Ussah or David?
Sep 21, 2012 | Comments 19
The following comments in the last issue of ARPTalk by the Reverend Scott Robar are helpful in jogging our memory:
I pray that Matt Miller and his session will withdraw the charges, and replace them with a plan to take care of the problems at Erskine, which you have helpfully and tirelessly exposed. Obviously they do not like the way that you operate. I recall Matt’s devotional/exhortation regarding the tipping Ark of the Covenant, which was given a couple of years ago at the Reformation Annex. As then, so now – Chuck and company are trying to steady the Ark by employing the wrong methods. Well, what is the right way? What are the things which your detractors have done to make things right?
The Reverend Robar reminds us of the meeting former Moderator, Mr. Steve Maye, organized for many of us at the Reformation Presbyterian Church, Hendersonville, NC, prior to the 2011 meeting of General Synod. Particularly, the Reverend Robar recalls the focus of the sermon preached by the Reverend Matthew Miller, Pastor of the Greenville ARP Church. The Reverend Miller’s sermon on 2 Samuel 6 has faded in our memories; however, as I recollect, the sermon was presented well. The problem with the sermon was the preacher failed to deal with the entire text, missed the central point of the text, and the application was strained.
The story of 2 Samuel 6 begins in chapter 5. David has been made King over both Judah and Israel. The Philistine princes, fearing the threat of a united Israel under King David, sent an army to Rephaim to destroy David. David inquires of the Lord, asking for God’s deliverance. God assures David of victory. At Baal-Perazim the Philistine army is smashed, and their gods are taken as spoils-of-war by the Israelites. A second time the princes of the Philistines muster and dispatch an army to Rephaim. Once again, David consults God and assurance of victory is given, and, in a running battle from east to west, from Geba to Gezer, the flower of the Philistine army is crushed and ground into the sands of the earth.
Having already taken Jerusalem, victorious King David organizes a great victory parade into Jerusalem with 30,000 soldiers. In his zeal and headiness, David also orders the Ark of the Covenant to be removed from the house of Abinadab where it had resided since the defeat and death of Saul and be placed on a new cart to be driven by the sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio. David wants the Ark to accompany him in his gala victory procession. Inexplicably, David, who had been keen to inquire of the Lord regarding the Philistine threat, did not seek the Lord’s direction or even consult with the Levites regarding the moving of the Ark of the Covenant.
As we remember, when Uzzah saw the Ark about to fall, he reached out his hand to steady it and was killed by the Lord for touching the Ark. David was offended. God had rained on his parade. God did not consult with David on this matter. In fear, David ordered the Ark sent to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for safe keeping.
The emphasis of the story is not on Uzzah’s death for touching the Ark; the emphasis is on David’s arrogance for thinking God would share His glory with the great King David. The story is about David’s impertinence, arrogance, pride, presumption, and foolishness. The lesson is clear: the God of the Bible does not share his glory with another – not even King David, the king of the Lord’s anointing and the sweet singing psalmist of Israel. We also learn here that the elements of worship are not to be hijacked by human beings for their own political purposes.
The story continues with 2 Samuel 7 as the king turns away from presumption to repentance and embracing God’s method. David turns from his I-am-the-great-king-and-I-know-what-I-am-doing-and-you-better-do-what-I-say-or-else attitude to inquiring as to the proper method for moving the Ark. This time the Levites are called out and a holy procession honoring God alone is organized. The Ark is mounted on poles and carried by Levites, as God had commanded in the Pentateuch. The Ark of God is the only focus. This time there are no soldiers in battle dress. This time the king is not mounted on a great war steed, dressed as a mighty warrior with his great sword and in his polished armor. This time David is dressed in a simple linen ephod. This time the king humbles himself before the Lord and cheers, sings, and dances in worship before the Lord in front of the Ark – making a spectacle of himself in repentance and abasement. And this time God honors David with a far greater appellation than victorious warrior – David is seen as a man of God.
Interestingly, Michal, the daughter of King Saul and David’s first wife, is offended by David’s humility before God. Her husband, the King, did not present himself regal-like in the presence of his people. She mocks her husband for wrapping himself in humility instead of kingly splendor and dignity. Her end is a curse. She is put away. Her end is to be a woman without children. The daughter of King Saul who should have birthed the heir to the throne of Israel is rejected and confined to a childless life because her pride was too great to honor and partake in her husband’s humility before God.
Now, before we leave the story, let us return to Uzzah. Why did Uzzah die? Obviously, he died because he touched the sacred Ark of the Covenant which was forbidden. However, how did it come to pass Uzzah was in a place of danger? Was it not because of David’s command? Was it not because of David’s foolishness and arrogance in failing to inquire of the Lord or consult the Levites? So, is David not the one responsible for Uzzah’s death? Is this not a warning regarding the collateral consequences of sin by those in places of authority?
According to the Reverend Matthew Miller, as Uzzah violated the sanctify of God in reaching out to steady the Ark of the Covenant, so the ARPC acted inappropriately in the 2010 “Snow Synod” in our attempt to denounce and correct decades-old abuses and institutionalized sins at Erskine. Well, how is sin and institutional faithlessness to be addressed?
Has the ARPC winked at sin and heresy at Erskine College and Seminary in the past and in the present? The answer is Yes!
Did the delegates at the “Snow Synod” acknowledge our failures? Did the ARPC attempt to rebuke and correct sin and abuses at Erskine College and Seminary at the “Snow Synod”? Once again, the answer to both questions is Yes!
After years of patience – even to the point of profligacy, and after years of pleading with the trustees and administrators at Erskine, the General Synod of the ARPC met at the “Snow Synod” and rebuked, admonished, and attempted to correct the sins, the heresy, and the malfeasance of the board and administration. How did the board and administration respond?
Psalm 141:5 reads, “Let a righteous man smite me – it is a kindness; let him rebuke me – it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it” (ESV). In our naïveté, we forgot with whom we were dealing. We forgot we were dealing with people who DID NOT hold the precepts of the Bible faithfully. We forgot the warning of Proverbs 9:7, “Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury” (ESV). We forgot the warning of Proverbs 15:12, “A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise” (KJV). We forgot the warning in John 3:20, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (KJV). Indeed, we forgot we were NOT dealing with people of “like precious faith.”
The response of the Erskine trustees and administrators was pride and arrogance. It was a “How-dare-you-question-us-even-if-every-indicator-shows-we-have-failed-in-our-stewardship-to-both-God-and-the-institution” response. Instead of embracing the rebuke and reproof of God’s people, both the administration and board joined in a civil court action against the ARPC. At least three trustees admitted their pride was wounded. Therefore, in fear for their little kingdoms, their positions of “honor” on the board, their jobs and salaries, and their academic reputations among their secular peers, they told the ARPC to “go to hell.” They counted other things more precious than the ARPC.
Note the following two verses: Proverbs 28:13, “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (KJV); and Luke 12:2, “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known” (KJV).
The directions of the Bible pertaining to both personal and institutional sins are the same: Ephesians 5:11 and 13, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. . . . But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light” (KJV); and 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (KJV). Sin is not to be explained, justified, covered or protected. The Scriptural emphasis is on rebuke, reproof, admonishment, correction, repentance, and renewed faithfulness. To explain, justify, cover, and protect sins is to condone sins and bring the withering judgment of God.
The most significant voices in the ARPC decrying the actions of the “Snow Synod” are the voices of the Reverends Andy Putnam, Kyle Sims, and Matthew Miller. They contend the ARPC acted intemperately, prejudicially, and illegally in our efforts to deal with the sins and abuses at Erskine. Conveniently, they are especially zealous to level the charge of illegality. Since the law suit was dropped, we will never know whether the ARPC acted within the bounds of legal propriety.
Well, what are the solutions of the Reverends Putnam, Sims, and Miller? They acknowledge the sins and abuses pointed out at the “Snow Synod” are correct. How do they propose to deal with those sins and abuses?
The Reverend Andy Putnam’s solution was to tell us “all is well” and “I’m on it” while, as a board trustee, failing to exercise his fiduciary responsibility to the Synod appointing him, he helped to rewrite the Erskine bylaws so that the ARPC was written out. The solution of the Reverend Sims is to speak of reformation and call for peace in the same breath while failing to understand the work of reformation always brings disruption, for reformation involves the correction of long-standing sins and abuses. In a number of Facebook postings, on September 5, 2012, he wrote the following: “The ARP is known as a peace loving denomination. I am thankful for that and I hope that we can return to it very soon. . . . . [T]here is a new group that is making an idol out of war.”
The Reverend Sims is wrong about the ARPC being peace-loving. What he calls “peace” is a mirage. What we have been is indolent, indifferent, permissive, and unwilling to address issues to the point of sinful dissipation and folly. There is no other way to parse our sin. We have permitted outrageous sins of administrative abuse and heresy at Erskine College and Seminary. Even the Reverend Sims admits this. However, to call our struggle for Biblical faithfulness a “war” and to call those of us who are calling for faithfulness lovers of “war” is desperately wrong and unfair on two points: (1) This disrespects our veterans who have actually fought in a war; and (2) This is tantamount to saying, “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11, NIV) and calling “evil good, and good evil” and putting “darkness for light, and light for darkness” and putting “bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, KJV). Do the Reverend Sims and others of like-mind think the reformation for which they so passionately call for at Erskine and in the ARPC is going to be achieved apart from confrontation with and denunciation of Satan and sin? How is it they often refer to condemnation of sin and a call for repentance and restoration as “legalism”? Have they forgotten Proverbs 28:4 and 13? The passage reads: “They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. . . . He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.”
The solution of the Reverend Matthew Miller is a curious three-fold strategy without Biblical warrant. First, he has helped to promote Messrs. Joe Patrick and David Conner to the position of Chairman of the board. In a conversation with me, the Reverend Miller stated he knew Mr. Conner and was assured he could be trusted to defend and carry the cause of the ARPC on the board. Well, is that what we saw in the board’s Ad Hoc Committee’s report to Synod in June? The answer is No! We saw Mr. Conner, the author of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report, ignore evidence and manufacture a conclusion that Xed-out the adding of the ARPC’s trustee removal policy to the Erskine bylaws. We saw Mr. Conner create an unprecedented level of distrust between the ARPC and Erskine. The level of distrust is now so high the Synod voted to form a committee to “birddog” the activities of the board on this matter. Where is the voice of the Reverend Miller rebuking the actions of Mr. Conner? Second, the Reverend Miller’s solution has been to act as an advocate for and a protector of both Dr. Richard Taylor, one of the trustees who filed legal action against the ARPC in civil court, and the ARP elders who are also trustees of the EC Foundation that has funded the attorneys’ fee for the civil suit against the ARPC. In both of these cases, the Reverend Miller turned to political cunning over simple faithfulness and loyalty to the church that ordained him.
Three, the proactive solution of the Reverend Miller for dealing with both the Erskine problem and renewal in the ARPC is expository preaching. His mantra seems to be: “We need more preachers who do expository preaching like me.” Is expository preaching magic? Many of us thought we had been practitioners of expository preaching method for years!
Interestingly, the only expository preaching we have seen by the Reverend Miller on the Erskine matter is his denunciation of the “Snow Synod” as an Uzzah-like sin against God. It also seems he has a view of expository preaching that knows no condemnation of sin or call for repentance and renewal. It is a magical word that is sent out as a “To Whom It May Concern.” What the Reverend Miller calls expository preaching seems to be a Barth-like antinomianism that embraces a grace apart from condemnation of sin, repentance, discipleship, and reformation. Where in the Bible is such an idea found? Has he turned to expediency over Biblical faithfulness to protect his position? If he has, he has become the coistril of those who are seeking to harm the ARPC. He is covering sin rather than exposing sin. And that does not bring the blessing of God; rather, it brings judgment!
President David Norman is the character of “woeful countenance” in this sad story. First, he wants to put behind all the past and, in his words, “going forward” do a new thing. The only way this can be done is to zero out the institution and re-charter, re-hire, and begin again. Apart from that, President Norman owns the past: the good and the misdeeds. The great prayers of repentance by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel acknowledged the sins of the past and called for God’s forgiveness. Interestingly, the mercies of God are always remembered backwardly; in like manner, the sins of the people are always remembered backwardly.
Second, President Norman wants us in the ARPC to trust him. However, does not the highway of trust run two ways? How can we trust him when we see him being disingenuous and equivocating? He has said he desires to be “the servant of the church.” That is not hard to do. One of the ways to do it is to listen to what the church says. If the church asks the Erskine board to put its trustee removal policy in the bylaws, then, President Norman, do it. If the board does not comply, ask the ARPC to remove the board. Become the champion of the ARPC; we will honor you. President Norman, is there an adulation you desire over “faithful servant of the church of Jesus Christ”?
Third, President Norman says he wants Erskine to affirm what the ARPC affirms. The history of Erskine has been faculty members defiantly rejecting and ridiculing what the ARPC believes. As one alum recently said, “My experience at Erskine was an assault on what I believed as an ARP.” Indeed, the history of the Erskine administration is covering up and protecting the heterodox views of individuals like Drs. Margaret Cubine, Bill Crenshaw, Merwyn Johnson, Richard Burnett, and others in the name of academic freedom. Never have we heard a cry for faithfulness to the faith of the ARPC! And not much has changed! At the 2012 meeting of Synod, we made it very clear we affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve. Instead of affirming what we believe, President Norman hurried to Due West to protect, affirm, and cover Dr. Mary Lang Edwards’ Darwinianism and academic freedom. And the explanation is this: “You just don’t understand how an educational institution works. You don’t understand SACS and ATS.” Well, I understand this from the Bible: “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet” (2 Peter 2:15-16, KJV).
And we have discussions why the ARPC is not growing. And we have discussions why Erskine College and Seminary is not growing. We say we are baffled by it. Are we lying to ourselves? Is it not because sin is at our door and we will not address it? We ignore the sin. We cover the sin. We do not call for repentance. We do not call for newness of life. No wonder God is withholding his blessing! The God of the Bible says: “Ye that love the LORD, hate evil” (Psalm 97:10, KJV). The Hebrew word for “hate” is a powerful word. It is more than an attitude toward; it is also actions toward.
Returning to the story of 2 Samuel 5, 6, and 7, the character we are most like is David instead of Uzzah. We were convinced by the Reverends Putnam, Sims, Miller and others to turn from the direction of the “Snow Synod”. In fear of court costs and conflict, we followed the way of least resistance. We followed the old ways of the past – the way of “Miss Scarlet” in Gone with the Wind: “I’ll think about this tomorrow!” We have drifted far from the God of Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine who were bold to address institutionalized sins and corruption in the Church of Scotland. In our indolent inactivity, we have joined hands with those who desire the approval of the “big,” “tall-steeple,” “secularly suave,” and “politically correct” Presbyterians and the secular academic world over simple obedience. In arrogance and self-sufficiency we have not sought the Lord but turned to our own devices. We have been too proud to follow the directions of God and to dance before the Lord in a linen ephod.
The following is instruction for the folks at Erskine: “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy” (Jonah 2:8, KJV).
The following is instruction for those of us in the ARPC: “And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers” (Nehemiah 9:2, KJV); and “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Psalm 32:5, KJV).
Therein are prosperity, growth, and renewal to be found. I think we can find more of this in the Bible.
These are my thoughts,
Charles W. Wilson
Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:
Filed Under: Newsletter
CORRECTION & APOLOGY
Dear Readers of ARPTalk,
The Reverend Matthew Miller has informed me I am incorrect and have offended him in stating his “talk” before the 2011 Synod at the Reformation Church was an expository sermon on 2 Samuel 5-7. Having re-read the “talk,” he is correct. His exegetical work on 2 Samuel 5-7 was the conclusion of his “talk”. I was working on my memory and impressions. I apologize to the Reverend Matthew Miller and you for the inaccuracy. It was an honest mistake and not intentional. If you would like to read the Reverend Matthew Miller’s “talk,” it is found at
http://gairneybridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pre-synod-talk-at-ref-arp.pdf.
I do contend, however, that Reverend Miller’s “talk” is sermon-like. As a preacher of and reader of sermons for nearly 50 years, Reverend Miller’s “talk” feels like a “sermon” – perhaps, a “topical” sermon. As far as the two salient points I identified in his “talk,” I was spot on.
Once again, Reverend Miller, I apologize to you for calling your “talk” an expository sermon on 2 Samuel 5-7.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
I have abridged Matt’s Reformation Annex talk in such a way, I hope, that I have retained the flow and substance. I will send that in my next post. By way of introduction, I’ll say the following….
I should say that Dr. Evans spoke, at The Reformation Annex, of a right wing 40% in the ARP, a 30% in the middle which articulates and embraces the Gospel well but shrinks away from doing discipline, and then there is a 30% which is fairly liberal.
Dr. Evans, was, so it seems, the representative for the 40% right-wingers (like me), and Matt was the representative for the middle 30%. The “mushy middle” I came to call them, after they got wobbly in the Synod meeting subsequent to the Snow Synod.
The 40% and the 30% were agreed at the Snow Synod; that is why the votes to go along with the Moderator’s Committee were in that 70% range. But then the lawsuit came. Am I mistaken in thinking that the origin of that lawsuit came from right within Matt’s church? I do not think such a thing would come from Matt, nor would it have been encouraged – no way!
So once that happened, Matt and other fine men, who had voted correctly at the Snow Synod, voted oppositely in the subsequent June Synod meeting.
Folding under pressure is embarrassing, so, naturally, self- defense kicks in. Justifications need to be made. That’s what Matt’s talk was. Again, the meeting had in attendance all who wanted to come. David Norman was there. But primarily those who were there were from the right-wing 40% and the middle 30%. As I said at the end of the meeting, “Being that we are 70%, we can do anything that we all agree on.” We agree on the most excellent things – there is no doubt about that.
But I think that the middle 30% needs to confess its sin. The middle men need to examine themselves, and ask, “Why did I really change my vote?” “Why did I protect men who sued the Church?”
Here is the abridged talk; but my added comments make it lengthy. Again, it is a justification for the middle 30% switching sides. I love these brothers. We all trust in God and look in amazement at His providence. All of this was according to God’s design. We need to be reconciled. I think that we need to have another Reformation Annex type meeting. I’d like to see the middle men repent, the right-wing immediately forgive, and for us to lay out a godly plan for going forward. Perhaps the right 40% did sin in some ways; but certainly no to the degree or extent of the middle 30%.
Each section below will be portion of my abridgment of Matt’s talk followed by my comments.
Matt …purity pursued in a pure way. That does not mean incremental reformation. The only adjective that belongs before the word reformation, in this context, is the word biblical. We must not pursue reformation swiftly, or pursue it incrementally – we must pursue it biblically. Sometimes that’s faster than we want it to go, other times that’s slower than we want it to go, but because it is the work of God, and not of men, biblical reformation will always be more thorough than we naturally desire, and more lasting in the end.
And I think I can say, from everyone that I have talked to within the ‘conservative ranks’ of the ARP, that we share the same goals, we are
pursuing the same ends. Where we disagree is on the means of how to
get there.
Scott I see, there, that what was being done by the 40% was unbiblical…too fast…wouldn’t last…same goal…but wrong way to get there
Matt I would like to share with you three reasons that I am hopeful about the future of the ARP. I. First, I am hopeful because I see pulpits in the ARP mysteriously being filled with men who boldly proclaim the whole counsel of God.
Scott This section about good men filling pulpits is excellent, and it does seem, as Matt says, to be an indication that God is doing something marvelous for the ARP. This is a good, but defective defense for the “waiting” approach. “Waiting” while “doing” is what the Church Militant does; the souls under the altar in heaven, i.e., the Church Triumphant, they merely wait.
Matt lI. Second, I am hopeful that God’s promises for his church will prevail for a people of faith and humility.
Scott An opening shot was taken, indicating that the right 40% were acting unbiblical…acting too quickly, then we were given reasons why we can wait – good men are coming into the pulpits. But now Matt turns harsh against the right 40%. The right 40% are, apparently, not humble – maybe not even people of faith. Shocked? read the next sentence.
Matt Over the last two years, I have heard a lot of ministers and delegates fortifying themselves not with the Word of God, but with sayings of military generals on the one hand, or weak clichés about peace and unity on the other.
Scott The right 40% not fortifying themselves on the Word of God – Yikes! That was not right, Matt. Please repent of that, openly. Also, military language is apt in the time of war; we are, according to the Bible, in a war. Don’t you feel it? Don’t you see it? It’s what the Bible is all about. Do you really think that there is even one man in the right-wing 40% who doesn’t fortify himself on the Word of God? Steve Maye graduated from the Citadel and takes fathers and sons to Gettysburg, etc. He uses military analogies. Did you have him in mind? He was the Synod’s moderator during those hard times. Did you have him in mind? If so, repent! Repent to him and to those of us who love him and who have hated to see what he and those close to him have had to endure. The toll on him and the church he was at was enormous. He fought the good fight, as did those who were near him like his pastor Dean Turbeville. Both of these men were wickedly vilified by the left 30%; but they expected that. However, the middle 30% ought to be ashamed of themselves!! I’ll say this – I would not be a pastor at New Covenant except for the fact that, humanly speaking, Dean Turbeville, alone, got me in there. He is the one who said to me, after I was installed, “They didn’t get into this condition overnight, and they won’t get out soon. They are smouldering wicks and bruised reeds. Be gentle and preach the Word and wait.” That sounds exactly like Matt’s advice; however, the context is different. The Erskine matter is different. Steve Maye, on his part, gave a large financial contribution toward the RTS education of New Covenant’s African-American elder, Mark Jones. Dean and Steve hosted a Filet Mignon dinner for our four interns and other interns in First Presbytery; because raising up good men for the good fight is their passion. They raised up leaders at All Saints ARP and I am following in their footsteps.
Matt We need to fortify ourselves with what God shows us in his Word: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” …. I am hopeful that the promises of God prevail for a people of faith… and of humility. David says in Psalm 138:6 – “For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar.”
Scott The middle 30% being under the critical eyes of those who were bloodied and bruised in the fight is a hard place to stand; but the middle 30% has stood by means of convincing themselves that the right 40% was unbiblical in its judgments and approach, that it didn’t fortify itself with the Word of God, and that it was proud. Whose judgment is correct? Is the right 40% correct in judging the middle 30% as defectors, or are the middle 30% right in judging the right 40% as unbiblical in their actions? Both sides are judging; but who is correct?
Matt And God isn’t going to put institutions of power into the hands of a proud church, because they wouldn’t know how to handle it, and would destroy themselves in the process.” In the battle to regain the educational institutions of the ARP church, we must recognize – as those who are not Deists, but who believe that God searches the hearts of men and actively intervenes in all things – that pride within the church is a killer. If it’s true that “blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” then my job is to make sure that my pride and personal designs and personal strategy and personal timetable for reformation are not blocking the reception of the kingdom of heaven.
Scott Look at what the truly humble do – they do nothing; they do not have designs, strategies, or timetables as they wait for the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven. Here’s my question – How’s that working for you? And do you really think that personal designs, personal strategies, and personal timetables were what the right 40% was doing? The middle 30 % were represented in our meetings. Yes, we designed, strategized, and laid out timetables; but “personal…personal…personal” REALLY!? All were sharing. All were trying to prayerfully figure out what to do. I think that the right 40% was betrayed by some middle 30% men, who attended the meetings. If they differed, then why didn’t they have the decency of simply saying what their differences were? That could have shaped the discussions in a better direction. But he or they went to yet other meetings – smaller ones with truly powerful people in the denomination – powerful because of extended family ties and money. That is exactly what “personal designs, personal strategies, and personal timetables” look like. Am I mistaken?
Matt III. Thirdly and lastly, I am hopeful that when God throws a wrench in one method of pursuing a biblical goal, it is sometimes in order to bless another method of pursuing and ultimately reaching that same goal. You remember the story of Uzzah and the ark of the Covenant from 2 Samuel 6. Now as I read this story, I can’t help but think of all the people who say that the June 2010 Synod got ‘wobbly kneed’. Some of us disagree, but let’s say that they did. You then see some wobbliness here. The method that David and his men relied upon to pull the ark of the covenant back to its true home… stumbled.
Scott So…recapping…unbiblical…too fast…right goal…but proud…personal design, strategies, and timetable. But now in the third point we are offered a yet more excellent way; but where is it? Where’s the plan? That’s what I asked on ArpTalk earlier – how are we bringing Erskine College back to biblical fidelity? As far as I can tell, it is now almost lost. Question for the middle 30% – How is your non-design, non-strategy, non-timetable whatever-you-call-it-plan working for us?
We see in Matt’s analogy that the Ark is Erskine. The right 40% and the middle 30% share the same goal of bringing it home – bring Erskine College back to Christ and His Church. The 40% apparently tricked the middle 30% into joining them; but mid-journey the middle 30% heard from God, but the right 40% being deaf to the things of God didn’t. Let me continue the analogy (I’m being factious here)– the middle 30%, fearing the Lord, grew weak in the knees at His rebuke- the Ark just about tipped; but the Erskine College administration reached out to steady it by bringing SACS and the Alumni Association to the rescue. The Ark/Erskine College was returned safely into the shed of churchianity and biblical infidelity.
Is anyone ready to bring the Ark/Erskine back to the ARP Church?
Preaching, waiting, and being humble isn’t going to bring it back. One of the three marks of the Church is discipline, both positively in teaching and preaching, and also negatively with confrontation and censures. We are in great sin if we simply leave it to God to take care of discipline matters. He said that He will deal with outsiders; but we must deal with the insiders. God will work through us; but He tells us that we must do it.
1 Cor. 5:13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” 6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
We must do the purging. God has told us, specifically, that He will deal with outsiders, but we must deal with insiders. If we do not do this, the text says that it is to our shame. Does Chuck Wilson deserve to be censured for his lack of civility, etc.? Sure he would, if he were acting in such a way on a clear blue day; but this is war! Those who sit around saying “Peace. Peace. When there is no peace” – those are the traitors and defectors. Chuck is a faithful, albeit imperfect, witness on the wall. Who has the greater sin?
Matt But, after three months, King David and his men decide to make another go at it. But this time, the means are different. Not a new cart and oxen again. Rather, we read of “those bearing the ark” and of them going “six paces” before they then sacrifice oxen and fatted sheep. Why the change in method? Sometime during that three months, someone saw that God had given explicit instructions on how you move the ark. In Exodus 25:10-15,….
This passage has been an encouragement to me over the last several months, because in it we see that when God throws a wrench in one method of pursuing a biblical goal, it is sometimes in order to bless another method of pursuing and reaching that same goal.
Scott But three years have gone by in our case, not David’s three months. Where is the biblical plan – the strategy, the design, the timetable? – What exactly is the method that the middle 30% is using?
Matt And I am hopeful that when God throws a wrench in one method of pursuing a biblical goal, it is sometimes in order to bless another method of pursuing and reaching that same goal.
Scott If God will bless us with a return of the Ark/Erskine, then then I think that He’s going to use the biblical method, viz., the one that was tried before and ditched by the middle 30%.
Biblical method:
1 Cor 5:13-6:3 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
We do not purge evil among us merely by great preaching and by waiting for Christ to build His Church; rather, He commands us to purge evil by forming courts and judging and, if need be, expelling people from our midst. Our failure as ministers and elders to do this is a gross sin. Yes, Christ will build His Church; yet how well will we cooperate with that process? Will we obey or not?
Has Erskine moved toward or away from biblical fidelity over the last three years? Has it come closer to the ARP or is it further away?
One more thing…
Matt said, “Over the last two years, I have heard a lot of ministers and delegates fortifying themselves not with the Word of God, but with sayings of military generals on the one hand, or weak clichés about peace and unity on the other.”
The weakest, foulest thing I can think of along the lines of cliches about peace and unity came from about four young middle 30% men who took it upon themselves to sing the Psalm of unity as delegates walked past them after the end of one of our Synod sessions. They were obviously using that wonderful Psalm to mock the right 40%-ers. If it wasn’t incredibly self-righteous; it was certainly stupid.
Dear Mr. Scott Robar,
Thanks for the comments and analysis.
Well, you have now given a human face to courage. Though I have nothing to add, I do have a correction. If my memory is serving me well, the Reverend Matthew Miller abstained or voted against one or more of the “Snow Synod” motions.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Thanks for this Chuck. If the ARP will not deal with Erskine and either insist it change or cut it loose, then it is time for individual sessions to cut loose from the ARP. Would that not be better than having God write Icabod over the door of each of our local churchs?
Dear Mr. Don Arms,
Thanks for the comment.
Don, I agree with your passion – and even your direction: Erskine reformed into a Biblical model or Erskine gone from the ARPC. However, I disagree with your fundamentalist-separatist conclusion: reformation now or we leave. Don’t you know that is exactly what the liberals want the voices of reform to do? Now, let me give you some of the reasons I stay.
1. Where are we to go? There is no land of perfect to which we can go. Because of the endemic effects of sin, no matter where we go, there are sins to be addressed and battles to be fought. That which makes a new place so attractive is the sins and demons in the new place have yet to be met.
2. The sins we are dealing with are the common sins of laxity or permissiveness in an educational institution and in a denomination’s stewardship of the institution. The theological foundation of the ARPC is intact. We are not consistent in what we do; nevertheless, the foundation is firm. BTW, no matter where one goes, consistency in the Christian life is a struggle!
3. The sin of the ARPC is the sin of all Presbyterianism in America: once we write down what we believe, we can’t get our arms around the reality there are wolves that will come in and pervert and corrupt who we are and what we believe. Though our doctrine of sin is Biblically and theologically spot on, we don’t believe sinners will sin, nor do we know what to do with sin when it occurs amongst us. We seem to think: all of us are nice educated people and no one would think of doing a sinful or heretical thing.
4. Our response to sin is the “nice” response: we ignore it and hope it will go away. Stupid us – and sinful us! We have failed to be obedient and watchful! And we know better!
5. How did the prophets of the OT and the writers of the NT deal with sin? “With all long-suffering” (2 Tim. 4:2), they preached, identified sin, reproved and rebuked, called for repentance and turning with tears, and proclaimed forgiveness and restoration and newness of life. When that failed, they returned to what they had done at first. Indeed, that is our pattern. Indeed, that is what we have been called to do. We have not yet resisted to the point of the shedding of blood (Heb. 12:4), have we?
Don, what I see in your comment is fatigue. I also see impatience. I too am tired, and I am not the person to talk about patience. Indeed, there are those who would say I have no patience; yet, I have been about this for 40 years. Don, let us not grow weary in do well. Let us not tire of watchfulness and the CONTINUING need of reform in the church – especially, in the ARPC as we see the day of Jesus’ coming! It is our task to always be pointing the church back to faithfulness and obedience. Ecclesia semper reformanda est!
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Chuck — I appreciate your insistence that we look at the Word for a plumb line regarding what/how we act & your poignant reminders that silence is also a vote. Some of us are listening. Thank you for speaking up.
Dear Mark,
Sorry, without your last name, I don’t know who you are, however, thanks for the kind comment.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Mr. Wilson,
This recent issue of ARPTalk (#70) brings into clear focus what I had begun to surmise quite a few issues ago. You are a dog with bone that you can’t let go of. Without it you would be a “waterless cloud,” a vacant lot, an empty suit, with nothing to do, inside and outside of prayer, but gnash your teeth against your, therefore God’s, enemies. You may sport the title reverend, but I can’t detect in your writing the spirit of the Spirit. An observer doesn’t have to be a psychiatrist or a psychologist to conclude that you are obsessive-compulsive, if I remember my college psychology. Also, there is in you, unless I miss my guess, an awareness of inadequacy or failure that you are trying to hide from yourself or to compensate for as you gnash on this isolated bone.
Yes, I know I don’t know what’s going on in the ARPC, but I can hear the bark and growl of an obsessive dog.
Most sincerely,
Bob Smith
Dear Mr. Bob Smith,
Thanks for the comment.
You are right on two points: (1) As you write, “I know I don’t know what’s going on in the ARPC”; and (2) You don’t know who I am.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Dear Reverend Wilson,
What a dismissive comment to Mr. Smith, without any teaching, without any effort to reach out and bring him into the fold of the “righteous believers.” As some would say, “You blew him off.”
You did not rebut or respond in any constructive way to his comments, even if they were couched in rather negative phraseology. To use psychological lingo, this is “deflection” in reaction to Mr. Smith’s hitting a nerve (or should that perhaps be “bone”?)
I, too, felt “dismissed” by your words and tone in your response to my post to an earlier ARP Talk topic. Yet, I’ve noticed that your responses to those who agree with you is much more respectful, even friendly. H-m-m. I wonder why.
I could conclude, Rev. Wilson, from your articles and your responses, that you’re playing a political game of some sort (with the end game being what?)rather than seeking to make true theological points about the issue of Erskine’s rebellion and disobedience–what I’d term “growing pains”–in relation to the ARP Synod.
You did not respond in a very “Christian manner” to either Mr. Smith or me, according to the tenets of ARP-ism I learned in the church. If I were more judgmental and less curious about what IS going on, I’d have gotten my feelings hurt.
Carry on. I pray that you find more compassion and respect for those whose opinions and postings differ from yours.
Dear Rev. Wilson,
I just finished reading your sermon on Uzzah and David. Yes, it was a sermon. And a good one. This message correctly identifies David as having the greater sin in the matter with Uzzah and the ark. David was fully responsible for Uzzah’s sin. The ARP Church is fully responsible for Erskine’s sin. ARP ministers and elders are responsible. I am an ARP minister. I am responsible. I have sinned against the Lord and have not honored Him by remaining silent and uninvolved. I have not prayed enough, cared enough or done enough to help our church honor the Lord, who alone is holy.
I stand convicted and rebuked as a sinful presbyter who has stood by for many years while infidelity around me has been swept under the rug. Mea culpa.
This message is a call to corporate repentance. You mention three ministers by name who are guilty of covering sin. These men are guilty, and so are each and every pastor and elder in the ARP Church because we have not been man enough to humble ourselves before God and simply obey His command to remove the leaven of false teaching from us. Woe to us if we do not humble ourselves, fall on our faces and turn from our wicked ways. We have the greater sin and therefore must have the greater repentance.
We all want peace, and we all want healing in the ARP Church. Here is what Scripture tells us will bring it about: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” ~2 Chronicles 7:14
Will we as ARP elders, ministers, sessions & presbyteries repent? Instead of covering our sins, will we humble our pride and admit we have sinned? Will we seek God’s face or go about business as usual? Will we turn from our ungodly compromise with evil or continue protecting the ungodly? The answer to these questions will determine the future of the ARP Church. Do we really want peace, forgiveness and blessing? Let us turn from evil wherever we find it – our sins of omission and commission. We are all guilty. Let’s get down on our knees together and admit it. Let’s see what God will do as a result.
Rev. Wilson, this sermon truly moved me. It helped me see my sins and I pray it will do the same for others.
Blessings,
MW
Dear Mr. Mark Wright,
AMEN!!! There is nothing for me to add.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Dear Mr. Sej Harman,
Thanks for your comments.
I will leave you and Mr. Smith to muse on your wounds. I hope the convalescence is not too long.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Chuck, I couldn’t help but think of you and your writing in Arptalk, when I read the following words, regarding Calvin’s writing in his Institutes. These words are found near the end of the editor’s introduction (Battles ed. lxxi).
On occassion, Calvin shows a typical humanist mastery of the language of disparagement and vituperation. His horror of abuses led im to use epithets of abuse, and he sometimes resorts to this in assailing the legitimate views of an opponent. This is a deplorable feature by which in parts Calvin’s work is marred for the sensitive reader, but it is not so prevelent as some critics have charged; and in his case invective is not a substitute for argument but a misconceived attempt to enhance its force lxxi
Dear Mr. Scot Robar,
Thanks for the comment.
In any manner, good or bad, to be compared with Calvin is a superlative honor.
I remember this: Calvin referred to Phghius as a barking dog. I also remember a sermon from my youth by an old Baptist minister by the name of Dr. Robert T. Ketchum: “Some Dogs I Have Known.” He too was Calvin-like. He was also nearly blind.
Thanks, I think! :-)
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk
Mr. Wilson,
Could you provide some information to three follow-up questions that I have regarding your latest post?
1. Do I remember from previous posts and conversations that you have served on the Erskine College Board of Trustees in the past? If so, when was your tenure on the Board?
2. I got the impression from your above comments regarding expository preaching that you are not convinced that expository preaching is an adequate and appropriate avenue through which the Lord will bring reformation to His church. Am I correct in that assertion?
3. Is it fair to say that you are convinced that Reverend Sims and those who share his conviction regarding the reformation at Erskine and in the ARPC are antinominans? In other words, do you maintain that any confrontation of sin and call to repentance in any way other than that which you have employed is inconsistent with the gospel of Christ and therefore unfaithful to the biblical call of presbyters?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Clint
Dear Mr. Clint Davis,
Thanks for your comments and questions. See below.
QUESTION BY CLINT DAVIS:
Do I remember from previous posts and conversations that you have served on the Erskine College Board of Trustees in the past? If so, when was your tenure on the Board?
ANSWER BY CHUCK WILSON:
You remember correctly. As often stated: 1998-2004.
QUESTION BY CLINT DAVIS:
I got the impression from your above comments regarding expository preaching that you are not convinced that expository preaching is an adequate and appropriate avenue through which the Lord will bring reformation to His church. Am I correct in that assertion?
RESPONSE BY CHUCK WILSON:
I’m not comfortable with the manner you phrase your question. The starting point in revival/reformation is the realization of and acknowledgment of sin. The second point is sorrow for (ownership of) and repentance of and turning from sin. The third point is covenant faithfulness to the revealed will of God found in the Scriptures. This is the model found again and again in the revivals of the OT (and I encourage your study of those revivals). Indeed, what we call expository preaching has a place. However, let me remind you that the preaching of Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformation leaders was different from what we do. Yes, there are even many today who do not practice the form of what many of us call expository preaching and are much more effective and fruitful than we are. However, as one who has attempted to practice expository preaching for the last 40 years, I am not an enemy of expository preaching. My question: Why are we not seeing the hand of God’s blessing on our preaching? Is there sin in the camp?
QUESTION BY CLINT DAVIS:
Is it fair to say that you are convinced that Reverend Sims and those who share his conviction regarding the reformation at Erskine and in the ARPC are antinominans? In other words, do you maintain that any confrontation of sin and call to repentance in any way other than that which you have employed is inconsistent with the gospel of Christ and therefore unfaithful to the biblical call of presbyters?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
RESPONSE BY CHUCK WILSON:
You question is a statement. It’s your statement and conclusion. I refer you the above comments by the Reverrend Scott Robar. He has written as a ready scribe. I don’t think I can improve on what he has written.
Reverend Davis, congratulations on a faithful ministry. I have been reading the new Minutes of Synod. You record adult professions-of-faith. God bless you with many more souls for your hire.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk