Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (1)

Covenant Fellowship Scotland, the evangelical group who intend to remain in the Church of Scotland despite the increasing apostasy of the denomination, is to be congratulated on its Plan for Action.  It gives its members some positive steps and it gives its critics something solid with which to interact. The Action Plan is found here:

http://covenantfellowshipscotland.com  

I will be analysing the Plan in detail over a series of blogs here at Presbyterian Plodder. However, at this point let me make some passing comments.

The Plan of Action does not interact with Scripture, nor even quote Scripture.  

It might be argued that the underlying biblical and theological foundations have already been established and that there is no need to repeat them in the Plan of Action.  I would question that assumption, for I do not believe that a Scriptural case for remaining in an apostate denomination has been made or indeed can be made. I also believe that it is correct to describe the denomination as apostate, while acknowledging that this is not the case for every individual congregation. The Plan is not arguing the “if” of remaining within the Church of Scotland, it is outlining the “how to”. 

Secondly, Covenant Fellowship really needs to debate these issues – both the supposed biblical justification for remaining in an apostate denominational body and the actions that they propose to take to reform the church.  It needs to debate them publicly with real opponents and not imaginary straw men.  That could be either a live debate before an audience or a virtual debate by blog. Iron sharpens iron; a retreat into isolation without interaction is not the way forward.

Are the members of Covenant Fellowship willing to engage in such detailed discussion?  Personally, I understand their fear of engaging on a second front.  They are fighting the denomination, and some of them consider any criticism from fellow evangelicals as a betrayal. In particular they are fearful that any argument addressed directly to the members of their congregation will disrupt their unity – mirroring in some way the denominational mantra that unity is the supreme value, whatever the cost in terms of compromise. 

But surely these leaders of the Covenant Fellowship owe it to their congregations to come afresh to the arguments for biblical discipline as an essential mark of the church. They need to begin with Scripture, not the situation they find themselves in currently or the pragmatic issues that might arise through following a biblical course of direction.