nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
What are the main differences in doctrine, practice, and history between the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)?
RPC of Scotland vs. FPC of Scotland vs. FCC
- Thread starter nickipicki123
- Start date
- Status
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
Nope! Just wanted to know what the differences were between the three, and I figured the folks here would know!
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I know a little about the RPCS, but I would want to double check some facts before posting, so hopefully someone else has the time.
For FPCS vs FCC....
So far as doctrine goes, the FCC believes in the "right of continued protest," whereas the FPs do not. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any doctrinal differences. Both subscribe strictly to the original Westminster Confession. Both have the same views of worship and use the KJV (although the FCC is not strictly committed to the translation and a few in the denom use the NKJV) and Scottish Psalter. Both have communion seasons, the table, the common cup, and wine.
So far as history goes, that is complicated. I cannot find the document on the FP website that argues from history with Rev. Kenneth Stewart of the RPCS over a call for unity from some years ago (which I think would also answer your question about the history of the RPCS versus the others), but basically, the FPs separated from the Free Church at the end of the 19th century. Whereas the FCC left the Free Church in the 2000s. Both bodies claim to be the legitimate heirs of the Free Church and therefore the Church of Scotland. To see the history from the FCC point of view, I recommend Alasdair Mcleod's series from last year's FCC Family Conference. The FPs had a review and response of their own in their magazine somewhere (their magazines are freely available on their website).
So far as practice goes, the basic gist is that things that are left free for ministers and/or communicant members to decide in the FCC are required in the FPCS. I don't recall whether these things are officially required or culturally required in the FPCS (e.g., in the FCC, women are taught to wear headcoverings, but they are not required to do so; I consider that therefore a cultural issue). The FPCS is against movies; requires women to wear skirts; and they shut down their official websites on the Sabbath (although if I recall, this was a debated matter, and they shut them down to avoid scandalizing the consciences of those in their church). The FPCS also tends to be more "separatist" while the FCC tends to be more "catholic" in their relations to other denominations. The FPCS ministers tend to view the FCC as too loose and lax in their practice and discipline (I heard one of their ministers complain that the FCC opposition to Christmas observance in an article an FCC minister wrote was not zealous enough against the day's observance), whereas the FCC ministers tend to view the FPCS as legalistic and too rigid in thier practice and discipline. There is also the issue of public Sabbath transport, which the FPCS takes a stand against, but I'm not sure whether the FCC takes an official view on the matter. I know there is some variance of opinion as to certain forms of mixed dancing in the FCC; I'm not sure of the FPCS position, but at the very least, most ministers would likely be against it; the same goes with card and dice games.
For FPCS vs FCC....
So far as doctrine goes, the FCC believes in the "right of continued protest," whereas the FPs do not. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any doctrinal differences. Both subscribe strictly to the original Westminster Confession. Both have the same views of worship and use the KJV (although the FCC is not strictly committed to the translation and a few in the denom use the NKJV) and Scottish Psalter. Both have communion seasons, the table, the common cup, and wine.
So far as history goes, that is complicated. I cannot find the document on the FP website that argues from history with Rev. Kenneth Stewart of the RPCS over a call for unity from some years ago (which I think would also answer your question about the history of the RPCS versus the others), but basically, the FPs separated from the Free Church at the end of the 19th century. Whereas the FCC left the Free Church in the 2000s. Both bodies claim to be the legitimate heirs of the Free Church and therefore the Church of Scotland. To see the history from the FCC point of view, I recommend Alasdair Mcleod's series from last year's FCC Family Conference. The FPs had a review and response of their own in their magazine somewhere (their magazines are freely available on their website).
So far as practice goes, the basic gist is that things that are left free for ministers and/or communicant members to decide in the FCC are required in the FPCS. I don't recall whether these things are officially required or culturally required in the FPCS (e.g., in the FCC, women are taught to wear headcoverings, but they are not required to do so; I consider that therefore a cultural issue). The FPCS is against movies; requires women to wear skirts; and they shut down their official websites on the Sabbath (although if I recall, this was a debated matter, and they shut them down to avoid scandalizing the consciences of those in their church). The FPCS also tends to be more "separatist" while the FCC tends to be more "catholic" in their relations to other denominations. The FPCS ministers tend to view the FCC as too loose and lax in their practice and discipline (I heard one of their ministers complain that the FCC opposition to Christmas observance in an article an FCC minister wrote was not zealous enough against the day's observance), whereas the FCC ministers tend to view the FPCS as legalistic and too rigid in thier practice and discipline. There is also the issue of public Sabbath transport, which the FPCS takes a stand against, but I'm not sure whether the FCC takes an official view on the matter. I know there is some variance of opinion as to certain forms of mixed dancing in the FCC; I'm not sure of the FPCS position, but at the very least, most ministers would likely be against it; the same goes with card and dice games.
Last edited:
LadyCalvinist
Puritan Board Junior
I used to be a member of an RPCNA church and briefly attend an FCC church so I will make a few comments.
To my knowledge, all are exclusive psalmody, strict view of the sabbath and the confessions. The FCC does communion 4 times a year and my pastor had a special Saturday service to prepare us for communion the next day. The RPCNA does not do anything like that.
I have never attended an FPC church but what I do know is that they are strict on matters of entertainment. It is sinful for an actor to pretend to be someone else, i.e. plays and movies are sinful by their very nature. I think they are the strictest of the three in terms of Christian living, not just entertainment. They excommunicated someone for going to a RC funeral. I think they also do not let women wear pants but I could be wrong on that.
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/
To my knowledge, all are exclusive psalmody, strict view of the sabbath and the confessions. The FCC does communion 4 times a year and my pastor had a special Saturday service to prepare us for communion the next day. The RPCNA does not do anything like that.
I have never attended an FPC church but what I do know is that they are strict on matters of entertainment. It is sinful for an actor to pretend to be someone else, i.e. plays and movies are sinful by their very nature. I think they are the strictest of the three in terms of Christian living, not just entertainment. They excommunicated someone for going to a RC funeral. I think they also do not let women wear pants but I could be wrong on that.
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
So to clarify, I don't mean RPCNA; I mean Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
1. Constitutional differences between the three denominations:
-Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
This Church derives its name from the Reformed Presbytery, set up in 1743. Ecclesiastically the Reformed Presbyterians are the descendants of the United Societies, who were the followers of Richard Cameron and James Renwick, and some of whom remained separate from the Church of Scotland at the Glorious Revolution of 1689. They refused to acknowledge the Revolution Settlement of 1690, holding that the attainments of the Second Reformation were ignored by that Settlement. Historically, therefore, Reformed Presbyterians refused to swear allegiance to, or take part in, the civil government of Scotland. Communicant members were not allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections. This, however, ceased to be a matter of discipline in 1960. The Reformed Presbyterians also made adherence to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant a term of Christian communion, i.e. it was binding on all their communicants, but this requirement was dropped in 1932. The Reformed Presbyterian Church remains committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but in 2011 the detailed Testimony of 1837-8 was placed ‘in abeyance’ and a brief new constitution was adopted. The main distinctive of this constitution is the rejection of the Revolution Settlement of 1690, a position which has little practical significance for the present day.
- Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
This church's constitution is that of the Free Church of Scotland as it was in 2000 (when the FCC came into existence) and so our (constitutional) differences with the Free Church would have a lot in common with our differences with the FCC. The modern day Free Church came into existence in 1900 after the union between what was then the Declaratory Act Free Church and the United Presbyterians. That Free Church (which entered into union) itself came into existence in 1892 with the adoption of the Declaratory Act which altered how the Westminster Confession was subscribed by office bearers and therefore changed the constitution of the church creating a new body. After all attempts to repeal the Declaratory Act in the following assembly in 1893 failed Rev. Donald MacFarlane submitted a protest against the Act refusing to submit to it. His protest was not received and he was thus separated from the (now) Declaratory Act Free Church.
This Act was in force in that new Free Church until it was subsequently repealed by the rump Free Church (those who didn't enter the union of 1900) in the early 1900s. However the manner in which it was repealed denied that the church had ever been under the Declaratory Act and that it had not produced a constitutional change and therefore the FP witness was schismatic. This, along with a number of other issues, meant that union between the two bodies, though sought by the Free Church, was out of the question.
In addition to this the FCC, as has been noted above, maintains the "Right of Continued Protest" which allows parties to defy decisions of the supreme court indefinitely and without danger of discipline, if they consider those decisions to be unlawful. The document defining this right is not part of the constitution of the Free Church (Continuing) but is nevertheless used in the examining of students for the ministry. The FP Church, in accordance with historic practice, does not accept this right and indeed it was Mr. MacFarlane's protest against the declaratory act which, at the time he submitted it to the general assembly, separated him from the Free Church.
-Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
This Church derives its name from the Reformed Presbytery, set up in 1743. Ecclesiastically the Reformed Presbyterians are the descendants of the United Societies, who were the followers of Richard Cameron and James Renwick, and some of whom remained separate from the Church of Scotland at the Glorious Revolution of 1689. They refused to acknowledge the Revolution Settlement of 1690, holding that the attainments of the Second Reformation were ignored by that Settlement. Historically, therefore, Reformed Presbyterians refused to swear allegiance to, or take part in, the civil government of Scotland. Communicant members were not allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections. This, however, ceased to be a matter of discipline in 1960. The Reformed Presbyterians also made adherence to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant a term of Christian communion, i.e. it was binding on all their communicants, but this requirement was dropped in 1932. The Reformed Presbyterian Church remains committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but in 2011 the detailed Testimony of 1837-8 was placed ‘in abeyance’ and a brief new constitution was adopted. The main distinctive of this constitution is the rejection of the Revolution Settlement of 1690, a position which has little practical significance for the present day.
- Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
This church's constitution is that of the Free Church of Scotland as it was in 2000 (when the FCC came into existence) and so our (constitutional) differences with the Free Church would have a lot in common with our differences with the FCC. The modern day Free Church came into existence in 1900 after the union between what was then the Declaratory Act Free Church and the United Presbyterians. That Free Church (which entered into union) itself came into existence in 1892 with the adoption of the Declaratory Act which altered how the Westminster Confession was subscribed by office bearers and therefore changed the constitution of the church creating a new body. After all attempts to repeal the Declaratory Act in the following assembly in 1893 failed Rev. Donald MacFarlane submitted a protest against the Act refusing to submit to it. His protest was not received and he was thus separated from the (now) Declaratory Act Free Church.
This Act was in force in that new Free Church until it was subsequently repealed by the rump Free Church (those who didn't enter the union of 1900) in the early 1900s. However the manner in which it was repealed denied that the church had ever been under the Declaratory Act and that it had not produced a constitutional change and therefore the FP witness was schismatic. This, along with a number of other issues, meant that union between the two bodies, though sought by the Free Church, was out of the question.
In addition to this the FCC, as has been noted above, maintains the "Right of Continued Protest" which allows parties to defy decisions of the supreme court indefinitely and without danger of discipline, if they consider those decisions to be unlawful. The document defining this right is not part of the constitution of the Free Church (Continuing) but is nevertheless used in the examining of students for the ministry. The FP Church, in accordance with historic practice, does not accept this right and indeed it was Mr. MacFarlane's protest against the declaratory act which, at the time he submitted it to the general assembly, separated him from the Free Church.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
2. Differences in matters of practice which have been mentioned above:
We require the KJV to be used in the public worship, Bible Classes and Sabbath Schools of our Church, and it is the only version to be recommended for use in family and private devotions.
We adhere to restricted communion whereas I believe the FCC and RPs allow open communion.
We regard it as inconsistent with the testimony raised in 1893 for our people to attend the services of other Churches in Scotland in any way that tends to undermine our distinct position.
We maintain the Biblical disctinction in dress and hair length between men and women and headcovering for women in public worship. We do not view these as cultural issues. http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/distinctions-between-male-and-female/
Our Synod passed a resolution advising our people not to use the Internet on Sabbath except in cases of necessity and mercy; we don't use public transport on Sabbath; and dancing would not be permitted.
Some other differences would include our position on admittance to the sacraments: for Baptism we require an uncontradicted profession but not necessarily a profession of saving faith; for the Lord's Supper we look for an accredited profession, or a profession of saving faith which can be accredited by experience and fruit, examined by the session. We would look for such evidence of conversion from one who was raised in the church as well as one who came into the church as an adult, i.e. we do not assume regeneration of covenant children, a view which has been espoused by the minister of the Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church. We would use "Thee" and "Thou" in prayer. We hold to the Establishment Principle.
We require the KJV to be used in the public worship, Bible Classes and Sabbath Schools of our Church, and it is the only version to be recommended for use in family and private devotions.
We adhere to restricted communion whereas I believe the FCC and RPs allow open communion.
We regard it as inconsistent with the testimony raised in 1893 for our people to attend the services of other Churches in Scotland in any way that tends to undermine our distinct position.
We maintain the Biblical disctinction in dress and hair length between men and women and headcovering for women in public worship. We do not view these as cultural issues. http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/distinctions-between-male-and-female/
Our Synod passed a resolution advising our people not to use the Internet on Sabbath except in cases of necessity and mercy; we don't use public transport on Sabbath; and dancing would not be permitted.
Some other differences would include our position on admittance to the sacraments: for Baptism we require an uncontradicted profession but not necessarily a profession of saving faith; for the Lord's Supper we look for an accredited profession, or a profession of saving faith which can be accredited by experience and fruit, examined by the session. We would look for such evidence of conversion from one who was raised in the church as well as one who came into the church as an adult, i.e. we do not assume regeneration of covenant children, a view which has been espoused by the minister of the Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church. We would use "Thee" and "Thou" in prayer. We hold to the Establishment Principle.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Just a point of clarification: Lord MacKay, who was an elder in the Edinburgh Congregation, attended the Roman Catholic funeral mass of a colleague. He was suspended by the Presbytery from the eldership and sealing ordinances for six months; this was appealed to the Synod (our highest court) and the Synod upheld the suspension. As a result of that decision a number of ministers and elders and their followers split from us and formed the Associated Presbyterian Churches (though Lord MacKay actually never joined that church and today, I believe, is in the Church of Scotland). Neither Lord MacKay nor anyone else was excommunicated from the church but rather chose to leave.
Last edited:
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Alexander has given the gist of it. There are certain controls to the idea though that can end a protest, and it would seem (might want to ask on ARCO; I was not aware of this qualification to the view until reviewing the document just now) that the protest can only have to do with constitutional matters. See this document here from the FCC side of things (mostly the beginning and ending portions): https://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/about/other-documents/item/the-right-of-continued-protest
Travis also has some things on his website: https://reformedbooksonline.com/sco...and/quotes-on-the-right-of-continued-protest/
Are these differences with the FCC, RPCS, or both? The FCC does hold to the Establishment principle. It is true though that not all ministers and officebearers in the FCC use "thee" and "thou" in prayer. The FCC has a document by Sherman Isbell against both presumptive regeneration and presumptive non-regeneration, although I don't know if individual ministers can hold varying views on the matter. Your description of examination for the Lord's Supper sounds like what the FCC does, but there may be a distinction here that I am missing? Likewise with Baptism (how are you distinguishing between an uncontradicted profession and profession of saving faith? Are you merely distinguishing between determining whether a person is really saved and whether a person has done nothing to cast doubt on their profession of Christ?)?
While the FCC does practice "open" communion in the sense that we allow people from other denominations to join us in the Lord's Supper, people from other denominations are required to be examined by the session before being allowed to commune; so communion is "restricted" in that sense. I don't know about the RPCS, but you are probably correct that they have the same view as the FCC on this matter.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I wouldn't want to say categorically where these division lines lie as I'm not fully versed in the particulars of the two denominations so I was speaking more on my impression of the two denominations. The issue of presumptive regeneration was specifically the RP congregation in Glasgow as the minister espoused the view in a sermon of his.
With Baptism we don't require that an individual profess saving faith, i.e. professing that he believes himself to be saved. Rather it is required he professes the Christian religion and that there is nothing in his life and walk which contradicts such a profession. So he would be examined on doctrine from the shorter catechism, his understanding of the sacrament and his walk but it wouldn't go further than that.
For the Lord's Supper it is a profession of saving faith, i.e. he believes he is saved, and the examination of him would be looking for accreditation of this profession in his experience, as well as examination of doctrine and conduct. This definitely is not the practice of the RPs and I didn't think it was the practice of the FCC.
It sounds like you have a similar policy to ourselves though we don't refer to it as open communion as that tends to suggest that one merely be a member in good standing in an evangelical congregation whereas we would require the individual to be examined by the session and known to them.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
When I briefly attended a Free Church (FPC Scotland) a few years ago, I asked about its practical differences with the more traditional FCC and was told FCC people might be inclined to walk out of that particular Free Church because (1) that Free Church now does only half its singing from the psalter and without instruments, (2) that Free Church does an annual outreach that involves Christmas caroling, and (3) members of that Free Church don't get huffy about the fact that some people might choose to use public transportation to get to church (We met people there who owned a car just so they could drive to church, but no one so much as hinted that we ought to feel less devout because we took the train).
Practically speaking for the typical churchman, that's all the difference that matters, they said. That church still felt very traditional-Presbyterian to us, even compared to some of the more traditional Presbyterian choices in America, like a typical OPC congregation. And the preaching was exceptional.
Practically speaking for the typical churchman, that's all the difference that matters, they said. That church still felt very traditional-Presbyterian to us, even compared to some of the more traditional Presbyterian choices in America, like a typical OPC congregation. And the preaching was exceptional.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I would say there is quite a significant difference between the Free Church and FCC.
scottmaciver
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Jack,
I'm glad that you had a positive experience. I've just time for a very brief response, to say, on the basis of your post, that you seemed to have received a very biased response from within the Free Church, aimed at focusing on the perceived "legalism" of the FCC, whilst avoiding, or not recognising any of the failings of the FC.
There are some able and sound preachers in the Free Church, inlcuding some very good friends of mine. However that fails to give the full picture. There are also some very liberal preachers in the FC, who despise and are embarassed by their reformed heritage. This includes, for instance, a minister who publicly welcomed the previous pope to Scotland, as a "brother in Christ." It also includes many ministers and office bearers who broke their ordination vows en masse. The FC is not what it once was, nor does it seek to be what it once was in days gone by.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Very sorry. I didn't mean the effect to be to portray anyone in the FCC in a negative light, just to point out differences from the perspective of the people I met. I can see now that it came off as sounding like "they're all legalists." I truly did not mean that. It's a good denomination, right?
By the way, the Free Church people I met didn't speak in an unkind manner either despite the recent history that got unpleasant. Those were just the things they thought I'd actually notice if I were to attend an FCC church.
(I also may have simply added confusion because, I see as I look back, I carelessly added a P to my abbreviation of the Free Church's name which, of course, turns it into a whole different denomination! Ah, the hazards of Presbyterian alphabet soup!)
In any case, the Free Church people we met and the church we attended gave no hint of any embarrassment at their Reformed heritage. I'm not sure that's a fair characterization, especially the term "very liberal." When you use that term, are you sure you're taking pains to be accurate and to avoid having people draw unfair conclusions? In my corner of the world, "very liberal" denotes churches who deny the exclusivity of Christ and the truth of the Bible outright, and I can't imagine that's what you meant.
scottmaciver
Puritan Board Sophomore
No need to apologise Jack, I wasn't suggesting that it was your intention to portray the FCC in a negative light. I suppose I was responding directly to the very positive light that the FC folk seemed to speak about their denomination. It's only fair to comment on that, as the FC has many failings, and has been veering off course for some time now.
In relation to the use of the term "very liberal," I tried to give a bit of context to my comment, in order to explain where I was coming from. Denying the exclusively of Christ, as per your post, would be akin to welcoming the pope, the head of a false religion, into our country. I was a member of the FC at the time. I raised the issue, as did one or two others, with a few senior ministers, but unfortunately it was like water off a ducks back. Whilst, people wouldn't necessarily wholeheartedly agree with such comments, they weren't condemned in any way, shape or form. A little leaven, leavens the whole lump. This is one instance, and it was some time ago, but unfortunately it gives an insight into the modern FC.
Again, just to reiterate, there are many sound ministers in the FC, along with many Godly brothers & sisters in Christ, whom I fellowship with. However, it is also true that many of the ministers are not reformed at all & many, at least tolerate, very liberal views.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, I will say for the record that I still think the Free Church deserves much better than to have you double-down on this accusation, which can easily be taken to mean far, far worse errors than anything that might be happening. There are indeed many "very liberal" churches in Scotland, as there are here in America, and I think we both know that the Free Churches do not dwell on the left side of the bunch at all, let alone the extreme left, which I think is the impression "very liberal" gives. But we shall just have to disagree.
scottmaciver
Puritan Board Sophomore
As i said, that is one issue, but certainly not the only issue, in fact far from it. Can I ask how many Free Church congregations you have visited Jack?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
To clarify, some congregations do have special Saturday preparatory services.
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
What is restricted communion, and what is open communion?
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you sure this was a Free Presbyterian Church? I thought they were stricter than the FCC in these matters.
These are all different churches:
-Church of Scotland
-Free Church of Scotland
-Free Church of Scotland, Continuing
-Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
-Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
I was only asking about the last three.
nickipicki123
Puritan Board Freshman
Do people have to meet with the session privately? I know that in the RPCNA, we just have to be a member in good standing at a sound church, but you would have to talk to the elders first in order for them to know this about you.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
When you say FCC do you mean the continuing or the free church?
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
No, you are right. It was not a Free Presbyterian Church, but a Free Church. In an earlier thread, I corrected myself for having written that out incorrectly. I do know the difference (proving myself a certified Presbyterian geek), but it seems I can mix them up when I speak or write (since I'm also an aging dimwit at times).
I realize you didn't ask about the Free Church, and it was my fault it got brought up. I think it's time we let that topic drop and give you your thread back.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Restricted communion means that anyone wishing to partake of the sacrament must either be a communicant member in a congregation in the same denomination or be well known to the particular congregation's session having been examined by them as to their profession and walk. If they are admitted that admittance would only apply to that particular congregation not to any other in the denomination.
Open communion allows those to partake who are outwith the denomination but members in good standing in their congregations. So yes they would have to speak with the session for them to know that but the benefit of the doubt would be given to their membership in their own congregation and they wouldn't be examined by the session.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, that is correct; people would have to meet with them privately (often in my congregation, this has been done on the Saturday before the Lord's Supper). In our somewhat disorderly state of things (i.e., few of our congregations in the States have a full set of elders on the ground), sometimes an interview by the minister or whatever elders are present will also do. From what people have told me about their interviews in the past, the level of examination will depend on your background. If you are a communicant member in the Presbyterian Reformed Church, the interview will likely be quick and to the point. Coming from other churches may require more questions.
When I visited the Philly RPCNA, the Session examined me briefly also. I don't remember all the questions they asked me, but one of the ones that stood out was, "Why do you want to partake of the Lord's Supper here?"
I hesitate to speak about what requirements the FCC Session makes, since I do not know them, and Alexander's distinctions are things I am not sure about concerning what the FCC does (I'll ask my pastor when I return to NC; or give our Practice a look over at some point). Being a member in good standing at a sound church is definitely one of the requirements though.
Last edited:
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Brother, you're confusing the FCC with the residual Free Church.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
That's what I was thinking. I was like what?!?
- Status