 New Wineskins Convocation Nothing new under the sun: The disorderly history of controversy in American Presbyterianism Author's Note: This short and general overview is written by an elder for laypersons who have not studied the historical occurrences discussed herein to demonstrate that, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). By Michael R. McCarty1 Special to The Layman Online Tuesday, February 6, 2007 As a layman, I write on such a heady topic with trepidation. I know that some pastors and serious students may legitimately complain that this is not a scholarly disputation on the many complex issues that came out of the General Assemblies of 1923 and 1924. I wholeheartedly agree. Nor is it intended to be. It is simply meant to tell my brothers and sisters in the pews that the situation in which we Presbyterians find ourselves today is, indeed, further proof that there is nothing new under the sun.
The earliest American Presbyterian churches were established in Virginia, New England, Maryland, and Delaware during the seventeenth century and were chiefly of English origin. The man who brought the scattered churches into organic unity was the Rev. Francis Makemie who, in 1706 with six other ministers, organized the Presbytery of Philadelphia. A decade later, the first synod was constituted. Only 23 years after its initial affiliation, Presbyterianism experienced its first major dispute over the exact wording and interpretation of the Adopting Act of 1729. Between 1741 and 1758, the Presbyterian body divided into two, the "Old Side" and the "New Side." The issue was a disagreement as to the requirements for the ministry (ordination standards!) and the interpretation of those standards. Does this sound like an old familiar theme? Years later, another split occurred. In 1810, the dissolution of the Cumberland Presbytery by the Synod of Kentucky (once again over ordination standards) led to the formation of a new denomination: the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The next major division resulted from a debate lasting approximately 36 years over controversies regarding missionary work and doctrinal matters. In 1837, the denomination split into the "Old School" and the "New School." Twenty-four years later, the impending Civil War cost both "Schools" most of their Southern presbyteries when anti-slavery resolutions were passed. The Southerners united to form the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, renamed in 1865 as the Presbyterian Church in the United States. In 1869, the "Old School" and the "New School" reunited in the North, forming the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The reunited denomination became the largest and most influential Presbyterian body in America, but not the only one. Since that time, American Presbyterianism has been continuously and repeatedly beset by controversies regarding the sources of authority in religion, and the authority and credibility of the Scriptures. The most recent era of debate and discussion over theological matters can be dated from the General Assembly of 1923. The issues are as familiar as last June's news from Birmingham. At the 1923 General Assembly, the denomination responded to "doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" that had been preached in the pulpit of First Presbyterian Church of New York City by Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, DD, a Baptist who was associate pastor of that church.3 As a result, the 1923 General Assembly declared "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error." It also was agreed that every candidate seeking ordination in the Presbyterian Church ought to be able to affirm "essential and necessary" tenets of Christian belief:
The controversy boiled over in the 1924 General Assembly when the modernist-liberal faction within the denomination responded with what has come to be known as the Auburn Affirmation. The Auburn Affirmation was actually drafted with the original intention of presenting it to the 1923 General Assembly. However, after events of that General Assembly revealed that the theses of the Affirmation might be favorably received by "moderates" as well as its liberal proponents, it was circulated in preparation for formal presentation to the General Assembly of 1924. The Auburn Affirmation was the culmination of a 30-year debate between those who embraced the traditional long-standing essential doctrines of historic Christianity and those who favored a modernist-humanist naturalistic rationalism. It was a crucial turning point in the history of American Presbyterianism. The Auburn Affirmation contains six sections, four of which are theological in substance. The Bible is not inerrant. Rather, the supreme guide of Scripture interpretation is the Spirit of God speaking to the individual believer. Thus, "liberty of conscience" is elevated above Scripture. None of the five essential doctrines should be used as a test of ordination. Alternative "theories" of these doctrines are permissible. There is a "constitutional right and … Christian duty … to exercise liberty of thought and teaching within the bounds of evangelical Christianity." Division on theological grounds is deplored; unity and freedom are commended. Referring to the Five Fundamentals as "particular theories," it says:
The natural result of the ambivalence of the 1924 General Assembly and those that followed echoes loudly in recent pronouncements of the PCUSA. In 2000, the Rev. Dirk Ficca was invited by the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program to give the keynote address at the Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference. In his speech, titled "Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a Diverse World." Rev. Ficca asked, "Okay, well if God is at work in our lives whether we're Christian or not, what's the big deal about Jesus?" In response, the 213th General Assembly (2001) declared:
No further clarification has been offered by the PCUSA. Thus, the PCUSA, despite repeated attempts, still refuses to forthrightly declare that John 14:6 means what it says and to unequivocally say to the world that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. More recently, the PCUSA has hired as a consultant to teach "Cultural Proficiency" to the PCUSA's national staff in Louisville a Presbyterian "minister" who proudly declares that she is "Christian by birth, a Baha'i by reason, a Taoist in spirit, and a pastor in faith and vocation." She also says that there are many paths to God and that there is "no capital 'T' in Truth." She questions how "both a faithful believer and a blatant sinner can end up in the same heaven if the sinner confesses and asks for forgiveness on her deathbed."4 Are these simply two of many other modern "particular theor[ies] … worthy of all confidence and fellowship?" It seems to be so. The actions of the 2006 General Assembly lead us to the conclusion that the PCUSA has crossed beyond the line of reasonable debate and inquiry. So, what do we do? As Moses and the people of God wandered for 40 years in the Wilderness, so we, too, have been wandering. The time for wandering and going here and there, in circles or even back-tracking, is past. Our own history as a denomination reveals that we are not the first generation called to make hard decisions, nor possibly the last. But choose we must, and act we shall. We need to heed God's promise of a new thing. God's revealed and inerrant word guides us:
Now is the time! This article originally appeared in the final report of the New Wineskins Association of Churches' strategy team and is included in A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven. It is reprinted here by permission. Footnotes: 1. Elder, Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church, Glenmoore, Pa., and member of the New Wineskins Association of Churches' Strategy Team (2006-2007) 2. In fact, Rev. John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, also was involved in the "New Side-Old Side" split of the denomination, a quarter of a century before that famous day in July 1776. 3. In particular, on May 21, 1922, Dr. Fosdick preached a sermon titled "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" in which he referred to belief in the virgin birth of our Lord, in the inerrancy of Scripture, and that Christ will actually come again as "the worst exhibitions of bitter intolerance." The sermon, reprinted and widely published as The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith, called for an "intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty loving" Christian fellowship. 4. K. N. Robbins, "Challenges to Being an Inclusive Community: Getting Along in the Garden on Earth" (July 8, 2006, at a meeting of Presbyterian Women). I pray that her "students" in Louisville will direct her to Luke 23: 39-43. ("One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.") (ESV) |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||