Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church.
Dear Readers of the Aquila Report,
Though we greatly respect those who edify so many with this publication, we did not request our Testimony and Covenant to be posted on the Aquila Report, as we take no delight in the weakness of the Bride of Christ and did not wish to magnify her failings. As to the accusations which have been posted in response to this announcement, we do not regard the court of public opinion to be the proper venue before which to lay the evidence which would clear our names and put to shame those who have slandered us. The evidence would surely sadden and shock you as it has us, would edify no one, and would only bring more grievous dishonor to the name of Christ before a watching world. At our separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we provided evidence to our brothers there sufficient to provide our rationale for leaving, to clear our names of the baseless slanders and threats of legal suit which this same member of that presbytery was already making, and to provide them with the evidence they should require to hold this rogue presbyter to account. As to the slanders which have been repeated since we left, we refer these to Vanguard Presbytery’s attention, as they are the party which Christ has made responsible to address the chief source of the slander. If Vanguard Presbytery publicly denounces these slanders, then we will consider ourselves vindicated of these baseless attacks and will gladly keep the shameful evidence which exonerates us as contained as possible. (1 Cor. 12:23) If Vanguard Presbytery continues a pattern of refusal to hold this individual to account and does not denounce these accusations, we will consider ourselves further vindicated in our decision to leave and will continue to make available the documentation proving our innocence of these charges to any who contact us and have need to know. In the interim, we are content that the unprejudiced child of God is already able to discern in the slanders against us, the anger of a man not accomplishing the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)
For those who have been quick to criticize us, we are not overly concerned about the opinions of those who lack the information or jurisdiction to render any just judgment. “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Prov. 18:13) With Paul, we are content to answer before the throne of Christ. “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Cor. 4:3-5)
To address the matter of why we felt compelled to form a new denomination upon separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we wish to clarify that we count those of many other denominations as brothers in Christ and legitimate expressions of the visible Church. We firmly believe in the catholicity of the Church. We are not schismatics without love for Christ’s Church or a desire for her unity. However, we have not been able to find any of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations which require faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards without either allowing exceptions or adding their own distinctive requirements.
Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church. We do not claim any such wisdom as to provide our own answer to this question, recognizing the wisdom set forth in the creeds of the Church, most especially the Westminster Standards of Faith. As stated in our Book of Church Order:
“Our Constitution requires faithful subscription to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly as adopted with minor revisions by the initial synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1788. By faithful subscription, is meant what has sometimes been described as “strict” or “full” subscription, specifically, that the main point of each paragraph of the Confession and each answer of the Catechisms is subscribed to without reservation. Thus, it is the solemn obligation of the Presbytery to determine that the candidate so faithfully subscribes, or else the Presbytery must determine that the candidate has not sustained his examination.”
All of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations join in admiration of the wisdom of the Westminster Assembly in producing a magnificent summary of biblical truth. However, the Westminster Standards were not written abstractly as a summary of the biblical system of doctrine, but specifically to provide the core of Christian theology necessary to provide a sufficient foundation for the union of the Christian church. While we grant that this Assembly and its documents are fallible, we believe that church history bears out the wisdom of the Assembly in identifying the doctrines they did as being necessary to secure peaceful and lasting unity. By allowing exceptions to the Standards, whether more generally as “system” subscription provides, or more specifically, as a departure from the plain language of the statement regarding Creation exemplifies, other reformed presbyterian denominations have rejected the wisdom of the Westminster Divines in this respect. Rather than eliminating division, consolidating differing convictions on these essential matters within a denomination only serves to bring the lines of division within the denomination. As a current example, the division between PCA Missouri Presbytery and certain other presbyteries in the PCA is no less a real division than the divisions which exist between denominations. We certainly do not rejoice in this strife, but recognize that differences over such fundamental issues within any association of churches is not sustainable. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” (Mark 3:25) While we are under no delusions that ours will be a fellowship free of the spots and blemishes which are common to this age of the Church, we do hope that by requiring faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards, we will be able to avoid much of the disunity and strife which men of differing convictions must engage in elsewhere, such that we can pursue our ministry of fulfilling the Great Commission without such distractions and pain of conscience as are burdening our brothers in other fellowships.
Free from the covenant obligation of contending with others who simply do not share our convictions, we desire to share to the greatest extent possible ecumenical partnership and fraternal relations with other expressions of the visible Church which are pursuing the same ministry on behalf of the same Lord and Savior. However, the realization which motivates us above all else is that by holding the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith without apology, as expressed in the Westminster Standards, we can best serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As God knows our hearts, it is not from any sense of superiority or pride, but because we would rather contend with the evil of this world in the power of God than with brothers of different convictions, that we have joined together to form the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church with faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards as our defining distinctive.
We love Christ, we love Christ’s Church, and we do not believe that Christ is best served when the Church is employing her gifts and expending her time and energy in an inward facing war. As sad as the multiplication of denominations may be, we believe that separating from brothers holding fundamentally different convictions is a more honest and more peaceful approach to the division which must exist among us over issues of truth, than is the attempt to remain in a common fellowship marked by constant strife. Christ will bless the ministry of those who are standing for what He approves, and we look for the Holy Spirit to continue disciplining each of our fellowships such that as we all draw closer to Christ and become more faithful to his Word, we might see a day when our fellowships might reunite. Until then, we do not have the heart to fight against brothers when there is so much work at hand to carry out the Great Commission where Christ has placed us. We have seen the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and have many new converts and covenant families to disciple as well as older saints to edify as we continue the ministry which Christ has given us. To any who would call us away from this work to defend our names of baseless accusations or to engage in an endless war against brothers in an existing fellowship, we say with Nehemiah “I am doing a great work and cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?” (Neh. 6:3) God will bring all things to light in time and until then, we cannot think of anything better than to entrust our souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (1 Pet. 4:19)
Stated ClerkChrist Reformed Presbyterian Church
Related Posts:

Some men may speak less, but do a better job at this act of truth-telling. In the life of action, there is a deeper wisdom, than in a life of word without this action. It takes a manly courage and a sense of humility before God to persist in this truth-speaking in the home, in the church, in the work-place. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can persist in speaking the truth in love. Act as men. Speak the truth and speak it in love.

In my last blog post, I spoke about facing giants, and acting like men in doing so. I focused on a lot of personal or internal characteristics of a man who acts like a man in battle: prayer before God and the destruction of idols of the heart (selfishness, pride, self-pity). But what does that look like in the real world? It seems that certain visible skills must be cultivated.
I want to focus on what acting like a man looks like in the realm of truth-telling. This is one of the primary battlefields for the modern Christian man.
There are many issues in the culture, in the church and in the modern family. But how can men in the church begin to effect the change that they want to see in the church and the world? The assembly is under attack. A Biblical and creational understanding of man and woman is under attack. Pornographic material saturates the world and weakens men spiritually and morally. The inherent dependence on government weakens men in their responsibility to work hard and provide for their families. We look to the government and to leaders for solutions, rather than accepting this core truth: I must take responsibility to serve God fearlessly and boldly within my own spheres of influence.
That responsibility begins with speaking the truth to myself and then within my environment.
In I Corinthians 16:13-14, a man is commanded to let all that he does be done in love. The truth is under attack in our culture and in our homes, just as when Satan crept up on Adam and Eve in the Garden: did God really say? Adam as the head of the home bought into the lie, when he should have laid down his life for his wife. Of course, even this truth-speaking must be done in love: “Rather, speaking the truth in love.” (Eph. 4:15)
This is one of the hardest parts of learning to be a man. It is easy to veer into one of two ditches. Either we promote a spineless love that is unmoored from the truth. Or we present the truth in ways that are less than upbuilding. For example, a man must tell his wife the truth and lead his family in truth, but he does so recognizing that she is the weaker vessel, and having patience with the immaturity in his children. He does so to build her up. It is done in selfless love.
I have seen an issue in the “manosphere” that at times when men want to “tell the truth” so to speak, they do it with filthy language and insults. Somehow dropping crass language makes it more courageous. I am not saying that there is no place for strong language. For example, Paul tells the Judaizers in Galatia essentially that they should castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12). But it was well aimed along the lines of their beliefs that that they could only fellowship with those who were circumcised. And so Paul is telling them to just circumcise themselves from the Church if they want to got that far in their practice. But the vast majority of what is arising in our culture is simply filthy language that does not build up but tears down. Much of it does not make sense within context and so it is not truth-telling, but simply filthy language.
Back to the ditches. Fear of consequences, can make a man harsh in telling the truth on one hand, or make him compromise in telling the truth on the other hand. Both responses are a symptom of fear. It takes courage to speak truth in love in a culture where, the consequences might put you in a place where you are without a job.
Read More

The kingdom of God will not be advanced by the sword. Peter wanted to pick up the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. “We’re not going to build the kingdom that way,” said Jesus. You cannot point me to a single verse in the New Testament—there is not the slightest whiff in the New Testament—that we advance the kingdom of God by the sword. Isaac Backus again: “Our glorious Head [Jesus] made no use of secular force in the first setting up of the gospel church.” Jesus and the apostles didn’t need the sword to set up churches, which are the pathway to true righteousness and justice and love of neighbor.  Do we? 

My ostensible purpose for standing here is to present a defense for religious liberty. I’ve been invited as the Baptist after all. And if you’ve never attended a Baptist church, you should know that religious liberty is really the only thing we try to teach our kids in their Sunday school classes. Presbyterians teach their kids about the Bible’s glorious covenants. Lutherans teach their kids about the law and the gospel. Methodists are talking about sanctification and piety. Baptists, well, we got religious liberty.
Of course, a growing number of Christians wonder if religious liberty is really the best doctrine to be teaching in this morally chaotic and, frankly, neo-pagan age. In fact, couldn’t it be that this Baptist emphasis really is just classical liberalism talking, because we’ve been co-opted, and that it’s led to the rampant individualism and anti-authority-ism, that’s participated in creating our present moral chaos? Honestly, those are good questions to ask. I think in some cases, I assume the answers are “yes.”
For our purposes here, I don’t want to merely think through the matter as a theologian or theoretician. Instead, I want to place the conversation inside a pastoral framework. Meaning, let’s think about real people, at this moment in history, and put our theology into the service of that.
Recently, I had breakfast with a friend whose 18-year-old nephew—let me call him “Sam”—committed suicide a few months back. Sam, who struggled with mental health issues, lost his way. Yet my friend also talked about the larger world of TikTok, and deconstruction, and questions about gender, and a whole culture telling Sam he was free to be whoever he wanted to be. Sam lacked the structures, the moorings, the fixed points of moral evaluation, to answer the question, “Who am I?” He couldn’t get a grip. So he took his life.
It should make you angry—angry at all those cultural forces which have set themselves to destroying the good, the true, the beautiful, undermining and destroying 18-year-olds like Sam. Others, you know, turn to drugs, or shopping, or body cult, or a hundred other distractions. There’s nothing to live for.
My friend’s story hit home because my nephew is 19 and is trying to find his way. His sister is 17. My three older daughters are 16, 15, and 13. All of them have grown up with weekly church attendance, family worship, parental discipleship. But they’re facing the same world as Sam.
What do my daughters, and my niece and nephew, as they leave homes which have been shaped by the truths of Christianity, need? Most of all, they need Jesus. Both for the sake of this life and the next, they need Jesus. And so my wife and I pray and pray and pray, and then we’ll wait.
But let me refine the question: what do these teenagers need and not need from societies larger structures, like church and state, so that they might know Jesus? I’m setting the conversation up this way, because I think it puts us in the right framework. Christians should approach every action, structure, and decision in life asking the question, how will this help me and my fellow Christians, and the world, better know Jesus? It should be our driving question in everything. Sam’s story, tragically, is over. But there are millions more Sams launching into the world. So what do my niece and nephew and my teenage daughters need and not need? Seven things.
1. They don’t need to be treated like children any longer, but like adults, and a state which seeks to implement the first table of the law treats them like children.
The Magisterial Reformers may have believed the magistrate’s jurisdiction “extends to both tables of the law” and to protecting true worship because “no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care.” So argued John Calvin by appealing to the Davidic kings. And in one sense he’s right. People will not truly love their neighbors and refrain from murder, stealing, lying, and sexual deviancy if they don’t first love God. The second table depends on the first. Love of neighbor depends on love of God.
Therefore—the Magisterial Reformers reasoned—we should criminalize violations of the first table.
It’s that “therefore” that I disagree with. There’s a difference between recognizing moral truths and realities and granting the state the authority to enforce them. A moral “is” does not equate to a governmental “ought.” So it’s true that laws against murder and stealing will only be fully obeyed among a people who worship no other gods—see heaven. Yet that doesn’t mean the nations of the world outside of ancient Israel, whether today or in the days of the Old Testament, have been authorized to wield the sword against first table infractions.
Furthermore, how well did the Mosaic Covenant’s call to enforce the first table work for Israel? Did it, as Calvin says, establish piety as Israel’s first care? Don’t the lessons of Israel’s failure and exile teach the exact opposite? Isn’t the takeaway lesson that human beings can have God’s own law written on stone, God’s hand selected kings and priests, God’s own presence in the temple, and yet they still worship other gods and sacrifice their children to idols? If laws against blasphemy didn’t work for them, why do we think it will work for us? If the answer is, “Well, we have Holy Spirit-indwelled churches now,” then, yes, we do. But we don’t have a Holy-Spirit-indwelled nation. So why, again, would we expect first table enforcement to work any differently for our nation than for the Israelite nation?
For as much as our doctrine of total depravity depends on Reformed theologians like Calvin, a Reformed Baptist like me would suggest he failed to apply that doctrine adequately to his political theology. The divinely-intended political theological lesson of Israel’s failure is that our hearts are so corrupt that the sword can do nothing—absolutely nothing—to change them, which is why Jesus refused Peter’s grab at a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. Nothing other than the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit will yield obedience to the First Table of the law, so look for such obedience in your churches. Patrol those borders for First Table adherence. The church now possesses this priestly job, not the nation. To seek to enforce the First Table should necessarily lead to the death penalty and exile, because “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11). Indeed, that’s why God exiled Israel.
Second Table enforcement, however, is different. By God’s common grace, non-Christians really can be expected and made to keep aspects of it. We really can enforce laws against murder and stealing. Idolatry? Good luck. That’s one lesson of ancient Israel.
Not only that, it’s true I require my children to attend church and endure family worship at home. But I’ve never criminalized or punished violations of the first table in my home. Can you imagine punishing your children for—all by itself— not loving God?
The question I’d ask of the First Table-Enforcers today is, do they think that launching my children and theirs into a society that punishes First Table infractions, if only by making them second-class citizens, really helps them to know Jesus? Do they assume our children will respond well to that?
Suppose I had a rebellious child. Suppose she evidenced this rebellious nature from a young age, and it continues through her teenage years. What exactly do the First-Table enforcers think governmental laws will do that my home laws, combined as they are with love and personal knowledge and affirmation and affection, will accomplish?
Magisterial Protestantism, and various forms of theonomy, and a certain variety of Christian nationalism, sometimes draw an analogy to the “Christian family.” They argue that, in the same way a so-called Christian parents establish structures, rules, and practices that are conducive to Christian belief, so can the state. Yet in so doing, they treat adults as children. They infantilize them.
My point here is not, “That’s insulting. How dare you treat people like children!” The point is, adults aren’t children. They’re not wired like children, particularly children living in the homes of Christian parents. Recall how Jesus said we need the faith of a child? Therefore, we launch them from the home. We remove the strictures we placed on them. For one, we stop requiring them to attend church with us. In general, we should not expect such structures-conducive-to-belief, whatever those are, to work for adults like they do for children. It’s strange to me, therefore, that the First-Table enforcers want to extend the parental hand out of the home, down the street, and into all of life for the child that the parent has let go of.
And that brings me to a second point.
2. Our sons and daughters, launching into the world, don’t need false gods and false Christianities established in the public square.
For every time you manage to get hold of the sword to prosecute your religion or your sect, seven other times someone else will get a hold of it to prosecute theirs against yours. Isaac Backus commented, “the same sword that Constantine drew against the heretics, Julian turned against the orthodox.”
One question those who call for the legal implementation of first table matters never answer is, how can you guarantee it’s your God or your version of Christianity, and not, say, Joe Biden’s Christianity, which is being established? And here’s where the whole comparison to the so-called  “Christian family” breaks down. What’s the starting point for what people call a “Christian family”? Christian parents. Great. Christian parents should implement Christian structures and expectations. Yet then folks make the quick analogy. “The government should do what Christian parents do.” Okay, but with Christian parents, you are, by definition, starting with the most important thing: Christians. With a government, you’re not. So how can you guarantee it? Because the whole theory of government propounded by First-Table establishers depends on it.
Not only that, the Bible assigns parents with the broadest authority of any authority on earth. It’s effectively totalitarian, extending from learning to wipe your bottom to instructions on worship. Are you sure that you want to draw that analogy, and hand such a broad, totalitarian authority to the government? In Russia, you’ll get a Roman Orthodox church. You want that? In Italy, a Roman Catholic one. Do you want that? And never mind what you’ll get in the nations governed by other religions.
No, I don’t want any of these things for my daughters in order for them to know Jesus, nor do I want the government treating them with the same authority as my own.
3. They need the freedom to make their own decisions about who God is and whether or not they will follow him.
Friends, get into your heads any non-Christian you know. Can you really imagine trying to induce them toward Christianity with any type of threat? Any type of penalty? Any type of tax? Any type of second class citizenship? Can you imagine saying to that non-Christian you’re thinking of, “We’re going to fine you for not loving Jesus like we think you should?” Do you think that will work?
If so, I question your understanding of psychology, not to mention the Holy Spirit, the new birth, and conversion. Again, do you do that even with your kids now? Is it law that Paul says will bring us to repentance? Or the kindness and the grace of God (see Rom. 2:4)?
The kingdom of God will not be advanced by the sword. Peter wanted to pick up the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. “We’re not going to build the kingdom that way,” said Jesus. You cannot point me to a single verse in the New Testament—there is not the slightest whiff in the New Testament—that we advance the kingdom of God by the sword. Isaac Backus again: “Our glorious Head [Jesus] made no use of secular force in the first setting up of the gospel church.” Jesus and the apostles didn’t need the sword to set up churches, which are the pathway to true righteousness and justice and love of neighbor.  Do we?
To put this third point another way: enforcing the First Table operates by kingdom of man logic (triumph through power) rather than kingdom of God logic (triumph through weakness). What do our teenagers and non-Christian friends, what does the church itself, need to learn about Jesus? That with his first-coming, he foregrounded his work of priestly weakness and sacrifice. He does not foreground his work of kingly triumph until his second coming. That’s one of the things that changed from the old covenant to the new. Isaiah teaches that the Davidic King, who established the kingdom of Israel in strength, would turn out to be the suffering servant, who established the kingdom of God in weakness. And yet now, folk think we’re to do it like Israel did it? Did we miss how Christ said he would build his kingdom?
Read More
Related Posts: