First Presbyterian-San Antonio accepted into ECO

Praise God! Welcome to ECO, First Pres of San Antonio!

And again the church moves to a congregational system. There is no denomination, just a system of congregations. Sad.

You are mistaken. The ECO is governed by a Presbyterian polity, not a Congregationalist polity.
 
Considering, however, that the majority of Protestant churches in the United States are governed by a Congregationalist polity, why would you consider it “sad” if a Presbyterian congregation should move either into a denomination governed by a Congregationalist polity or into independency, which would mean that the congregation would, by definition, adopt a Congregationalist polity?

James, I’m not sure I understand your comment. ECO has Presbyterian polity, as I understand it, though I haven’t read their Book of Government or Book of Order. Sure, congregations in the OPC, PCA, EPC, ECO, to name a few, have more rights than those in the PCUSA, but that doesn’t make them congregational. ECO seems to have a Synod in lieu of a General Assembly, but that’s the major difference I find so far. So, what is your point?

I’m not at all sure that James would be able to explain the difference between congregational and Presbyterian forms of church government. If he were capable of this, he would not have suggested that the ECO has a congregational polity, which, of course, is an obvious absurdity. I suspect that his thought process may be not be any more sophisticated than this:
Presbyterian = a part of the PCUSA.
Congregational = not a part of the PCUSA.

Really, James? Have you read our polity? Have you been to any of our presbytery meetings? Perhaps our national Synod? Have you examined our multiple systems of accountability? Have you explored our essential theological tenets that every ordained leader must accept and be bound by? (Polity 2.0101 “Elders and deacons are ordained and installed by the session. Pastors are ordained and installed by the presbyteries. Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of ECO. Failure of officers to continue to adhere to these standards is grounds for a session or presbytery to remove an officer from service according to the Rules of Discipline in this Constitution.”

(The full polity of ECO can be found at http://eco-pres.org/eco-polity/)

And just a note: ECO is a member denomination of the World Communion of Reformed Churches.

I get the feeling somehow that some believe that if a denomination does not lay claim to the property of its congregations, it’s not a true denomination at all. How sad to suggest that a denomination’s one foundation is land and dollars!

Just one personal observation. When used to have to plead with elders to get them to come to presbytery meetings. In ECO we have to take turns because everyone wants to go. Imagine that! The most frequent question heard after presbytery meetings is “Why can’t we do this more often?”

I can understand your grief as another congregation moves from PCUSA to ECO (or any other denomination). But simply dismissing the legitimacy of the covenant that over 200 congregations have entered with one another just feels petty.

Jumping the gun!? If I am not mistaken, this church has not yet received Mission Presbytery’s permission to leave. Is that so? If so, the cart is ahead of the horse here. In the interest of future long term sister relations between Reformed bodies once all this altercation sorts itself out, mutual respect for one another’r prerogatives would seem to be in order.

James
The PCUSA goes to court ad infinitum declaring it is a Hierarchical Church. How then does the polity of the PCUSA differ from the Episcopal Church or the Roman Catholic Church?

Jumping the gun a little!? If I am not mistaken, this church has not yet been dismissed by Mission Presbytery. Is that so? If so, this sets a very bad precedent for future relations between two sister Reformed bodies once all this present set of altercations finally settles down. For the sake of future co-operation in the kingdom of God, I think we all must mutually respect one another’s prerogatives. Don’t you think.

Yes indeed, now there is a good question.

Thank you. Glad to be a part of ECO. Within two weeks of voting to disaffiliate from the PCUSA First Presbyterian Church San Antonio has seen a marked increase in giving, a new initiative is taking shape that will focus on building the Kingdom instead of fighting the denomination, and JOY has returned to the hallways. The dark and cold winter is over.

The bad precedent has been set by the PCUSA.

My point was not whether FPC San Antonio should leave or not – that seems a foregone conclusion and is their right if done fairly and above board polity wise. My point – is that looking down the road 20 to 30 years from now when historically speaking (Old School/New School controversy back 200 years ago) – there may be some attempt at or possibility of reconciliation and peace making or at least working together as sister Reformed denominations…..this action of EOO in taking a church before the PCUSA exit procedure is finished needlessly further poisons the waters. Not good. And, I would say sad.

Jim, many years ago the executive of my presbytery at that time steadfastly maintained his belief that the day would come when the PCUSA and the PCA would be able to find common ground on which to stand, and in doing so would be able to begin to reconcile their differences. I told him, as did others, that he was crazy. Now, thirty years later, the PCA and the PCUSA are farther apart than they were in the 1980s, and getting even more distant the one from the other with each passing year.
There is no reason to believe that it will be any different in regard to the ECO or the EPC. When denominations chose different theological trajectories, each year will take them farther and farther apart.
Many of us who have departed the PCUSA for the ECO or the EPC (as I have) believe that the PCUSA is on a trajectory that has already taken it out of the mainstream of historic, biblical Christianity, and that there are no longer any forces within it capable of pulling it back. The evangelical Presbyterian denominations are determined to stay within the bounds of the historic, biblical mainstream. Whether we will be able to do this successfully is not yet known. Perhaps we will also fail. But none of us are following the path that has been chosen by the PCUSA.
Time will tell, but many of us do not believe that the reconciliation for which you hope will ever come to pass. And that is very sad indeed, even if we believe that it is the unavoidable reality that we face.

Mr. Ferry,
 
The Old School/New School split formally began in 1837 and ended when the two “Schools” were reconciled in 1869. In a longer view, the controversy plagued the Presbyterian Church throughout the 18th & 19th centuries and was also responsible for the Old Side/New Side split of 1741-1758 and the Cumberland split that occurred in 1810 and which was only partially healed by the reunion in 1906. At root, the controversy was over the tactics of Revivalism (not revivals per se, but the notion that open air preachers could effect revival by methods designed to excite “religious feelings) and the theology of semi-Pelagianism that frequently undergirded said tactics.
 
The ongoing controversy that has given rise to four formal ecclesiastical splits within the last 100 years (forming the OPC in 1936, the PCA in 1973, the EPC in 1981, and the ECO in 2012) has little relation to that former controversy. This controversy set the current trajectory of what is now the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the mid-1920s, when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America voted to set aside the so-called “Five Fundamentals” (the Inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, and the historicity of Miracles) in order to allow those who held different “theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion” to maintain good standing in ministry in the PCUSA. In so doing, the GA of the PCUSA opened the door to the muddling of theological standards in the denomination.
 
In the mid-1960s, this muddling of theological standards was furthered when the GA of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America voted to shelve the denomination’s confessional standard—the Westminster Confession of Faith together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms—into a “Book” of Confessions that was purportedly to be part of the Constitution of the UPCUSA (and now of the PC(USA)), but which has no binding constitutional authority. Formerly, officers of the PCUSA and the UPCUSA were required to affirm that they “believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice” and that they “sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures”. Since 1967, the UPCUSA and the PC(USA) require their officers to affirm only that they “accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to (them)” and that they “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and … be instructed and led by those confessions”. But these “essential tenets” are nowhere defined. Consequently, in 1981 the PJC of the UPCUSA voted to affirm the ordination of Mansfield Kaseman, who denied the deity of Christ. In 1729, the Synod of Philadelphia (the predecessor of the PCUSA) voted to adopt the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as a fundamental part of its Constitutional Standard in order to ensure the orthodoxy of its ordained officers. By replacing this Standard with a “Book” of Confessions, the 1967 GA effectively ruled the 1729 Adopting Act null and void and very seriously compromised the standards to which the UPCUSA’s (and now the PC(USA)’s) officers are called to conform.
 
Fast forward to today, and Biblical sexual ethics are no longer considered “essential tenets of the Reformed faith”. Indeed, ordained officers of the PC(USA) have striven to make it so, and there is no sign whatsoever that the PC(USA) will repent of that Godless decision. The PC(USA)’s sexual ethics are indistinguishable from the world’s. In its theology and ethics, the PC(USA) today is radically conformed to the ways of this world.
 
Therefore, any “attempt at or possibility of reconciliation” must be predicated upon one of two things: Either the OPC/PCA/EPC/ECO must give up on following the lead of the Holy Spirit in Scripture in order to follow the spirit of this unholy age in the world, as the PC(USA) has done, or else the PC(USA) must remember from where it has fallen and repent of its worldliness (Rev. 2.5). But the “ECO taking a church before the PC(USA) exit procedure is finished” will not make one whit of difference to any hoped-for “reconciliation” between the two denominations.

I hope care will be taken here not to name churches which may or may not be discerning their next step, or to describe complex situations without first-hand knowledge.

All this happy horse crap about being “dismissed” by the presbytery is a joke, the only way this church would have been dismissed without Texas law is millions of dollars later or not at all.

Mr. Ferry, you are assuming that the PCUSA is still part of the Church of Jesus Christ. It’s actions and emphases over the last ten years would indicate otherwise.

Sadly – it is not a joke, more a reflection of doing things indecently and out of order. Once you have decided you are completely right and others are completely in the wrong, this is the next logical step. It’s OK to do whatever we want because “they” have left the Bible…

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.

As ECO uses basically the PCUSA form of gov and confessions as a foundation, they are not congregational in polity – although, they are looking out for their own interests and acting out of order and with disregard to the polity of another reformed body in this case. The ECO affirms that only an ECO Presbytery can constitute, accept, or dismiss a particular church – why would they not respect the exact same polity in the process of accepting this particular church – what is the issue or fear?

So anything goes, right Pres? One of the most misused quotes in Holy Scripture.

Just trying to correct/prevent misinformation. Relax.

No Robert – just read and reflect, you have declared over a million people who have all publicly professed Christ as Lord and Savior as no longer a part of the body of Christ. Reflect on your comments and that passage.

Not at all, Pres. I have many committed Christian friends that are still members of PCUSA churches. The denomination has become a left-wing political group. I look forward to your convincing me otherwise. Please reread Mr. Golden’s post. He did not mention, however, the heresy of the social gospel.

Given some of the freak shows that the pcusa is turning out, one of the pastors at Chicago’s fourth Pres. comes to mind the idea of decently and in order has gone completely out the window.

This is the difference between disaffiliation and dismissal. The former exercises a congregation’s right to free assembly unilaterally realigns them with a new denominational body. Dismissal, on the other hand, accomplishes the same thing but does so bilaterally.
For a number of reason, the dismissal option is to be preferred, but when one or both sides fail to approach the process graciously, or with Christian virtue, then the disaffiliation route provides the departing congregation with an avenue that affirms their rights.
What disaffiliation does not do is decide the legal standing of the property, and so there is risk involved that is largely addressed by dismissal.
Perhaps you knew all this, but your post suggested otherwise, and in either case, I am not trying to be pedantic or condescending, merely helpful.

Polity, bear with me here… I’m going to do my best. What is indecent and out of order? If 87% of the people are saying that they want to leave, then they obviously want to leave for a reason. And I would opine that the reason they want to leave is because they feel that the secular stance the PCUSA has embraced is one that negates their very reason for being in church. Bottom line here, people want to hear about Jesus.

And to your second point, you state, “Once you have decided you are completely right and others are completely in the wrong, this is the next logical step”. I’m sorry Polity, resurrection is not “logical”. His resurrection was for those of us completely in the right and those of us completely in the wrong. Faith and logic are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

To your third point about people leaving the Bible. The PCUSA, organizationally, promotes and endorses things that are of this world, not of the Bible.

Polity, Jesus is not about a process. Salvation is about faith, not logic. And the Bible is not about who leaves it, but rather about who embraces it.

Polity, please look at my reply to your post above. I’m not really sure how to respond to this post. Again, your concern seems to be with the process and how FPCUSA has departed. In my opinion, FPCSA left the PCUSA for the same reason that many other churches leave the PCUSA, that being that Jesus is second to the ideals of the PCUSA. And I earnestly hope that FPCUSA doesn’t give a dime to the presbytery or the PCUSA. We left for One reason.

Nancy, with regard to not naming churches here, I totally disagree. Those churches need prayers, very specific prayers. We shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to pray for those congregations and their pastors.

Mr. Ferry, I continue to be perplexed by the denominational and procedural obsession. Let’s say you and I make a deal…and that deal is that we are going to follow Jesus, and Jesus alone. So I’m going along, following Jesus, like we agreed. And then one day, I find out that you decided to start promoting gun control, abortion rights, immigration reform, obamacare, occupy wall street and even advocated for investigating the banking industry. And not only did you start promoting and advocating for these other issues that we didn’t agree on, you used OUR money to fund the causes, and even hired lobbyists! Now, did you uphold your end of the agreement to follow Jesus? Or did you make the agreement in bad faith? And you want me to follow a procedure so that waters aren’t poisoned? Seriously? Help me understand….

Neither is likely to occur. My family was part of beginning the Cumberland PC and felt betrayed when the denomination abandoned/lowered their standards and the congregations could get out. After all of the events over the past 30 years, I don’t see how a PCA, EPC, ECO, etc…congregation could trust the PCUSA enough to have any sort of binding relationship ever again.

Your response was very helpful to me! Thanks!

Mr Golden, Donnie Bob and Mr. Ferry,
I am fairly sure that the majority of you are aware, there are other parties to this discussion besides: Old Side, New Side, Old School, New School, Cumberland, PCUSA, PCUS, OPC, PCA, EPC and ECO.

My dad grew up in the United Presbyterian Church North of America, (UPCNA), the so called one hundred year denomination, which was birthed from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination which can be traced back to the second Scottish secession when dear Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the south British preacher who was trying to impose the Anglican church on the Scottish nation. I believe Rev. Erskine was the church leader leading the secession.

Many of these believers fled Scotland because of persecution and ended up in places like, north Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For those that landed in America, after many had been there for thirty to seventy (round numbers) years, they were ready to move away from some of the distinctions the found necessary in North Briton, and joined together with other like minded folk, spread throughout North America (including Canada). Hence, the United Presbyterian Church of North America was formed in 1858. After another one hundred years, to the week, if memory serves, they were ready for another reunion, this time with the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.

My parents, (particularly my dad) were traumatized by some of the happenings leading up to the UPCNA + PCUSA => UPCUSA reunions. They conveniently landed in a one church town, (Methodist) and stayed there all but a few years of their adult lives.

When I went to college I fell in with a bunch of fellows from a Reformed Presbyterian Church, but that is another story.

After school I landed in a city where I didn’t know anyone, so I took my dear Granny’s recommendation and contacted the nearest church. The youth pastor took me to a Presbyterian church,
A UPCUSA church, that one year later, in 1983, became PC(USA).

Last year, that church left the Presbyterian Church (USA) to join ECO. So on my paternal line, we left the Scottish presbyterian church, in the second secession. And eventually left the American presbyterian church in the fourth secession.

Well said!