Parker T. Williamson
Executive Editor
A
Presbyterian Outlook article by Princeton
Seminary theologian William Stacy Johnson recently caught my
eye. Sitting before a map of the United States that displayed
the county vote of each state in the recent presidential
election, Johnson observed that the areas of our country that
supported George W. Bush tend to match those areas where
Presbyterians have registered their disapproval of homosexual
behavior. From this observation, Johnson drew a conclusion,
namely that, although we Presbyterians say “theology
matters,” what really drives our theology is politics.
This conclusion – remarkable for having come from a
theologian – is not derived from the facts. From the same
data, one could argue the opposite conclusion with equal
invalidity, namely, that our theology drives our politics.
Deconstruction the confessions
Trying to correlate theology and politics is a complex
undertaking, far more so than Johnson’s thesis suggests.
Consider, for example, the origins of three documents in our
denomination’s
Book of Confessions. In 325,
Constantine’s desire for political unity led him to
convene the council that gave us the Nicene Creed. In 1560,
the Church of Scotland declared its faith in response to a
bloody civil war. And, in 1643, a political upheaval between
Charles I and Parliament sparked Parliament’s call for
the Westminster Assembly.
Following Johnson’s line of reasoning, one might
conclude that the Nicene Creed, the Scots Confession and the
Westminster Confession were mere products of politics. Yet we
know differently from reading the documents themselves –
rich as they are in their expressions of timeless Christian
truth. Yes, the church often has declared its faith in times
of political turmoil. But the record shows that, while
politics has sometimes been the occasion, it has not been the
substance of the church’s Reformed confessions.
The Presbyterian Future
Today, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is reclaiming its
Biblically based, confessional heritage. While this trend may
have political implications – every belief system does –
its meaning will not be discerned solely by political
analysis.
Returning to the post-election demographics that piqued
Johnson’s interest, an additional correlation is worthy
of note. Counties that supported Bush and correspondingly
where Presbyterians disapproved of homosexual behavior also
scored highest in membership growth and per capita giving.
Conversely, in most of the areas where homosexual activism has
been promoted by church leaders, the Presbyterian Church is
dying. Extrapolate that trend over just a few years and you
will see a very different Presbyterian Church (USA) from that
which we have experienced in the past three decades.
Captive to culture?
I do not believe that, as Johnson suggests, these growing
Presbyterian majorities are succumbing to politics. On the
contrary, I suggest that Presbyterians, having suffered the
results of their denomination’s cultural captivity since
the 1960s, are now choosing a path that is theologically
based. Mainstream Presbyterians do not buy the notion that
truth equals opinion and morality means preference. We do not
insist that the Bible conform to its interpreters. We do not
agree with departing church bureaucrats that “choice”
is all that matters. We do not reduce God to a mere force
within each individual. Presbyterians know that the cult of
the imperial self is incompatible with the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ. These are matters of faith, not politics.
Do these theological convictions suggest implications for the
way growing Presbyterian majorities will engage the political
order? Of course they do, for Presbyterians historically have
expressed their theological convictions through involvement in
community affairs. But however our convictions take shape, it
is too simplistic to call them “politics.” Something
much more profound is going on.