Indictment of the PCA Standing Judicial Commission | Exhibit 2
“As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. …
The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden.”
— I Timothy 1:20-22, 24-25
The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America
Part I: Form of Government
Chapter 21: The Ordination and Installation of Ministers
21-5. Questions for Ordination.
3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity?
Chapter 13: The Presbytery
13-7. The Presbytery shall cause to be transcribed, in some convenient part of the book of records, the obligations required of ministers at their ordination, which shall be subscribed by all admitted to membership, in the following form:
I, _______________, do sincerely receive and subscribe to the above obligation as a just and true exhibition of my faith and principles, and do resolve and promise to exercise my ministry in conformity thereunto.
“If the foundations are destroyed,
what can the righteous do?”
— Psalm 11:3
“If the system of doctrine taught in the Confession be wrong, let it by all means be changed. But as long as we profess to hold certain doctrines, let us really and honestly hold them. I would unspeakably rather discard the Confession altogether, than adopt a principle which would render its use a solemn mockery.”
— Rev. Samuel Miller, professor at Princeton Seminary, in a February 1833 letter on the subject, “Adherence to our Doctrinal Standards”
“The opposite of precision is sloppiness. When it comes to the knowledge of God and His gospel, there simply is no room for sloppiness. Another opposite of precision is the more subtle ‘studied ambiguity’ that R. C. fought against his whole life. Perhaps studied ambiguity was a far greater threat than blatant error. With the former, people could let their guard down, and subtle drips become waterfalls over time. R. C. valued precision.”
— R. C. Sproul: A Life, Stephen J. Nichols, p. 285
“If you give a pig a party,
she’s going to ask for some balloons.
When you give her the balloons,
she’ll want to decorate the house.
…”
— Laura Joffe Numeroff, 2005
06/30-07/03/1998: The 26th PCA General Assembly further uncovers a pattern of omissions, oversights and “lack of record” in requirements for all of the teaching elders in Central Florida Presbytery’s licensure, examination and ordination process — with specific mention of “exceptions of form” regarding the Presbytery stated meeting on October 18, 1997. In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance.”
Presbytery rejoins, “We acknowledge the lack of record of the examination. A review of the notes does reflect the particulars of the exam. We will continue to make every effort to keep more accurate records than this incident reflects.”
After Sproul’s permission in October 1997 to labor out of bounds at Saint Andrew’s, this appears to be an immediate warning sign from above that there are problems in Central Florida’s records.
(Minutes of the Twenty-Sixth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 235)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-5
06/15-17/1999: The 27th PCA General Assembly reiterates a pattern of omissions, oversights and incomplete records from the previous year in requirements for all of the teaching elders in Central Florida Presbytery’s licensure, examination and ordination process. In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance.”
Presbytery acknowledges its omissions yet rebuffs its errors, “We assure GA that Presbytery is quite thorough in its examinations process and that parts of the exams were covered. Review of subsequent Minutes will reflect a more careful record in this area.”
Why are there so many gaps in Central Florida’s records for ordinations? The red flags continue.
(Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 192)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-10
06/14-17/2005: The 33rd PCA General Assembly finds a continued pattern of errors, oversights and incomplete records in requirements for Central Florida Presbytery’s licensure, examination and ordination process for teaching elders, including, “No record of Session endorsement or PCA membership of candidate … Incomplete record of licensure exam requirements. … No record of call for a candidate for ordination. … No record of Session approval of change of call for Assistant Pastor and no record of new call. … Incomplete record of exam requirements for candidate being examined to become a TE.” In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance.”
In retort, “Central Florida Presbytery reaffirms its previously stated commitment to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities where the review of Session Records is concerned, and expresses its appreciation to the General Assembly for its continued patience in this matter.”
Granted, 2004 was the year that Florida had several hurricanes, but this isn’t an isolated incident. What seems to be going on with Central Florida’s recordkeeping over a period of so many years?
(Minutes of the Thirty-Third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, pp. 268-270)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-5
06/20-23/2006: The 34th PCA General Assembly continues noticing a pattern of errors, oversights and incomplete records in requirements for Central Florida Presbytery’s licensure, examination and ordination process for teaching elders, especially with its out-of-bounds calls at non-PCA organizations. In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance,” including, “No record of sessional endorsement or 6 month membership requirement for a candidate. … Incomplete record of ordination examination requirements. … No record of congregational meeting to dissolve pastoral relationship … No record of whether Presbytery considers out of bounds labors to be a valid Christian ministry. … No record of call for a candidate for ordination.”
Presbytery rebuffs that its records are complete and “The candidate was in fact fully vetted, and examined thoroughly as rightly required in our constitutional documents.” The Committee’s recommendation states “That the following responses to the 33rd GA exceptions be found unsatisfactory. The minutes should specifically record that each requirement has been met.”
Yet again, the highest Court cannot excuse the mistakes transpiring with Central Florida’s records.
(Minutes of the Thirty-Fourth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, pp. 242-244)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 20-1; 21-1; 40-1,-2,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c-5,-10.b
02/2007: Burk Parsons writes in his article “Electing Elders” in 9Marks, “I have no disagreement over the importance and biblical precedent (i.e. Acts 6:3; 14:23) for the congregation’s role in confirming elders. Yet it is ultimately the responsibility of the elders to nominate and elect elders.”
(9News, February 2007, Volume 4, Issue 2, p. 19 or Electing Elders By Burk Parsons (PDF))
Alleged discordances with Parsons’ comments and his future Confessional Subscription
Primary standards: Psalm 94:20, Acts 6:1-7, 20:28, I Timothy 3:2,15, Titus 1:5-7, James 3:1
Secondary standards: BCO Preface II.6; 3-1; 7-3; 8-1,-2,-3; 13-5,-7; 16-2; 20-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7; 21-4.f,-5.2,3,4,7,8; 22-2; 24-1,-2,-3,-4,-5; 25-1,-7
10/30/2006: At its 119th Stated Meeting, the Central Florida Presbytery approves its Standing Rules which posit:
“APPENDIX:
POLICY REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF CREDENTIALED MEN FROM OTHER DENOMINATIONS AND INDEPENDENCY
Guiding principles for this policy:
*Recognition that the PCA is not the only legitimate expression of the Lord’s church
* Recognition that it is our duty as presbyters to preserve the purity of teaching and leadership within our churches.
* A desire for equitable treatment of candidates for presbytery membership
* Submission to the dictates of the BCO”
Whereas, their BCO they refer to actually dictates (BCO 1-1; 3-3,-5,-6; 4-1), “The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a. The Church; b. Its members; c. Its officers; d. Its courts; e. Its orders. … The sole functions of the Church, as a kingdom and government distinct from the civil commonwealth, are to proclaim, to administer, and to enforce the law of Christ revealed in the Scriptures. … The Church, with its ordinances, officers and courts, is the agency which Christ has ordained for the edification and government of His people, for the propagation of the faith, and for the evangelization of the world. … The exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether joint or several, has the divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in His Word. … A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians, with their children, associated together for divine worship and godly living, agreeable to the Scriptures, and submitting to the lawful government of Christ’s kingdom.”
It would seem that Presbytery’s iatrogenic strain of latitudinarianism might be causing infection.
(Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules, 2006)
06/12-14/2007: The 35th PCA General Assembly continues noticing a pattern of errors, oversights and incomplete records in requirements for Central Florida Presbytery’s licensure, examination and ordination process for teaching elders, especially with its out-of-bounds calls at non-PCA organizations. In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance.”
Presbytery of course responds, “We will make sure our committee reports, and minutes, reflect the required session endorsement, or PCA membership, of a candidate (BCO 18-2). … We will make sure that our minutes reflect that fact that all exam requirements have been met for both licensure and ordination.”
Evidently, libertine employment of the out-of-bounds provision, lax examinations and internship requirements, as well as disorganized recordkeeping, are longstanding troubles in Central Florida for many years. The proverbial handwriting has already been on the wall for a very long time.
(Minutes of the Thirty-Fifth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, pp. 172-174)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 20-1; 21-1; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-5
06/10-12/2008: The 36th PCA General Assembly continues noticing gaps in records pertaining to specific licensure and examination requirements at Central Florida Presbytery, and the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records reports, “That as no responses to the 35th GA exceptions were received, these should be submitted to the 37th GA.”
(Minutes of the Thirty-Sixth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 216)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-2,-4; RAO 16-4.c,-5,-10.b
06/16-18/2009: The 37th PCA General Assembly cites Central Florida Presbytery “to appear before the Standing Judicial Commission at its annual stated meeting with the stated records according to the provisions of RAO 16-4.e and BCO 40-1, 4 and 5 for repeatedly failing to submit minutes and/or responses to exceptions of substance,” and for gaps in records pertaining to specific licensure and examination requirements. The Report of the Committee on Thanks resolves, “Thank you to the saints from the Central Florida Presbytery for their diligence and hard work in making this a wonderful time of worship, teaching, and fellowship for the body of Christ.”
Yet, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records concurrently has to report, “That as no responses to the 35th GA exceptions were received, these should be submitted to the 38th GA.” Despite the PCA thanking the host Presbytery’s hospitality for the General Assembly this year in Orlando, it still turns out to be a hot summer for Central Florida, whose perennial recordkeeping troubles and reporting derelictions have become clearly untenable from the GA’s vantage point.
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c-5,-10.b
11/17/2009: TE Burk Parsons, having been already ordained by Saint Andrew’s Chapel, now is ordained in the PCA at the Central Florida Presbytery 132nd stated meeting, and is granted to labor out of bounds in a pastoral call where he already works, Saint Andrew’s. No pulpit committee, nor congregational nomination, nor vote precede this ordination. Parsons’ ordination contravenes the 1976 judicial precedent of the General Assembly that the BCO “does not envisage the ordination of a candidate expressly to pastoral services in a church of another denomination.” So, Central Florida continues to clerically fertilize this prelatic habitat at Saint Andrew’s Chapel.
(Minutes of the Fourth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 70)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Primary standards: Malachi 2:7, Acts 20:28, I Corinthians 1:10-11, I Timothy 5:22-25, James 1:22-25, 3:1,17-18
Secondary standards: WLC Q.99.6-8; BCO Preface I; 1-1; 3-3,-6; 4-1; 5-9; 7-3; 8-7 (cf. 4th PCA General Assembly, Judicial Case 2); 11-4; 13-5,-7; 14-7; 18-1,-2,-4,-5,-8; 20-1,-2
Tertiary standards: Central Florida Presbytery, PCA, Exam Committee Vision, Values, Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules, Candidacy Policy
06/29-07/02/2010: The 38th PCA General Assembly cites Central Florida Presbytery a second time “to appear before the Standing Judicial Commission at its annual stated meeting with the stated records according to the provisions of RAO 16-4.e and BCO 40-1, 4 and 5 for repeatedly failing to submit minutes and/or responses to exceptions of substance,” and for gaps in records pertaining to specific licensure and examination requirements. The GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records reports, “That as no responses to the 35th GA exceptions were received, these should be submitted to the 39th GA.”
Central Florida already had been cited at the prior year’s GA pertaining to omissions in its licensure records from four years earlier, yet this Presbytery still fails to get its records in order.
(Minutes of the Thirty-Eighth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, pp. 72, 78)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-5,-10.b
06/07-10/2011: The 39th PCA General Assembly enumerates a dozen dates in Central Florida Presbytery’s records with unresolved errors or gaps. In its report, the GA Committee on Review of Presbytery Records approves Central Florida Presbytery’s records, “with exceptions of substance.” The report states, “No record of review of sessional records … No response to the 38th GA or previous assemblies is required.”
It is unclear from the minutes what happened at this GA, since Presbytery had been cited at the two previous consecutive years to answer the RPR Committee’s list of exceptions.
(Minutes of the Thirty-Ninth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 437)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Secondary standards: BCO 13-11; 40-1,-4; RAO 16-3,-4.c,-5,-10.b
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the General Assembly
Secondary standards: BCO 40-5; RAO 16-4.e,-6,-7,-10.c
08/23/2011: TE Kevin Struyk is ordained in the PCA and granted to labor out of bounds in a pastoral call at Saint Andrew’s, at the Central Florida Presbytery 139th stated meeting. No pulpit committee, nor congregational nomination, nor vote precede this ordination. This contravenes the 1976 judicial precedent of the highest Court of the Church, again (cf. BCO 14-7).
(Minutes of the Fourth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 70)
Alleged violations (errors and/or delinquencies) by the Central Florida Presbytery
Primary standards: Malachi 2:7, Acts 20:28, I Corinthians 1:10-11, I Timothy 5:22-25, James 1:22-25, 3:1,17-18
Secondary standards: WLC Q.99.6-8; BCO Preface I; 1-1; 3-3,-6; 4-1; 5-9; 7-3; 8-7 (cf. 4th PCA General Assembly, Judicial Case 2); 11-4; 13-5,-7; 14-7; 18-1,-2,-4,-5,-8; 20-1,-2
Tertiary standards: Central Florida Presbytery, PCA, Exam Committee Vision, Values, Central Florida Presbytery Standing Rules, Candidacy Policy
“Brother, we are only half-awake—we are none of us more than half-awake.”
— the dying words of Church of England clergyman and writer Legh Richmond, 1827, as recorded by J.C. Ryle, Memoir of Legh Richmond, p. 57
“The doors of the temple of Janus are not yet closed. This is not the time to lay down our arms and go to sleep, but rather to keep awake and be on our guard.”
— J.C. Ryle, “About our Church in 1896,” Charges and Addresses, p. 360 (Janus is the Roman God of transitions, i.e., the beginning and end of all things)
“I cannot forbear warning you against a piece of dishonesty which may possibly be found united to gravity and decency in other respects. I mean a minister’s subscribing to articles of doctrine which he does not believe. This is so direct a violation of sincerity, that it is astonishing to think how men can set their minds at ease in the prospect, or keep them in peace after the deliberate commission of it. The very excuses and evasions that are offered in defence of it are a disgrace to reason, as well as a scandal to religion.
What success can be expected from that man’s ministry, who begins it with an act of such complicated guilt? How can he take upon him to reprove others for sin, or to train them up in virtue and true goodness, while he himself is chargeable with direct, premeditated, and perpetual perjury? … I have particularly chosen to introduce the subject upon this occasion, that I may attack it, not as an error, but as a fraud; not as a mistake in judgment, but an instance of gross dishonesty and insincerity of heart. I must beg every minister, but especially those young persons who have an eye to the sacred office, to remember that God will not be mocked, though the world may be deceived. In His sight, no gravity of deportment, no pretence to freedom of inquiry, (a thing excellent in itself,) no regular exercise of the right of private judgment, will warrant or excuse such a lie for gain, as solemnly to subscribe what they do not believe.”
— Rev. John Witherspoon, Scottish-American Presbyterian minister, educator, farmer, slaveholder, and a Founding Father of the United States, Witherspoon’s Works, Vol. I, pp. 313-314
Appendix A. Bearing of Scriptural Principles on the Lawfulness and Duty of Union between Separate Churches
Extract from Speech on the Union Question, Jan. 9, 1867
“The acknowledgement of any religious society as a living branch of the Vine lays upon us instantly the duty of treating it as a Church of Christ. When God giveth opportunity, the recognition of any religious body as a Church of Christ, without doubt, lays upon us a primâ facie obligation to go forward to union and co-operation, unless it can be made out that union and co-operation are impossible without sin on one side or other. And now comes the second question that meets us in the case of union for common objects between individual Christians, and which equally meets us in the case of union for common objects between Churches: Are the methods of co-operation which such union implies,—are the principles and ways of joint working which are involved in it, lawful or unlawful, scriptural or unscriptural? Can the Churches, and the members and office-bearers of the Churches, work together in union without the sacrifice of conscience or principle on either side? This is the only question that remains to be answered, in order to determine the matter of duty as to union in those cases where Providence offereth opportunity, and where Churches equally recognise each other as Churches of Christ. If the way and mode of that joint action which union necessitates be in themselves lawful, the union itself must not only be lawful, but a duty; if there is nothing required by such incorporation in the shape of unscriptural sacrifice, either as to belief or practice, then there is nothing to stand in the way of that duty which we owe to the one body of Christ—the duty, namely, of joining ourselves to those who are His members as well as we. If, on the other hand, the necessities of action in common which the union of Churches implies should impose on either party a compromise of creed or duty amounting to what is wrong, then the separation between them, although itself implying sin on one side or other, cannot be lawfully healed by means of a union which would bring along with it other sin. The controversy about union can only be settled by the settlement of this question. Where the first point must be taken for granted, where the Churches, as in the present instance, recognise each other as equally branches of the one Church of the Redeemer, and when this acknowledgement primâ facie involves in it the fundamental duty of showing their oneness in Christ by the visible realization of it, nothing can be a lawful or Scriptural bar to union, except the actual proof that the administration of doctrine, worship, and government by Churches in common would impose upon ministers or members the necessity of doing what was unlawful and unscriptural. Less than this cannot stand in the way of the positive obligation lying upon Churches of Christ to confess, and to act on the confession, that those who are one with Christ are also one with each other. Considerations of expediency, of feeling, of advantage on one side or other, cannot be listened to when, first of all, a question of duty must be heard. It is time that we were studying the Word of God and the standards of our Church, in order to ascertain the great principles which must rule and decide this question of duty.
So far as I have been enabled to understand the question, these are the general principles which, sooner or later, must, in their application to the case in hand, determine the duty of union between the negotiating Churches. We are justified in taking for granted, on all hands, the mutual acknowledgement, cordially made and responded to, that the religious bodies now contemplating union are true Churches of Christ, living branches of the one living Vine, living members of the one living body of which Christ is the Head. The only question that can be raised is the second of those to which I have adverted,—namely, whether, admitting them to be true Churches of Christ, there is, or is not, in a common action on the part of these Churches, in such a joint administration of doctrine, worship, and government, as the contemplated union implies, anything that would lay upon you as a minister, or myself as a member, a necessity of doing what we believed to be unlawful and wrong? If union implies such a necessity, it is a sin; if union imposes no such necessity, it is a Scriptural duty. This is really the hinge of the controversy about union. I may admit a religious society to be a true Church of Christ. But that religious society may be acting upon principles, and necessitating its office-bearers and members, so long as they are in communion with it, to act on principles which involve what is unscriptural and wrong. Notwithstanding of its grievous defections and shortcomings, I cannot refuse to acknowledge that the Established Church of Scotland is a Church of Christ. But I would not be a minister of that Church, because, by my tenure of office as a minister, I should feel that I gave my consent to its Erastian compact with the State, and was bound, in consequence, to do and sanction things which to me would appear to be sin. I believe that the Church of England is a Church of Christ; but I could not be a minister of that Church, because my position as such would compel me to own a creed that is wide enough to cover both Romanism and Rationalism, and to act under a form of government which I do not find in the Word of God. I believe that the Congregational body is a true Church of Christ, and I honour it as sound in the great truths of the Gospel. But I would not be a minister of that Church, because, as such, I should be forced to act upon principles of Church government, which to me, as a Presbyterian, cannot be made to consist with those Church principles which I recognise in Scripture. In all these cases, it is not because they are not churches of Christ that I refuse to unite with them, but because union would put me in a position in which I should be compelled to acknowledge or to do what, with my views, I felt to be unscriptural and wrong. Would any such acknowledgement or action, to which my conscience could not consent, be forced upon me in consequence of union being realized between the negotiating Churches? Would a common administration of Word and ordinance, of worship and government, upon the grounds and according to the principles contemplated in the union, force me to own doctrines I could not conscientiously own, or to act in a way that I felt to be unlawful? This is really the question on which the matter of duty depends. … There are no more than two ways in which a Church can meet and refuse the call of duty that summons them to union with another Church, and demands that they shall show publicly their oneness in Christ by actually being one among themselves. If, first, a Christian Church can say that the party to whom they are called upon to join themselves is not itself a Christian Church, then indeed the summons falls to the ground. This is an answer to the call to union which no one in the present instance will venture to prefer. Or, secondly, if a Christian Church can say, if it can show that union for the joint administration of Word and Sacrament, of government, worship, and discipline, in a Church, lays upon ministers and members the necessity of some compromise of truth, or some surrender of duty, then this too would furnish a sufficient answer, and union, however desirable, would cease to be lawful or Scriptural. And the question substantially comes to this: Can such an allegation be truly pleaded? Is there, in the first place, any compromise of truth, any sacrifice of the doctrines we believe and hold, any denial of one article of our faith, demanded or expected in the event of the union that is contemplated? Or is there, in the second place, under the restraint of such union, any obligation or necessity laid upon us to adopt a line of practical conduct other than we would take without union, or to act in a way unscriptural, and by a rule we would not sanction, if we continued as a separate Church?”
— The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, pp. 862-865
Promotion of the Purity of the Church
“Serious and honest subscription to our doctrinal standards is essential to the theological and ethical purity of the Church. The Presbyterian Church in America is a confessional Church. We are bound together in a common theological commitment. We are committed not only to theism, trinitarian Christianity, Protestantism, and Evangelicalism in general, but to the Reformed Faith in particular. This understanding is expressed in the Westminster Standards. … Moreover, while we have a presbyterian, representative, connectional church government delineated in our Book of Church Order, we do not have the more centralized, top-down system one would find in Scotland. In order to promote the theological purity of the Church, we must have office-bearers who subscribe knowledgeably and in good faith to the constitution of the Church. Otherwise there is no effective means of keeping the Church tied to her theological moorings, not only for future generations, but even in this generation.”
— “Practical Benefits and Dangers of Subscription,” L. Roy Taylor, The Practice of Confessional Subscription, ed. David Hall, p. 397
Promotion of the Peace of the Church
“For there to be peace in the Church, there must be widespread belief that the office-bearers of the Church are sincerely and knowledgeably committed to the constitution of the Church. The purity of the Church is essential to the peace of the Church. When the members of the Church are assured that the leaders of the Church understand, believe, appreciate, and promote the theology and government of the Church, the peace of the Church is enhanced. Peace in a Bible-believing confessional Church is not based on an ‘anything goes’ view of theology. Peace in such a Church is not secured by sacrificing biblical truth.”
— ibid., pp. 397-398
Promoting the Progress of the Church
“The Church does not exist for herself only, but rather as the primary agent through which the Kingdom of God grows within the world. The Church is commissioned to disciple the nations (Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:15, Lk. 24:45-49; Jn. 20:21-23; Acts 1:8). The purity of the Church is an important aspect of the progress of the Church, because the Church must be sure of what she stands for and believes in order to propagate the faith. The peace of the Church is important to the progress of the Church as well. If the Church is constantly occupied with internal disputes and conflicts, her energies, time, and resources may be diverted from concentrating on evangelism and ministries of mercy. The subscription controversy, then, is not extraneous to the progress of the Church.”
— ibid., pp. 398-399
Maintaining the integrity of office-bearers
“Serious, honest, and knowledgeable subscription is a matter of basic integrity. Subscription … to the Westminster Standards is not to be pro forma but rather ex animo; not a perfunctory act but a sincere declaration. This writer makes such a sincere declaration twice each year by signing the Book of Ministerial Obligation in his Presbytery as a PCA minister and by affirming in writing his commitment to the Westminster Standards as a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. When anyone subscribes to the Westminster Standards integrity demands that his vow to ‘receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures’ is a sincere, honest, and knowledgeable oath. On one hand it is not to be a mere sentimental attachment to a document that is important to our Church. It is not simply giving an affirmative answer to ritual questions in order to assume an ordained leadership role in the Church. On the other hand as Protestants, we do not require blind obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Nor do we elevate our confessional standards to the level of Holy Scriptures. We are to take our vows in integrity. …
Knowledgeable and honest subscription is fundamentally a matter of integrity. The Church must have a policy on subscription to the Westminster Standards that motivates candidates, officers, and ministers to be open and forthright in stating their views, while also guaranteeing that differences are dealt with biblically and thus fairly. Sessions and Presbyteries must take care that those whom they examine take their ordination vows knowledgeably, honestly, and sincerely.
The subscription issue is an important one with significant practical implications for the Church. Like most theological controversies, it has both benefits and dangers for the Church. May the God of truth so bless our churches as to resolve this matter in a way that is to God’s glory and the Church’s good.”
— ibid., pp. 400-401, 407