Share this Digg Del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio Print E-mail

That the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can hold together simply on the basis of "The Historic Principles of Church Government" (Form of Government, I. 3-4) is a forlorn hope. By nature and nurture, the Reformed tradition is founded on the conviction that faith comes before order, which means theology precedes polity. When the two more basic preliminary principles--the Lordship of Christ (G-1.0100) and the mission of the church (G-1.0200)--are controverted, the union cannot long endure. No political process or agreement can establish--or reestablish--the church's unity if the basic theological foundation has crumbled. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Presbyterians were forced to deal with the historical revolution. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Presbyterians, it seems, will be forced to deal with the social revolution, especially in its sexual expressions. The effects of our current social revolution are yet to be determined, but the former were more or less resolved--if painfully. For that reason, the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s is instructive for us today.

 

The Accepted Interpretation

Curiously enough, the interpretation of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy is better known than the issues that caused it. That is to say, the accepted memory holds that the modernist-fundamentalist controversy resulted in The Broadening Church (the title of Lefferts Loetcher's famous book). Many Presbyterians therefore assume the entire debate was between a Presbyterianism of narrow doctrinal definitions ("the truth belongs to us") and a more expansive theological stance ("the truth belongs only to God"). ...broadening could be defined as building beyond the boundaries of the foundation, open could mean undisciplined, flexible could mean bowing to everything...It is suggested that fundamentalists are those who continue to resist change, and the moderates and modernists are those who adjust to it. Many Presbyterians understand themselves to be and congratulate themselves on being a broadening church.

The term broadening itself is not innocent of logical difficulty. In Loetscher's usage, it seems to mean more inclusive, broad as opposed to narrow, open as opposed to closed, flexible as opposed to rigid. On the other hand, broadening could be defined as building beyond the boundaries of the foundation, open could mean undisciplined, flexible could mean bowing to everything, standing for nothing.

The point is that slogans, such as "the broadening church," however accurate and appropriate to the original situation they intended to describe, are of limited usefulness in current debates. Sometimes "new occasions teach new duties," and on occasion, "time makes ancient good uncouth." But Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). A broadening river that leaves its proper channel and overflows its banks becomes so shallow that fish die in it. A broadening river often devastates crops and destroys homes. Clearly Christian obedience does not require accommodation to every cultural and social change. Some changes are sinful.

The Declared Issue

Getting to our time requires passing through the strong orthodoxy of the seventeenth century (and the Westminster Confession); the eighteenth century age of skeptical reason (and Immanuel Kant); and then the nineteenth century Romantic Age (with Schleiermacher and theology as psychology). Among other things the Romantic Period produced intense study of the Bible. Ultimately this Bible study led to a renewed interest in the historicity of Scripture, resulting from the revolution in historical understanding. This historical revolution was a major part of the more immediate background for the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. Specifically the debate focused on essential tenets, and within that frame most especially on the nature of Scripture, involving the relation between philosophical and historical understanding.

In America the Adopting Act of 1729 had required the subscription of Presbyterian ministers to the Westminster standards "as being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine." However, the crucial phrase "essential and necessary articles" was left ambiguous. In 1890 the "liberal" Presbyterian, Charles A. Briggs, professor in Union Theological Seminary (N.Y.), called for a new creed that would "set forth the essential and necessary articles of the [Westminster] Confession, and omit all unessential and unnecessary articles." In response to this challenge, the "conservative" General Assembly of 1910 specified that five of the essential and necessary doctrines were: (1) the inerrant Scripture, (2) the virgin birth, (3) the sacrificial atonement, (4) the physical resurrection, and (5) the supernatural miracles. The assembly also declared other doctrines to be equally essential and necessary, without identifying which they were.

This action of stipulating five doctrines as essential divided Presbyterians between "liberals" and "conservatives." In the course of the controversy, liberal included such persons as Briggs and Henry Sloan Coffin; conservative included Benjamin B. Warfield and G. Gresham Machen. Sadly, the rancorous debates resulted in the departure of many from the Presbyterian fold, including Briggs from the "left" and Machen from the "right."

In 1924 a resolution of the issue was proposed by the Auburn Affirmation, which insisted that to declare certain doctrines "essential and necessary" was to amend the constitution. Moreover, it was claimed that the five "essential" doctrines as presented included "theories" about facts. On the "facts" (the Inspiration of the Bible, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Continuing Life and Supernatural Power of Jesus Christ), it was said, all Presbyterians agree. However, with regard to the "theories," persons of good character and principles might differ. The Affirmation concludes that the Presbyterian Church should once more exemplify "its historic policy of accepting theological differences within its bounds and subordinating them to (1) recognized loyalty to Jesus Christ and (2) united work for the kingdom of God."

At this point, the Broadening Church interpretation enters. That is to say, in the late 1920s the American Presbyterian church found in the Auburn Affirmation a formula that could be accepted by all but the most conservative people. It provided a platform on which moderate conservatives, centrists, and liberals could stand together, however uncomfortably. The ecclesiastical historians sympathetic to the majority assumed--or judged--the most radical fundamentalists to be "narrow" and thus their departure produced a "broadening church."

The resolution of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy offered in the Auburn Affirmation requires five comments, four of which are quick. A creedal church accepts theological differences within careful limits.First, by the late 1920s, most of the disputants had a greater desire to end the controversy and restore the peace of the Presbyterian church than to separate from it. Thus they were eager to find a compromise formula that the vast majority could accept. Second, it should be observed in passing that the distinction between (a) fact and (b) interpretation of the fact is notoriously difficult to make, and persons of good character and principles may differ on it.

Third, it may be rhetorically useful to speak vaguely of the Presbyterian Church's"historic policy of accepting theological differences," but the statement, standing alone, is quite untrue. A creedal church accepts theological differenceswithin careful limits. The confessional sails of Reformed theology are not run up to catch every wind of doctrine that blows across the face of the deep.

Fourth, and curiously, reestablishing Presbyterian unity on the basis of recognized loyalty to Christ and recognized working for the kingdom offers two generous--and perhaps unrecognized--but nonetheless essential tenets (or as we call them today, preliminary principles).

The Real Issue: Then and Now

The fifth observation, and for our present purpose the most important, is that when the group norm (or basic or essential or fundamental assumption or set of assumptions) is or is perceived to be under attack, a community can no longer hold together. Recognizing that there is a tremendous human need to belong, and belonging requires a group, a group needs a bond of unity. Since every person is individual and therefore different, every grouping of persons will automatically contain diversity. Large groups will produce diverse sub-groups to maximize comfort, which means there will be a range of opinion and conviction that can be judged right, left, and middle. Nevertheless, however much the sub-groups differ from each other, they will remain loyal to the larger community only so long as they are convinced the entire group is moving toward their common goal.

Thus the crucial task is not to manage diversity but to maintain unity. Because we are unduplicated individuals, groups of us are naturally diverse. What holds groups together and over long periods is a complicated question. Obvious answers such as "common interests," "common goals," "common needs," and so on are true but not sufficiently specific to be really helpful. Apparently in the late 1920s, both sides on the issue of essential tenets were (or were willing to assume they were) united on (a) loyalty to Christ and (b) working for the kingdom. Whether and in what sense this conclusion was actually true at that time cannot be answered by us. Nevertheless the Auburn Affirmation offered a formula that resolved the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in its 1920s form because of the conviction that the community was united in their commitment (a) to Jesus Christ, the great Head of the church, and (b) to the great ends of the church. Essentially the Auburn Affirmation affirmed what are now the first two preliminary principles of the Form of Government!

Following the resolution of the modernist-fundamentalist conflict, the American Presbyterian consensus continued from 1930 to 1960, held together in a general way by the theologies of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. However, with the rise of theological pluralism after 1960, the painful tensions among theological subgroups resurfaced. This situation requires a new search for an identifiable theological sense of unity among the political and social diversities of American Presbyterians. The modernist-fundamentalist controversy could be resolved because there was a recognition (or hope) that in spite of many sharp differences, the community was recognizably united at the profoundest level of its theological commitment to the same Christ and the same church, his Body.

However, in today's permissive culture, there seems to be less willingness to make disciplined sacrifices to maintain unity. By trying to be entirely inclusive, a community loses its particular identity.That means minority factions often demand inclusion for themselves, even when they deliberately violate the majority standards of unity. The defiance of majority rule by a strong minority raises difficult questions about church discipline and the role of persuasion and coercion.

Curiously, the commitment to and encouragement of diversity itself promotes the destruction of the community. By trying to be entirely inclusive, a community loses its particular identity. This destructive process is mightily fostered by the democratic freedom given to dissenters to subvert the unity of the group in favor of any diversity that protects their minority cause.

Theoretically we all know that without proper diversity, the community will stagnate. At the same time, without proper unity, the community will disintegrate. The obvious question, but the difficult answer, is how to find the proper balance. When one group exalts diversity (because it advances their cause), and the other group exalts unity (because it advances their cause), the casualty, of course, is the fellowship. As in marriages, to the extent that ecclesiastical separation can be contemplated without agony, the wedding is already on its way to dissolution, and the parties, sooner or later, will go their separate ways. Considerations such as these will prevent the establishing of a lasting consensus on the grounds of polity alone unless Presbyterians can recognize and reestablish their mutual theological covenant.

The problem today is that many deny rather than defend the Christological confessions of Nicea and Chalcedon, which have traditionally guided us. Obviously, Christology is an immensely complex topic, but the great divide between Presbyterians comes down to two prepositions: "by" and "in." The current debate...is a struggle for the truth of the Gospel and for the mind, and heart, and soul of the church.The urgent question is whether contemporary Presbyterians believe that God is revealed in Jesus Christ or by Jesus Christ.

Until recently all Christians accepted the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) and the Chalcedonian Formula (451 A.D.), which teach that Jesus is fully (same as) God and fully (same as) a human being. Presbyterians believed that God is revealed by Jesus Christ (his prophetic office) because God is revealed in Jesus Christ (his priestly and kingly offices). The current debate is more than an intellectual squabble over two tiny prepositions. It is a struggle for the truth of the Gospel and for the mind, and heart, and soul of the church. This challenge will require more ministers and more elders more committed to the great truths of the Gospel, and a company of the faithful better informed about the theological issues.

If Presbyterians in significant numbers no longer agree on the person and work of Jesus Christ, then the foundation on which we once built has shifted or been undermined, and our principles and vows are deceptive, when we should be honest to God and each other.

A Modest Proposal

My modest proposal is this: Our discussion today must begin where the fundamentalist-modernist controversy ended. The first ordination vow for leaders in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reads: "Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" This question has a plain meaning and a plain answer. The first preliminary principle demands loyalty to Jesus Christ, Lord of all and the great Head of the Church, which is his Body.

If Presbyterians in significant numbers no longer agree on the person and work of Jesus Christ, then the foundation on which we once built has shifted or been undermined, and our principles and vows are deceptive, when we should be honest to God and each other.

Is Inclusive Always Good?

Everybody today wants to be inclusive. Contemporary society seems to assume that inclusive is always good and exclusive is bad, but that's simply not true.

For example, my marriage is exclusive. Margaret and I exclude all other persons from it, and I cannot believe that even this open and permissive culture would try to insist on making our marriage more inclusive. Sometimes being exclusive is right and righteous. On the other hand, the world has suffered much from absolutist programs, including some perpetrated by Christians.

However, the current claim that everything is relative is not self-evident, however widely accepted it is. To be specific, many of us believe that Christians are held together by the faith that Jesus Christ is absolutely and exclusively Lord of all. Since the Lordship of Christ is revealed by God, we insist that Christians not be intimidated by those who call us exclusivistic and absolutist.

Charles Partee is P.C. Rossin Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary where he has taught for 24 years.