The Saga of R.C. Sproul, Jr.

Presbyterian & Reformed News, Volume 6 Number 5, September–October 2000

The Saga of R.C. Sproul, Jr.
by Jerry Johnson

On July 15th, the Westminster Presbytery had its summer stated meeting. There were many items on the docket, including the request of transfer from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Church to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) of the Rev. R.C. Sproul, Jr. Mr. Sproul is the son of Dr. R.C. Sproul, who pastors St. Andrews Chapel in Orlando, Florida, and was founder of Ligonier Ministries. The examination of Mr. Sproul began at approximately 11:30 AM and dealt primarily with his testimony. At 12:00 noon the presbytery adjourned for a season of prayer before breaking for lunch. The presbytery reconvened at 1:30 PM and continued its examination of Mr. Sproul. The minister stated his exceptions to the Westminster Standards including paedo-communion and a continental view of the Sabbath. Mr. Sproul repeatedly stated that he would submit to the brethren and would not speak nor teach these views if so instructed by presbytery.

At this point the presbytery went into executive session, calling Mr. Sproul back in on two different occasions to discuss further his views on education. Mr. Sproul was asked if he believed it was a sin to send covenant Christian children into government schools. He answered in the affirmative. After the call for the question Mr. Sproul was approved by a vote of 27 for and 5 against. Immediately following this vote a member called for a vote to reconsider and have it recorded on the minutes. The moderator, Mr. Nat Kelley of Draper Valley Presbyterian Church, Draper, Virginia, allowed the motion to stand. The chair was challenged and the presbytery voted, 18-13, to support the decision of the chair. The motion to reconsider and have it recorded on the minutes suspended the previous vote of presbytery on Mr. Sproul’s transfer. Immediately following, a motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded and carried.

On August 22nd a meeting of the Westminster Presbytery was called to deal with an overture from the Bridwell Heights Church pastored by the Rev. Larry Ball on the subject of education and a complaint filed by Ruling Elder Joe Reynolds of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Kingsport. This complaint stated that Roberts Rules were specific on the circumstances that must exist in order to allow a motion to reconsider and have it recorded on the minutes stand. The basis of Mr. Reynolds’ complaint was that the circumstances did not exist. The called meeting was also to deal with the transfer of Mr. Sproul and the motion to reconsider. At the beginning of the meeting the moderator, Mr. Nat Kelley, set a three hour time limit, starting at 7:00 PM, and the matter was not up for debate. One minister asked if he made a motion at 10:00 PM to extend the meeting for another hour if he would be ruled out of order and the moderator said that he would.

After roughly ten minutes had passed the stated clerk distributed some items of interest he felt that the members needed and explained their content. He finished around 7:40 PM and a TE asked the moderator if the three hours could begin at that time. The moderator said no that it had begun at 7:00 PM. The overture from Bridwell Heights was dealt with first and then the complaint from Mr. Reynolds. During the debate on this complaint a ruling elder from a church in Johnson City, Tennessee, declared that “Rev. Sproul had nothing to offer Westminster Presbytery and that Westminster Presbytery had nothing to offer Rev. Sproul.” This was said in an angry tone and many of the members felt this statement was uncalled for. Discussion and voting lasted until approximately 9:20 PM. The issue of the reception of R.C. Sproul, Jr. was next on the docket. At this point the Stated Clerk, the Rev. Steve Meyerhoff, made a motion to request that presbytery help him with ideas on how complaints could be streamlined. The Rev. Henry Johnson asked for a point of order stating that this was not the business that brought the presbytery here and could be better handled at the next stated meeting. The Moderator denied his point of order and the chair was challenged. The decision of the chair was then upheld. Mr. Meyerhoff stated his point and finished at 9:40 PM.

The presbytery was now ready to deal with the motion to reconsider in reference to Mr. Sproul’s transfer. The presbytery immediately returned to executive session and dismissed 20 minutes later at 10:00 PM asking Mr. Sproul to return on September 12th.

On September 12th a meeting was called for Westminster Presbytery at Abingdon PCA, a church pastored by the Rev. Bill Leuzinger. The meeting was to deal with the vote to reconsider Rev. R.C. Sproul’s request to be transferred from the ARP to the PCA. The presbytery immediately went into executive session. Mr. Sproul was called in once. Evidently the controversy surrounded his views on government schools. The presbytery was behind closed doors for approximately two hours and forty minutes. When they emerged, Mr. Sproul was denied transfer by a vote of 18 to 27. Many of his supporters appeared with tears in their eyes and told R.C. Sproul, Jr., how sorry they were.

— Mr. Johnson, a member of Providence Presbyterian Mission, Wytheville, Virginia, and a friend of Mr. Sproul, reports that a member of Presbytery in opposition to Mr. Sproul’s admission intimated that the effort to have Mr. Sproul join Westminster Presbytery was to “get another Reformed vote.”

Interview with R.C. Sproul, Jr.

Presbyterian & Reformed News, Volume 6 Number 5, September–October 2000

Interview with R.C. Sproul, Jr.

It has been suggested that you are a “legalist.” Do you have any comment? (In your opinion, have you been slandered and/or libeled?)

There are, of course, two different kinds of legalists. The worst are those who deny the sufficiency of Christ’s work, and add some sort of meritorious works for how we have peace with God. The Judaizers are an example. The second affirms the true gospel, but adds man’s laws to God’s laws, saying “Thou shall” or “Thou shalt not” when God has said no such thing. Given the context of the debate, I would believe that the man making the claim would put me in the second category, not the first. To determine if I am a legalist, we have to determine what the law of God says. If I have gone beyond it, the accusation sticks. If not, he is an antinomian. No, I don’t think it is slander. I think it’s an error.

Why did you want to transfer into the PCA (particularly if you’ve been so critical of it)?

I wanted to transfer to the Westminster Presbytery because I have a great deal of respect for many of the teaching and ruling elders, and because they are close, it seemed like the best place for me to be under an authority. I have been critical of the PCA, as have you and lots of others. But I have never argued either that it is not a true church, nor even that it is not a Reformed church. I know of no other denomination with as many godly and wise men as pastors.

What have been your criticisms of MNA and the PCA?

My criticisms of the MNA and the PCA are very common. I find the whole church growth mentality to be troubling, as a lot of people do. As for the PCA in general, in my judgment, too often they are unwilling to make decisive stands on issues that matter; issues like creation, women in the pulpit, even the relationship of the evangelical church and Rome. We have PCA men that are all behind things like Evangelicals and Catholics Together, a document arguing among other things that, “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.” That concerns me deeply.

Were you there when an elder said something to the effect, “R.C. Sproul, Jr., has nothing to offer this Presbytery, and this Presbytery has nothing to offer him”? Would you please comment on this statement?

It may be that I have nothing to offer the Westminster Presbytery. I wasn’t asking to join because it was my plan to remake it. I did believe, however, that the presbytery had something to offer me, the oversight a pastor needs as he, with the session, leads a congregation. The majority apparently believed that to help in this way would be too problematic for them, and so refused my request.

Concern has been raised about your views of worship. In what way or ways do your views differ with historic Presbyterianism and our Confessional Standards?

I don’t believe my views on worship differ from historic Presbyterianism and our Confessional Standards.

How has Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery (ARP) re-acted with regard to your request for transfer? Did the unusual actions by Westminster Presbytery elicit a sympathetic reaction from Tennessee-Alabama?

The Tennessee-Alabama presbytery was gracious enough to extend my status as a teaching elder in good standing until the Spring stated meeting. I consider that a sympathetic response, and am grateful.

Where are you going to place your ministerial credentials?

I am looking at some smaller Reformed and Presbyterian denominations right now.

Is there anything you would do differently with regard to the attempt to transfer to the PCA?

I would have done nothing different. I came looking for oversight. I spoke honestly about my convictions. And I was refused entrance. My conscience is clean, and I am perfectly at peace over the whole matter.

Is there anything else you would like to share with our readers?

While I am disappointed that the presbytery apparently found my views outside the bounds of what was acceptable, and while I still have the same concerns about the PCA I had before this happened, I still think the PCA is a perfectly legitimate denomination. I pray that other conservative people in the denomination do not misconstrue this as proof positive that all those who hold the views I hold are not welcome in the denomination. I pray for the peace and purity of the PCA.

Official Denominational Magazine Reports Westminster Presbytery Still ‘Divided’

Presbyterian & Reformed News, Volume 6 Number 4, July–August 2000

Official Denominational Magazine Reports Westminster Presbytery Still ‘Divided’
Controversy Erupts over Reception of R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Now He’s In, Now He Isn’t

PCANEWS.COM, the new denominational web-based magazine for the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), has reported that Westminster Presbytery is “still ‘divided.’” The story, which has no by-line, was dated July 17, 2000, and dispatched from Elizabethton, Tennessee. The article says: “At its first stated meeting following the 28th General Assembly’s decision not to divide it, Westminster Presbytery, meeting on July 15 at the Memorial Presbyterian Church in Elizabethton, Tenn., adjourned abruptly at 4:30 PM without completing its approved agenda, most likely indicating the continuation of internal division.”

The story goes on to report on the examination of R.C. Sproul, Jr., son of the famed PCA theologian and seminary professor. “Just before the Presbytery went into executive session to discuss Sproul’s exam and request for reception into the PCA, he was asked his view on Christian Education and the home. His response evoked quite a bit of debate on the floor of the Presbytery. He indicated that if one of the ruling elders in his church allowed his children to attend a government sponsored school, he would see that as a sin and a chargeable offense. He did indicate that while he had never charged anyone with such an offense, he would consider doing so.”

In an exclusive interview with Presbyterian & Reformed News, Mr. Sproul gave a slightly different version of his views. He stated that he was asked if he believed a ruling elder who sends his children to a government school was “outside the faith,” to which he responded, “No, but I believe that anyone who does so would be in sin and I would confront him on it.” He stated that he had indicated that he would not pursue excommunication on the matter unless the General Assembly or Presbytery judged that to be a gross and heinous sin. He also indicated that, if the matter were brought to a vote in the Presbytery, he would vote that such a practice was such a sin.

PCANEWS.COM’s story continues: “At some point while the Presbytery was still in executive session (Editor’s note: executive session is when a body discusses issues behind closed doors, the content of the discussion is not divulged outside of that meeting, and only actions taken, if any, are reported to the “open’ session), a motion was made to adjourn the Presbytery meeting. The motion passed even though a number of committee reports remained on the agenda, as well the consideration of two complaints.”

Not reported in the denominational magazine’s news story, but later reported via the Rev. Pat Parham’s letter to the editor, is the fact that the court approved Mr. Sproul for transfer from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church by a vote of 27-5. Immediately after that vote was taken, an unusual and obscure parliamentary move was undertaken: a presbyter moved that the matter be reconsidered and entered on the record. This little-used motion was designed under parliamentary procedure to prevent a matter from being reconsidered at a meeting where a temporary majority could undo a previously passed motion. The motion to reconsider and enter on the record, which must automatically be granted, mandates that the matter not be taken up until the next session of the assembly. Under Roberts Rules, the motion also stops the original action from taking effect.

Accordingly, the action in receiving R.C. Sproul, Jr., was rendered null and void — at least until the motion to reconsider can be taken up. Presumably, that will occur at the next stated meeting of Westminster Presbytery on October 14th, or before then at a special meeting called for that purpose.

Mr. Sproul has been pastoring St. Peter Presbyterian Church in Bristol, Tennessee. The congregation reflects a highly-liturgical approach to worship not usually encountered in Presbyterian circles. The church recently voted to leave the ARP, purportedly because of the action of Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery in dismissing the York (Ala.) Presbyterian Church from the denomination. The York church has become embroiled in a civil suit brought by an elder who had had disciplinary proceedings brought against him. St. Peter Church, concerned about that action and possible ramifications, decided to be unaffiliated for the time being.

Besides his views on government schools and a commitment to liturgical worship, Mr. Sproul was also questioned closely with respect to his view on paedocommunion. He indicated that, although he believes that all covenant children should partake of the Lord’s Supper, he is willing to abide by the denominational position that only those who make profession of faith should participate in communion. He also takes exception to the Standards’ view on the Sabbath, as he believes that some forms of non-strenuous recreation may be permissible.