Reformed Presbyterian Minutes of Synod 1993

REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 151tions of which were adopted (Note: The committee has chosen not toidentify the ordinand in this information except as "the deacon"):"In our eagerness to fightthe unbibUcal clause of Vow #8,1 believe wehave lost sight of two things: 1. This is the only clause in all the ordinationvows that does not have direct and obvious bibUcal underpinnings; 2. Vow#9 is also a part of the set of ordination vows we took; it is completelybiblical and binding. We must be in obedience to it."Let me comment further on these two points..."The first: we must not lose sight of the fact that we all believe thedenominational standards of the RPCNA are biblically sound. Thatdoesn't mean they are perfectly pure. But, as one man put it to me once, 'Iwouldn't trade our set of problems for anybody else's set of problems.'This church has and continues to seek purity of doctrine and practice, byGod's grace."We are not fighting a cormpt and wicked church polity that seeks tosubvert biblical standards for its own perverse purposes. Rather, we arefaced with the results of the well intentioned (even if misguided) efforts ofelders who have preceded us to grapple with a social problem of massiveand destructive proportions (drunkenness). We have had enough experiencewith this evil in our own fellowship to understand the seriousness ofthe issue. If our brothers who have preceded us were wrong in thelegislative manifestation of their zeal, then we must use the lawfulchannels to conect their enors. (And this, it seems to me, we have beendying to do.) But let us not overlook the fact that we are dealing with onlyone clause of an otherwise sound and wise set of propositions."Secondly: Since we have vowed to be in subjection to the courts of thischurch, and engage to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine andorder which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted, we need toexamine carefully how we are attempting to conect the work of the elderswho have preceded us."It seems to me that we are in fact, at this time, following a divisivecourse and rejecting the highest (human) court of the church. Synod hasasked all ordained men to take Vow #8; we allow a man to defy the Synodon this point. We are, therefore, as a court of the Church, in defiance of theSynod.(Then proposed recommendations follow):"1. That we as a Session reconsider our handling of (the deacon's)refusal to take the abstinence clause of vow #8."2. That we ask (him) to take the abstinence clause with an explanation,so that he no longer be in defiance of the Synod and in violation of vow #9."3. That, if (he) should refuse, we ask him to step down as deacon untilthe courts of the Church have settled the matter of vow #8 in a way that does