Presbyterian Ministers

[Contarini]

Any Reformed denomination that is a member of this councel, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Presbyterian_and_Reformed_Council, is a denomination that I would trust to be orthodox hands down. Here is their official website
naparc.org/.

There is another Reformed denomination out there that I consider to have abandoned their Reformed heretage, all Reformed churches in the NAPRC would agree with me, although they are conservative evangelical christians. Here is their website crechurches.org/. They basically allow what has been called Federal Vision movement as a legitemate Reformed position, Here is a website all about that federal-vision.com/. FV is basically a twisted version of Covenant Theology, that moved much closer to Rome on many key issues so any Catholic may enjoy studying it. They are considered unconfessional by all NAPRC and are being forced out so to speak, I agree with this move.

The PCUSA that you mentioned is a dead liberal denomination and not the least bit Reformed.

By your definition. Of course, those of us who are not members of your conservative Reformed circle have no obligation to accept your definition.

I beleive that Catholics, CREC, and Eastern Orthodox believers are christians so I feel a need to reach out in caring yet critical engagement with them. But with liberal churchs I agree with the founder of the OPC, here is their website (I was a member of this NAPRC church for sometime, they are very orthodox) opc.org/, J. Gresham Machen that liberal christianity is not christianity at all, it is a different religion alltogether.

Machen was speaking of the form of liberalism that denies any dogmatic, revealed truth whatsoever. While PCUSA and other mainline denominations certainly have such liberals within them, it is a sin against justice to characterize PCUSA in that way as a whole.

Edwin

 

[jwright82]

By your definition. Of course, those of us who are not members of your conservative Reformed circle have no obligation to accept your definition.

I beleive that Catholics, CREC, and Eastern Orthodox believers are christians so I feel a need to reach out in caring yet critical engagement with them. But with liberal churchs I agree with the founder of the OPC, here is their website (I was a member of this NAPRC church for sometime, they are very orthodox) opc.org/

 

[Contarini]

No you don’t but what good will it do you to call two different denominations that fundementaly disagree on too many matters the same thing?

They come from the same broad historical tradition, even though they have actualized different tendencies within that tradition (and of course no tradition exists hermetically sealed from others). I respect the fact that you don’t think mainliners are really Reformed, or even in many cases really Christian, and that you see yourself as having more in common with other conservative Protestants, or even with RCs and EOs, than with them. But that doesn’t change the fact that you come from the same historical roots, and that one can notice elements in sixteenth-century Reformed theology and practice that can be seen as seeds for later developments that conservative Reformed find reprehensible. It’s surely not a coincidence, for instance, that we find the Reformed of the 16th century (particularly Calvin) endorsing what other Christians saw as a quasi-Nestorian Christology, and then we find historically Reformed folks in the 18-19th centuries developing a Christology that emphasizes Jesus’ humanity at the expense of His divinity. Or again, there’s clearly a connection between the sixteenth-century Reformed criticism of what they saw as “superstitious” practices and the Enlightenment rejection of all supernaturalism as superstitious.

For instance they allow women and homosexual pastors I beleive.

I’m not sure what the current official PCUSA position is on homosexuality. I know that on several occasions the General Assembly has approved liberal measures which have been shot down by the local presbyteries.

However, these two issues are good examples of what I’m talking about. The PCUSA allows women pastors because of their commitment to the historic Protestant principle of the priesthood of all believers. Many of them support the view that committed same-sex relationships should be blessed by the Church because of the principle they have inherited from the Reformers, that celibacy is a calling only for a few who feel themselves to be so called and that all other humans should be allowed to have a spouse. (Martin Bucer’s argument for a more liberal position on divorce can be easily applied to same-sex “marriage.”)

I’m not saying that these positions are the inevitable result of the positions taken by the Reformers. And of course I’m not necessarily saying that they are correct (I do believe in women’s ordination is correct, albeit with considerable hesitation, but that’s another issue). I’m just saying that they are one possible way to develop the Reformed heritage that you conservative Reformed share with the liberals whom you wish to disavow. Simply saying “well, they aren’t really Reformed any more” is too easy. It lets you off asking the hard historical questions about what elements in the Reformed heritage have led to the developments that you find reprehensible.

Please understand that I’m not applying this selectively to the Reformed, though as an Anglican of Wesleyan theological orientation who studies the Reformation (wrote my dissertation on Martin Bucer) I do have a particular interest in getting Protestants in general to look seriously at the way the legacy of the sixteenth-century Reformed has affected both those of us who don’t call ourselves Reformed and those who do. The Orthodox can make the same point (and do) about how Western Catholicism’s principles helped give rise to Protestantism, even though Catholics may reject what Protestants have done with our common heritage. And of course the same point can be made by Jews and Muslims about the clericalism and asceticism violence that have characterized historic Christianity, over against Protestants who claim that “true Christianity” lacks these things; or by pagans and atheists about the religious violence that has characterized the “Abrahamic” religious traditions.

It’s perfectly legitimate to say, “the majority of folks who belong to my tradition have gotten it wrong.” But then you have to ask what it is about the tradition that is susceptible of being gotten wrong in that particular way, and how the tradition can be developed so as to avoid such a mistake in the future. And if there’s another group out there that can reasonably claim not to have made such a mistake, it’s reasonable to ask whether possibly those other guys may have gotten something right that your tradition gets wrong. (The answer to that question may be “no”–sometimes the price for avoiding a particular endemic misinterpretation is too high. I’m not sure that a Christianity that wasn’t prone to being abused to support religious violence would be recognizable as Christianity any longer–but I do think that pacifist traditions within Christianity should be taken very seriously given our bloody heritage. And so on. You may think that on all the points I’ve raised above, the liberal interpretations are the price you pay for teaching a particular necessary truth. But it’s still fair to point out that these kinds of interpretations do seem to be related to particular aspects of your religious heritage.)

 

[Contarini]

They allow for liberal views as acceptible views of christians and Machen was refering to classical liberalism which the PCUSA does allow as a christian position.

Officially? Or just by failing to discipline it?

I have no brief to defend PCUSA. I can tell you more about my own denomination, the Episcopal Church. In the Episcopal Church there are those who interpret the Nicene Creed along the lines to which Machen rightly objected. You can read them writing in Anglican scholarly journals. But I would not say that the Episcopal Church as a whole allows that interpretation. We fail to make it clear enough that that interpretation is illegitimate. But our doctrinal standard remains the Nicene Creed.

I also find it a sligh tactic to lump admitidly bad groups

I wouldn’t call PCUSA an “admittedly bad” group. One of the churches that I seriously considered joining before actually joining the Episcopal Church was a PCUSA congregation (though definitely on the conservative side of that denomination). I also gave the PCA some consideration, and had there been a CRC congregation around I might have been more drawn in that direction. I didn’t do any of these things, because I reject the Reformed tradition as a whole (while respecting and agreeing with many things about it).

into the bunch just to say that look at what they beleive. I’m not saying that you are doing that but it seems to be going that way.

I’ve explained above the sense in which I’m willing to do that–I do think that all the historical ramifications of a given tradition have to be taken seriously.

All that I mean by it is what Reformed churches have traditionaly taught in there confessions not churchs claiming to be reformed but so twist and prevert those confessions to allow anything they want. That is not traditionaly Reformed.

But the more liberal Reformed folks would say that dogmatic adherence to a confession is not truly Reformed, because a truly Reformed approach recognizes that Reformation is never finished. This is a genuine split within the Reformed tradition, reflecting a tension that was there from the beginning (see the relationship between the sixteenth-century Reformed and the various anti-Trinitarians of that era, who often saw themselves as implementing Reformed principles consistently).

The same is true in my own Anglican tradition. The liberals claim that rejection of dogma, toleration of almost limitless theological diversity, and a “poetic” approach to doctrinal questions are basic characteristics of historic Anglicanism. They elevate the “three-legged stool” to a position of authority over the actual historic formularies of Anglicanism. I reject their interpretation, but I recognize that they are able to make this argument because of tensions within historic Anglicanism itself.

I mean it would be unfair for me to say that that cult that worships death (the name escapes me but it is Santa Morta or something?) but has Catholic elements to it as a Catholic point of view because they fundementaly beleive things that are different from the what the Catholic church has traditionaly taught.

It’s certainly right to point out that the Catholic Church considers this group heretical. But it’s also fair to point out–and certainly Protestants do this all the time–that this group draws on elements of Catholic tradition and could not take the shape it does without Catholicism. Indeed, I’d have no hesitation calling it a Catholic group, though one that is clearly rejected by the Catholic Magisterium. Just as Reformed Christianity tends to have heretical spinoffs (such as the Unitarians) in a rationalistic direction, so Catholicism has heretical spinoffs in a superstitious direction.

A better analogy with PCUSA would be post-Vatican II Catholicism as a whole. There are Catholics who claim that post-Vatican II Catholicism is not genuine Catholicism. It’s unreasonable to expect outsiders to accept that judgment, even while we recognize that of course there have been significant changes. (I grant that traditionalist Catholicism is a much smaller slice of the numerical pie than conservative Calvinism.)

Edwin

 

[jwright82]

Well I appreciate your obvious learning in this area but I still must disagree. If the question is whether or not the PCUSA can be considered a Presbyterian denomination than yes it can be simply because of its view of church goverment, but that doesn’t make it Reformed. You say on the other hand that you are not saying that these liberal people are the inevitable result of Reformed theology but that they are withen the broad Reformed history or keeping with the historic Reformed principles. I apologize if I under stated your major argument but it seems that your many wonderful examples all lead to this idea, if I am wrong that this is your major argument than please correct me.

I must again state that they have abandoned the historic understanding of things. They have become what we “conservative” or orthodox Reformed have labled as accomodationalist theology. That is to say that they accomadate the gospel to modernism, or that they change fundemental beleifs about the gospel to save face in the beleifs of modernism (in short they change the gospel from what it is into what is not). That makes them fundementaly different from the orthodox view of Reformed thinking. I mean can Brian McLaren really claim to being a Calvinist because he has his own, very unorthodox, version of the TULIP? No he can’t, he so preverts the traditional view of the TULIP to mean something radically different from before, hence you cannot claim to be Reformed in either situation.

I must say in all fairness to you why is liberal views of things in keeping with Protastant principle? This sort of argument fails once you set it against what orthodox Reformed people actually beleive, it so goes against everything Reformed as to actually be not Reformed. Now you gave wonderful examples of this continuity of ideas but even you must admist that liberals are teaching different things than has been historically been taught. Hence someone is right or someone is wrong. So Jesus was either was raised from the dead or he wasn’t, and Paul said to pity us christians if he didn’t? You see in those terms there is no agreement or tent big enough to fit everyone in.

Now is the historic Reformed position right or wrong? It can not be both. So either the liberal is right to place a human philosophy, modernism, above and beyond the historic Reformed position or they are wrong, simple as that. I know that you gave many examples in you lengthy responses and I hope I did not offend by not really going into specifics of your response but I felt that I have gone into the spirit of your response and hit the heart of the issue, so if I left something important out please bring it my attention and I will respond.

 

[Roy5]

** My experience suggests that Presbyterians are a ‘big tent’ denomination.** While most of their churches would follow a general liturgy, they would tend to be rather ‘low church’. Still, variation is permitted, and some parishes would be more liturgical, depending upon their tradition, the pastor, his (or her) seminary, etc. The trend over the past 50+ years has been somewhat more liturgical, but when compared with, say, the Catholic or Orthodox tradition Presbyterianism still would be viewed as low church.

** One interesting development over the past 75+ years has been the tendency of some mainline Protestant denominations to become almost interchangeable.** A Presbyterian might move and find themselves going to a Methodist Church or a United Church of Christ or even a moderate Baptist Church. Denomination has become less important than other factors, such as the location of the church, its friendliness, its musical program, its Sunday School, youth and olther programs, its minister, and/or even parking. It would not be unusual for a Presbyterian to become Congregational (UCC) if he/she were to move to New England where Congregationalism is strong but there are few Presbyterians. Why? 250 years ago or so the two groups made a deal whereby the Presbyterians would ‘stay out of New England’ and the Congregationalists would stay out of the Middle Atlantic states. For example there are numerous Congregationalist churches in NH, very few in upstate NY, and vice versa - many Presbyterian churches in upstate NY and few Congregationalist (UCC).

** In some places - Canada, Australia, parts of India, etc., - there has been a coming together of, usually, the Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist churches.** In Canada this merger is known as the United Church of Canada, though perhaps 1/3 of the Presbyterians chose to stay out of the merger. The United Church of Canada was created way back in 1925. The fact that the Congregationalists and Presbyterians had Calvinist roots while the Methodists were Arminian (free will, etc.) didn’t make much difference. This illustrates the tendency among mainline Protestants to deemphasize doctrine. This is part of their ‘big tent’ atmosphere. Many mainline denominations - like the Methodists and Presbyterians welcome members who are very liberal in their theology (practically Unitarian) as well as those who are conservative.

** This, to me, is the attractiveness of those mainline denominations.** They shy away from forcing a specific theology on their members, allowing and even encouraging independent thinking. Thus, in Bible studies in such churches the purpose is not so much to come to a concensus in accord with some theological system but to permit individual interpretations of different Biblical passages.

 **Personally, I like this**. Over the years I have found it more and more difficult to put the brakes on my desire to explore, examine, weigh and evaluate without feeling that I must follow any specific theological tenets. Often times I simply don't know and/or don't think it makes that much difference. For example, did Mary live a sinless life? I really don't think we know, and to me it makes very little difference. We can honor her whether she was saintly or whether, like the rest of us, sometimes she slipped a bit and maybe exploded now and then under pressure, perhaps made too sharp a judgment, gossiped a little, or whatever. I rather like to think of her as fully human, which suggests that she wasn't perfect. Besides, the Bible says that 'all have sinned...." 

** I admire the Presbyterians, though I am not one, and have no relatives of that affiliation.** Among our Founding Fathers and our past presidents they were well-represented. As a group they are thoughtful, moderate, generally well-educated, and fine, moral people. God bless them and those of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us strive to make religion less a barrier and more of a bridge.

 

[jmcrae]

I must say in all fairness to you why is liberal views of things in keeping with Protestant principle?

It is in keeping with the principle that each generation must reform the previous generation’s religion, by updating it with the concerns and issues of the present generation.

According to many Protestant scholars, to remain static is to make the same “mistake” as the Catholics, because it is to create a “Holy Tradition” that is, in fact, inferior in every way to the Catholic Holy Tradition - thus completely defeating the point of the Reformation.

If all one does is embalm ritual and belief into an unchanging form that passes without alteration from generation to generation, then it would be better to take on the Catholic Holy Tradition, which, though it is, to be sure, the traditions of men, has the exceeding virtue of being the traditions of men who lived with Christ, rather than the traditions of men who lived in northern Europe in the 16th century, and happened to have access to printing presses.

This sort of argument fails once you set it against what orthodox Reformed people actually beleive, it so goes against everything Reformed as to actually be not Reformed. Now you gave wonderful examples of this continuity of ideas but even you must admist that liberals are teaching different things than has been historically been taught.

That’s the point. They are reforming the reform, on behalf of a new generation.

Hence someone is right or someone is wrong. So Jesus was either was raised from the dead or he wasn’t, and Paul said to pity us christians if he didn’t?

These doctrines originate in the Catholic faith - as does the idea that some ideas are correct, and others are incorrect, using reality as it actually exists as our standard.

 

[jwright82]

It is in keeping with the principle that each generation must reform the previous generation’s religion, by updating it with the concerns and issues of the present generation.

According to many Protestant scholars, to remain static is to make the same “mistake” as the Catholics, because it is to create a “Holy Tradition” that is, in fact, inferior in every way to the Catholic Holy Tradition - thus completely defeating the point of the Reformation.

If all one does is embalm ritual and belief into an unchanging form that passes without alteration from generation to generation, then it would be better to take on the Catholic Holy Tradition, which, though it is, to be sure, the traditions of men, has the exceeding virtue of being the traditions of men who lived with Christ, rather than the traditions of men who lived in northern Europe in the 16th century, and happened to have access to printing presses.

Your begging the question as to why this principle of alkways reforming must be an orthodox Reformed point of view?

That’s the point. They are reforming the reform, on behalf of a new generation.

Again why must an orthodox Reformed thinker accept this as one of their theological presupositions?

These doctrines originate in the Catholic faith - as does the idea that some ideas are correct, and others are incorrect, using reality as it actually exists as our standard.

I am not sure that I follow you here?

 

[jmcrae]

Your begging the question as to why this principle of always reforming must be an orthodox Reformed point of view?

You’d have to take that up with the theologians who partake of this point of view. A starting place would be A Primer for Protestants by James H. Nichols.

I am not sure that I follow you here?

My point is, none of these doctrines originated with the Reformation - they are carry-overs from the Catholic tradition that preceded it.

 

[Contarini]

Well I appreciate your obvious learning in this area but I still must disagree. If the question is whether or not the PCUSA can be considered a Presbyterian denomination than yes it can be simply because of its view of church goverment, but that doesn’t make it Reformed. You say on the other hand that you are not saying that these liberal people are the inevitable result of Reformed theology but that they are withen the broad Reformed history or keeping with the historic Reformed principles.

Some of them. My point is that I can observe ways in which you conservative/orthodox Reformed folks are continuing the heritage of the sixteenth-century Reformers, and other ways in which the liberals are. You are of course right that the former ways mostly have to do with concrete doctrinal/liturgical content, while the second have more to do with approach or methodological principle. Your point, I think, is that we should describe religious traditions by the former and not the latter. My own theological biases certainly point in that direction, but as an observer of religious movements I have to accept the fact that some people prefer to take the latter approach. And as someone whose theological sympathies are by and large more Catholic than Reformed (though as an Anglican I get to play both sides), I’m also sympathetic to the claim that what distinguishes you from the Catholic tradition is precisely a greater willingness to revise and question tradition. Thus, both RCs and liberal Reformed would make the argument that exalting the Reformed Confessions and their concrete doctrinal content to the status of (in practice) infallible authorities is actually contrary to the nature of the Reformed tradition. Had the sixteenth-century Reformers had this attitude to existing doctrinal authorities, the argument goes, there would never have been a Reformed tradition at all.

I must again state that they have abandoned the historic understanding of things. They have become what we “conservative” or orthodox Reformed have labled as accomodationalist theology. That is to say that they accomadate the gospel to modernism, or that they change fundemental beleifs about the gospel to save face in the beleifs of modernism (in short they change the gospel from what it is into what is not).

This is the point where I want to push you a little. Your language implies that the liberals are “accommodating” Reformed theology to some purely external force. I don’t think the historical evidence bears this out. As I said in my earlier post, there are some clearly discernible principles held by the Protestant Reformers which the liberals simply develop in a more radical direction. That doesn’t make them right–I’m simply saying that you need to look more closely at what elements in the original Reformed tradition may have given rise to these developments of which you disapprove.

This is a problem presently faced by conservatives in my own Anglican tradition. To me it’s pretty easy to see that there are intrinsic problems in Anglicanism which have led to our present difficulties. But there are those who really think that if we just restore something called “classical Anglicanism” all will be well. It’s much harder to identify what this “classical Anglicanism” is than in the case of the Reformed tradition, because classical Anglicanism is itself a hodge-podge of Reformed, Catholic, and rationalist/Neo-Platonic/Erastian-idolatrous elements. (Well, I guess Erastianism is itself a form of Reformed theology, at least by my broad definition, and several of the Reformers were influenced by Neo-Platonism, and many of them took somewhat of a rationalistic approach in critiquing traditional Catholicism. . . .)