Dear Friends:

I am following with interest David Watson’s series on theonomy and the reconstructionist movement. Mr. Watson was in contact with me briefly a couple of years ago while gathering information, and I am interested in what he will present on your pages.

In order to add some helpful comments for the benefit of all those who will follow his series with interest, I am writing to clarify the present state of affairs in Gulf Coast Presbytery (PCA) in relation to the theonomy issue.

Gulf Coast Presbytery is described by Mr. Watson as one of the PCA presbyteries which have “vigorously sought to exdude them [theonomists]” (Oct. ‘88 Outlook, p. 12). Gulf Coast Presbytery has been the center of dissension over theonomy in the not-too-far-distant past, as theonomic ministerial candidates were frustrated in their pursuit of ordination. However, the General Assembly of the PCA overruled in the case of a theonomic candidate who had been denied ordination, and issued a rebuke to those who had engineered the controversy (1982). (Subsequently, this very same candidate was elected to the Theological Examinations Committee of the Presbytery, and has been the chairman of that Committee for the past 3 years; and, he has just been chosen by the Presbytery to be the Moderator at its meetings for the upcoming year).

In the past year or so, those dominating personalities who had been successful in orchestrating the opposition against theonomists have accepted calls outside ofGulf Coast Presbytery. In the same time period, a couple of men (myself being one of them) who are theonomists, and one or two who do not personally embrace the theonomic viewpoint but understand it to be clearly acceptable under the constitution of the Presbyterian church, have been received into the Presbytery.

There are a handful of ministers and elders who are holding out against theonomy in the Presbytery, and almost every examination of candidates elicits questions from them. Occasionally a small dispute is engendered; but when the final votes are taken, theonomic candidates emerge as qualified men. While several members of the Presbytery openly express discomfort over the issue, examinations are conducted fairly. In recent years, at least, there have been no attempts to “bend the rules” in opposition to theonomists, nor to exclude them from positions of responsibility and leadership in the Presbytery.

There are perhaps a few with us who would prefer that Gulf Coast Presbytery vigorously seek to excludetheonomists; but it is clear, at this point in time, that the members of the Presbytery, collectively, do not believe that that is their calling. Some prominent men were once able to persuade the Presbytery to rule against theonomists; but in the wake of General Assembly rulings, and the departure of these men, Gulf Coast Presbytery has become probably no more anti-theonomic than any other Presbytery in the PCA.

Thank you for accepting my comments, and for publishing Mr. Watson’s series. May the Lord of the Church aid you in your efforts to promote loyalty to the truth among Reformed Christians.

Met vriendilijke groeten, Charles E. Armstrong, Jr. (Assistant Pastor, Faith Presbyterian Church Robertsdale, Alabama)

Dear Editor:

I wish to correct a statement by Mr. David K. Watson in his article, “The Christian Reconstruction Theonomy Movement (Part 2),” published in the July-August, 1988 issue of Outlook. He states on page 12, “The OPC foreign mission board is also supplying personnel for a Reconstructionist work in Surinam.”

The Committee on Foreign Missions of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has not taken a position as to the validity of the Reconstructionist movement. It has in the case of Surinam decided to cooperate with Caribbean Christian Ministries in the establishment of a Reformed witness in that South American nation. In so doing it agreed to take on oversight of a small congregation originally begun by CCM. This church is now officially an OPC mission work and has only fraternal ties to its previous sponsor.

OPC missionaries in Surinam are not employed by CCM, though they have assisted in some ministries and maintain cordial relations with the personnel of CCM. The presence of the OPC in Surinam should not be construed as an endorsement of Theonomy or the Reconstructionist movement. We are not “supplying personnel” for any work there but our own.

Sincerely,

Donald G. Buchanan, Jr.

General Secretary

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

7401 Old York Rd.

Philadelphia, P A 19126-1891