Nelson Bell. In speaking to the Committee
on Presbyterian Union in Charlotte last year, in his first public
appearance as Moderator, Dr. Bell said he favored the "escape" clause
because he thought it "unchristian" and "immoral" to try to coerce
a congregation to remain in a voluntary organization as the church
when they could not in good conscience support it. But as time disclosed
that this movement was of mammoth proportions and thus threatened
the power and purse of the liberals, their attitude began to harden
under the advice of their leaders. Their public voice, the Presbyterian
Outlook, actually chastised their followers for being fair with us.
Can you imagine Christians being criticized for being "fair" with
other Christians? Well in its April 9, 1973, issue this voice of the
liberals wrote for the world to reach these words -
"Some Presbyteries who appear to be taking a casual attitude
toward the dismissal of church property ... need to be reminded
of their pledged obligations ..."
"In some cases we have heard that presbytery executives
under a distorted understanding of fair play or their own
responsibilities have actually counselled dissidents as
to courses to pursue . . ."
"It is folly to permit the alienating effort to move ahead
unchallenged ..."
|
Following this line of advice, we have seen
liberals across the church begin to adopt this tough, harsh, and vindictive
tack. Hence, even in a Presbytery that feels that it is "unchristian"
and "immoral" to try to coerce a congregation to remain against the
conscience of its majority membership; and even if such a Presbytery
votes to dismiss such a congregation with its property, there is always
one or more liberal ministers in that Presbytery who will file a complaint
against such a Presbytery dismissal. The "ruse" reason is used that
it is to protect the rights of the loyal minority in that congregation.
We know it is a "ruse"; because we have been the loyal minority in
the PCUS for years, and they have never shown any inclination to even
listen to, much less protect, our rights and positions. It is obvious
that such malicious tactics are designed to discourage congregations
from taking such action for dismissal, and to put such congregations
on notice that they will be tied up in the church courts for years
if they take this procedure. Hence if this procedure is used, we suggest
that once the Presbytery acts dismissing the local church, any complaints
to higher church courts be ignored. Just take the position that you
have been legally dismissed and no longer subject to any ecclesiastical
court jurisdiction. And if the liberals want to take it to a civil
court to try to get your property, let them bear the public onus of
carrying Christian brothers to a civil court against the injunctions
of the Bible.
But probably for most congregations, the third
alternative is the best present procedure. Just call a congregational
meeting and vote to withdraw and so notify your Presbytery. Thereafter,
politely refuse to entertain any commission or committee on the principle
that you are no longer subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Once
again this procedure could bring a civil lawsuit over your property.
But again the liberals would have the public onus of beginning the
lawsuit against the express will of the majority of the congregation.
Many constitutional lawyers feel that this right is preserved to the
local congregation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to our
U.S. Constitution.
You will readily recognize that there are perils
in all three alternative procedures. You may end up in a civil court
battle for your church property. It begins to be quite obvious that
it is your church property that most interests the liberals. In this
same April 9,1973, issue of the Presbyterian Outlook they gave their
motive away when it was written
"It would appear that a presbytery would be better advised
to take the initiative to dissolve the pastorate, and, where
required, dissolve the church ..."
|
Why "dissolve the church"? Because under our
BCO when a church has been dissolved and no disposition has been made
of its property, the property goes to presbytery (BCO 6-3). Thus they
have clearly announced that they want your property. This is further
proven by their willingness to let small congregations without much
property go without protest; but they usually contest the dismissal
or withdrawal of a church that owns choice property, particularly
if it is free of debt. Now, we have an obligation to preserve and
protect the property that has been purchased with the gifts and sacrifices
of our God-fearing forefathers; and if forced to do so, we serve notice
here and now that we shall fiercely battle them for it. But, do not
let us be like them. We declare here and now that property is not
the main issue. If we are forced by our convictions to risk the loss
of all property, no matter how dear, for the sake of the honor and
integrity of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, such a risk we are
fully prepared to take. We prefer it not; but we will not shrink from
it, if God requires it of us. We will not put our pew ahead of our
Lord.
So the die is cast. To me our course is clear.
Some may say, "Why 1973?"; but I say "Why wait?" If conscience dictates
that it is your duty to wait, then you must wait, you should wait,
you dare not do otherwise. But if not, why wait? Now I suggest that
the decision for a minister and the decision for a congregation is
somewhat different. A minister may go at any time without peril -now
or 5 years from now -- but if you are responsible for a congregation
and for those yet unborn, what will be preached and taught in your
church 5, 10, 20 years from now. You have other considerations to
think about. What then can a congregation gain by waiting? If yours
is a congregation that does not use PCUS literature, and does not
support the PCUS program, then you have already in effect, separated.
What can you possibly gain by waiting? Surely you don't believe that
you can reform the PCUS? What then do you gain by waiting? But you
may lose by waiting. You may lose the only chance you will ever have
to leave and take your property. Do you really believe there will
ever be a Plan of Union with an acceptable escape clause? Are you
willing to wait 5 to 10 years on the speculative chance? Is it not
true that as your conservative brothers leave your position in your
presbytery is weakened? What is going to be your position when your
presbytery is restructured as it is surely going to be? Is there not
less chance of civil lawsuits when churches go in mass rather than
later to go in isolated situations? Is it not better to join with
your Christian brothers of like mind and raise now the Standard in
our beloved Southland of a new church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed
Faith? To me answers are loud and clear. Move now, together, toward
a Church reborn.
And as we move, our attitude to others is most
important. We move with determination and resolve, but with tears,
sorrow and mourning for the necessity that is laid upon us. Regardless
of the attitudes or actions of others, we will remember that we represent
the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King and Head of the Church. As
his ambassadors to the watching world, we must let this mind be in
us which was in Christ Jesus. Let men everywhere notice in us the
three effects of nearness to Jesus -- humility, holiness and happiness.
To those who would be unfair and harsh toward us we hear Him say -
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use and persecute you."
|
To those who agree with us in principle but
disagree as to procedure, we extend our hand of continued fellowship
and good will and our open invitation and plea to join us soon. For
you we hear Him say -
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which
shall believe on me through their word."
|
To you who may be called upon to suffer for
this cause, we hear Him say -
"Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute
you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for
my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your
reward in heaven ..."
|
And as we move, let there be a great outpouring
of prayer. Let us remember the people of God in the wilderness when
Joshua fought in the valley and Moses prayed on the mountain. The
prayers of Moses discomforted the enemy more than the fighting of
Joshua. Yet both were needed. It is remarked that Joshua never grew
weary in fighting, but Moses grew weary in praying. It is far easier
to fight than to pray. The more spiritual an exercise; the more difficult
it is for flesh and blood to maintain it. Intermittent supplication
will avail little as we move. We must wrestle all day every day and
hold up our hands "until the going down of the sun."
Let me close with a statement made by Charles
Haddon Spurgeon about 80 years ago. Listen carefully to the exhortation
of the great man of God as he so aptly describes our present opportunity.
"We admire a man who was firm in the faith, say 400 years
ago ... but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be
put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a
worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine that in
those ages past, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their compeers
had said, "The world is out of order; but if we try to set
it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves
into disgrace. Let us go to your chambers, put on our nightcaps,
and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up
things will have grown better'. "Such conduct on their part
would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after
age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the
pestiferous bogs of error would have swallowed all. These
men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see
them trampled on ..." "It is today as it was in the Reformers'
days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man, where
is the man for the day? We who have had the Gospel passed
to us by martyr hands dare not trifle with it, nor sit by
and hear it denied by traitors, who pretend to love it,
but inwardly abhor every line of it ..." "Look you, sirs,
there are ages yet to come. If the Lord does not speedily
appear, there will come another generation, and another,
and all these generations will be tainted and injured if
we are not faithful to God and to His truth today. We have
come to a turning point in the road. If we turn to the right
mayhap our children and our children's children will go
that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn
will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and
to His Word."
|
The Law is the law of Love; and the procedure
is to rescue the perishing. Godspeed!!! Amen. |