In Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism D.G. Hart and John R. Muether say this about identity in the PCA:The quandary of identity is not limited to the mainline. The exodus that created the Presbyterian Church in America was frustrated with the cold, organizational bureaucracy of the mainline as much as its theological decline. The PCA's grassroots intimacy is what many of its members miss most about its founding, as the PCA increasingly resembles the organizational machine that its founders fled. Assessment centers find experts subjecting ministerial candidates to intense psychological profiling, bureaucratic caucusing has replaced Assembly deliberation, and ministries of mercy trump the spirituality of the church.
Of course, the PCA is not in numerical decline, but rather it claims to be among the fastest growing denominations in America. In twenty years it has grown to more than fifteen hundred congregations and more than three hundred thousand members. The denomination supports five hundred full-time missionaries and over one hundred chaplains in the military, hospitals, and prisons. Still those numbers, impressive though they are, beg the question of whether the PCA is contributing to the growth of Presbyterianism in America. The PCA is more concerned with being on the cutting edge of "culture-formation" than fostering Presbyterian consciousness, and its growth often requires the disguise of its Presbyterian identity. The same may be said of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (252-53).
Thoughts?
8 comments:
I think this is an honest and fair assessment. Another way of teasing this out historically is to say that the same two groups (Old Side/New Side) that have been fighting since the Great Awakening are still living together in the PCA and still feeling the tension of being together while holding some fundamental philosophical and theological differences, particularly with regard to ecclesiology. Recognizing this has helped me put current disagreements, even within the congregation and session at my own church, into a greater historical context. Having that context has helped me worked through some of the issues, or at least understand motivations and potential consequences of (what may seem right now to be) inconsequential actions. I think Hart, et al, have done a good job of framing our current issues within this historical context.
I think so too Matt. I see these same tensions within my local church and myself. The more I study both the history and the current culture of which I'm a part, the more I tend to prefer Old Side thinking.
Great post Jay. For the uneducated among your readers, could you provide either a brief synopsis of old side/new side, or point me to an appropriate reference? Thanks!
"The PCA is more concerned with being on the cutting edge of "culture-formation" than fostering Presbyterian consciousness, and its growth often requires the disguise of its Presbyterian identity."
Maybe I am misunderstanding all of this. I haven't read the book but I am familiar with one of the authors and even had him as a professor so I know where he is coming from. So I can only answer this based on that experience plus previously being in the OPC and now in the PCA. One has to ask the question which is more in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is Jesus really concerned about the growth of Presbyterianism in America or is he concerned about the growth of his Kingdom? Is being staunchly Presbyterian the concern we need to have as Presbyterians or should we focus on being faithful to his Lordship? It may be that the two are synonymous, but maybe not. Some might argue that being concerned about culture-formation is the road to liberalism or waters down the gospel. It can, that's for sure - if it is being done for the wrong reasons or motives. But step into any PCUSA church and often you will find they are still holding tightly to all the elements and traditions of historic Presbyterianism, and they certainly don't feel any need to disguise it. They are just as proud to have Presbyterian in their name and identity as any "old Light" Presbyterian. So I fail to see how maintaining a Presbyterian "identity" advances the gospel of the kingdom. It may in some places. But it may hinder it in others. Every church has to answer that question for itself. But what really advances the kingdom is maintaining a gospel-consciousness. This is what the PCUSA lost and what I believe most PCA churches are really trying to focus on.
David,
Thank you for your comment.
Could you further explain your understanding of Presbyterianism? What would you say are the elements of Presbyterianism? In other words, in you view what defines Presbyterianism?
Hey Tom,
I just saw you left a comment. My apologies for not responding sooner.
Hart and Muether do a fine job of tracing the issues. I highly recommend their book. Let me skim my library tomorrow and get back to you about some other resources.
Tom, I just remembered an excellent introductory resource that traces out the old side, new side issues. You'll find links to that here:
http://www.mjaybennett.com/2009/10/reformed-theology-in-america.html
David,
The reason I asked the questions above is because your comment seems to betray a lack of clarity on historic Presbyterian definition. For instance to ask, "Is Jesus really concerned about the growth of Presbyterianism in America or is he concerned about the growth of his Kingdom?" sets up a false dichotomy, not because historic Presbyterianism should be equated with the Kingdom, but because the issue at hand is not being but well-being. Historic Presbyterianism is an experiment in the well-being (i.e. health) of visible Christian unity, not its being. Taking this into account, we might rephrase your original question by asking, "Is Jesus really concerned about the growth of the health of his visible church in America or is he more concerned about the growth of its being?" I believe both the being and well-being of the visible church are very important.
You also asked, "Is being staunchly Presbyterian the concern we need to have as Presbyterians or should we focus on being faithful to his Lordship?" This is a false dichotomy. In my view, Presbyterianism is a visible expression of the church that more faithfully reflects the Lordship of Christ. Examples of this include our confession that God alone is qualified to determine how he should be worshiped and our confession of the liberty of conscience.
I absolutely disagree that the PCUSA is "holding tightly to all the elements and traditions of historic Presbyterianism," which is supremely evident in their radical revision of the Westminster Standards.
Post a Comment