For those
unfamiliar with American Presbyterianism, the Presbyterian Church split as most
bodies did during the Civil War (1861-65) and even after Appomattox, the bodies
remained divided.
These
Churches both operated under the revised Westminster Confession (1646) which
had been modified after the American Revolution to remove the notion of an
Established Church and a magistrate that could call for Church councils to
meet. This was incompatible with the American Experiment, and consequently they
changed the Confession to reflect not only the new reality but a sentiment many
shared. Some Presbyterians continue to reject this modification and want an
official established Church.
The Northern
Church fell under the influence of theological liberalism during the latter
part of the 19th century. Beginning in the 1700's largely in Germany
this movement was heavily engaged in textual criticism and a re-casting of the
entire Christian faith. The introduction of Darwin's ideas only helped to
accelerate a large scale deconstruction of the Bible which continues today. Its
danger was that it retained historical doctrinal terms but redefined them to
mean something else. The average person in the pew often didn't realize what
was happening.
By the dawn
of the 20th century the Northern Church like many other Protestant
bodies was compromised of people who questioned Scripture and almost every
doctrine basic to the Bible, while others sitting beside them still were
clinging to forms of historic Christianity.
This was the
time of the Fundamentalist reaction. The Fundamentalists were so named because
of a series of books put out at the time that tried to identify the doctrines
key to the Christian faith, the non-negotiables as it were. Some Presbyterians
started to embrace this thinking as well as the rising tide of
Dispensationalism with its modified Pre-millennialism.
In the late
1920's, J. Gresham Machen left Princeton's theologically liberal climate and
taking some of the faculty with him he formed Westminster Theological Seminary
in Philadelphia. In 1936 the conservative remnant of the Northern Presbyterian
Church again led by Machen formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC.
In the
South, theological conservatism held on for another generation and it wasn't
until 1973 that a large group left the old Southern Church, known as the PCUS
and formed the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA. There's some debate about
the reasons behind the formation of the Northern and Southern remnant
denominations. The OPC was definitely driven by theological concerns and later
split with the Bible Presbyterians who had largely embraced Fundamentalism and
the Premillennialism and legalism that went with it at the time.
The PCA it
has been argued was formed more out of the backlash to the 1960's
counter-culture, the shift in government and the Supreme Court rulings. The
Church was divided on where to stand or not to stand. The PCA being rooted more
in this social narrative rather than a strict theological construct, ended up
being more of a big-tent or umbrella movement. It brought many into the
denomination that were not as concerned with maintaining the old
Presbyterianism of previous generations. Some of the issues related to this
continue to vex the PCA to this day...how strictly to adhere to the old forms
of Presbyterianism.
The mainline
Northern and Southern Churches continued to drift into apostasy and eventually
rejoined and formed today's PCUSA....Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America.
Just don't
confuse the PCA with the PCUSA. They are quite different. One is adhering to a
form of Bible-based historic Christianity, the other has embraced modernism and
more or less rejected the authority of the Bible.
Creating a Middle-Tier
As a
Congregationalist I whole-heartedly reject the entire Presbyterian model, but
for various reasons I continue to find myself having to interact with it. There
are some core reasons and many practical ones. I'm going to address some of the
here and attempt to explain this in a way that won't be too difficult to
understand.
I believe
the Church has a universal aspect...the Church in all nations across the world
and all the individuals within it. And I believe this Church is manifested
locally in Congregations.
As
Christians we're part of the universal Church which itself can be discussed
from several angles and in different senses, and like Paul in Acts 13 we
assemble locally.
Despite
Presbyterian and other denominational arguments, nowhere does the Bible present
to us another level, another organizational tier between the local and
universal aspects of the Church which is what a denomination is. The one
argument they have is Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem.
It is
important for local Churches to not live in isolation. Their elders, and yes
there must be a plurality of Elders, not a single Pastor which is novel to the
New Testament...should reach out and meet with other leaders of congregations.
Presbyterianism seeks to institutionalize this relationship creating a
middle-tier and consequently they generate a massive host of ecclesiastical
forms to go with it. This is what happens with Denominationalism. You're trying
to bind local Congregations together and create a body between the local
assembly and the Universal Church.
Supposedly
this brings about unity but in reality it erects forms which the Scriptures
know nothing of and these forms (like Confessions, Books of Church Order,
Committees, Regional Presbyteries and the like) actually prevent local
congregations and Christians from participating in the full life of the
Universal Church. Rather than leave openings to bridge difference and yes the
danger of error, it erects walls. Walls which protect, but which also divide.
Does Acts 15
support this? I don't think so. This was a meeting of Apostles over a doctrinal
issue. Their declaration claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit...'it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and us'...
No
ecclesiastical body can claim that today and if they do, they're far out of
bounds. The Church does possess authority granted by God but this authority is
only within the bounds of Scripture, it's not Apostolic in nature. The Apostles
under inspirational guidance could give pronouncements like that. The Church
today does not possess that type or quality of authority.
It could
also be argued James presided over the meeting which if anything would grant a
more Episcopal flavour to the assembly.
Looking for Unity with a man-made
form
Again,
Churches need to be in contact with each other. Different congregations can
meet and discuss issues affecting their area. They can meet and discuss the
status of persons which have been excommunicated.
Presbyterianism
and other denominations are trying to create bureaucratic structures which hold
the Church together and prevent people from bouncing around between
congregations and ignoring discipline and accountability.
True Unity is found in the Biblical
Forms and the Holy Spirit
I would
argue the Holy Spirit binds the Church together. Man-made forms do not help in
this regard and frankly men do not have the authority to erect them. And, they
don't work anyway. You can end up with denominations where the leaders are
bound to forms (Creeds, forms of discipline) but the congregation itself may be
largely ignorant. No one will come out and say it to me, but on more than one
occasion I've received the impression they like somewhat ignorant
people...they're more compliant. The essence of spirituality lies more in the
direction of compliance with the elders than learning the doctrine of
Scripture, learning to think...and hence learning to question.
Presbyterianism
is largely content with this because they believe the essence of the Church,
its real core lies with the mid-level body, the denomination itself. It's
really about the Presbytery as they call it, or the regional body. The various
Presbyteries meet in a General Assembly, usually once a year.
Plurality of elders does not mean
plurality of offices
The Bible
uses the word Presbytery in 1 Timothy 4, but there's no reason to believe this
council of elders was anything more than the local church body...a local group
of elders or Bishops as the terms seemed to be used interchangeably in the New
Testament. The Overseer or Bishop the Episcopos is the same as the Elder or
Presbuteros. I'm not going to dive into that here, but I think anyone who looks
at the issue will find this is the case. Deacons are the other office, but
their position is one of service, not authority. Many Baptist Churches
mistakenly call the Bishop/Elder the 'pastor' and the Deacons are really what
the Bible calls 'elders'.
But what you
don't find in Scripture is an office called 'the pastor'.
Some
Presbyterians try and get around this by claiming there are two types of
Elders...Ruling and Teaching elders. They base this on what I believe to be a
questionable reading of two passages...Romans 12 and 1 Timothy 5.17. The
Teaching Elder they call the Pastor and though in the PCA, they claim the
Ruling and Teaching Elders essentially hold the same office, their practice
indicates otherwise. The OPC goes ahead and just creates two distinct offices,
the Teaching and Ruling Elder.