Chapter 7: The Bible Presbyterian Church - PCA Historical Center

The Bible Presbyterian Church 287In reply the Free Press labeled the St. Louis Resolution„the Mandate of 1956.‟ According to McIntire the Synod wasstill intact, but the St. Louis Ultimatum demanded a separation.They had to have their way, or else they would split theChurch. 110 A petition was sent to Dr. Buswell to call off theSynod in favor of one in June, the customary time, at HarveyCedars, N.J. McIntire labeled the St. Louis Synod „improper‟and announced his intention to boycott the Synod, callingupon others to follow suit. 111The March issue of the Bible Presbyterian Observer setthe tone for the Synod. MacNair concludes that the Church isnot being served by the independent agencies, but is ratherthe servant of these agencies. This does not mean that theChurch is forced to Synod-directed agencies in every case,but that such centralization of power has to go and must notoccur again. Buswell declares: „The basic issue in the presentdiscord is between the Scriptural democratic processes ofPresbyterian Church government on the one hand, and on theUltimatum‟ (Unpublished Paper, Covenant College). Sickert does not view theultimatum as unfortunate: „Indeed, it was an ultimatum—one which came at theproper time and in the spirit of real concern for the testimony of the BiblePresbyterian Church‟ (6). The time had come for division. „The handwriting wason the wall, and the Resolution read it out loud‟ (7). It seems, however, that Dr.Buswell‟s analysis is to the point: „Will not this threat from the St. Louis Churchbe seen as just another McIntireism . . . ? Will not this action of the St. LouisChurch appear as a matter of second degree or third degree separation in theextreme? You threaten to withdraw from a Synod in which the large majority areendeavoring, by parliamentary processes, to eliminate the evils. To set a deadlinewithin two months, and say, We leave your communion if the evils are noteliminated by that date, is quite extreme‟ (J. O. Buswell, Jr., to D. MacNair, Feb.11, 1956). For MacNair‟s defense of the St. Louis Resolution, see BPO, Mar.,1956. The defense appeals to the good motives of the St. Louis church: theresolution was not intended for wide distribution, and its spirit has been misrepresented.110. Cf. J. W. Fulton, An Open Letter to the Bible Presbyterian Church ofSt. Louis, Mar. 14, 1956.111. FP, 1:5 (Mar. 6, 1956). According to the FP, the petition was signedby 110 ministers and elders. According to the count of elder J. E. Krauss of theWilmington, Del., church, there were 32 ministers and 87 elders in favor of a JuneSynod and 65 ministers and 81 elders in favor of an April Synod (Factual Reportof the Bible Presbyterian Synod Meeting at St. Louis—April 5 to 11, 1956.Mimeographed).History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, pp. 244-296.