But, given the increasing talk these days about the need for evangelicals to depart from the PC(USA) for less contentious spiritual and theological environs, we also ought to be paying close attention to some very practical lessons that we can learn from our own Presbyterian past. Specifically, I am thinking about the lessons we need to heed with reference to two important questions. When defenders of Reformed orthodoxy leave a denomination, what are the effects of their departure on the denomination they leave behind? And what typically happens to the defenders of orthodoxy themselves when they form a new alliance? Since I worry that these questions are not being thought about seriously enough by evangelical friends in the PC(USA) who are talking about splitting, I want to address them briefly here.
The importance of asking these two questions was brought home to me forcefully in a recent conversation with a well-known evangelical historian of American religion. He reported on a discussion that he had participated in with some other scholars in his field — all of them evangelical Christians — on the early 20th-century controversies in the Northern Presbyterian Church that led to the departure of J. Gresham Machen and his associates. Even though these particular scholars were sympathetic to Machen’s basic theological position, they saw his decision to leave the denomination as a regrettable one, for two important reasons.
The first is that it left mainline Presbyterianism without a strong conservative theological voice. Machen and others were gifted defenders of traditional Presbyterianism. They constantly reminded the liberals in the denomination of what Calvinist orthodoxy was all about, and they did so with intellectual rigor. When they left, this kind of witness departed with them. The evangelicals who stayed on in the Northern church generally did so because they were not as polemical as the Machen group. This meant that the quality of theological argumentation suffered for several decades — some would even say up to our present time — in mainline Presbyterianism. The second regrettable factor has to do with what happened to the conservatives themselves after they left the mainline denomination. They quickly began to argue among themselves, and it was not long before new splits occurred in their ranks. The result was that conservative Calvinism itself increasingly became a fractured movement.
Let me make it clear that I do not think it is a sin to be theologically contentious. I enjoy a good argument about theology. Indeed, I find it exhilarating to defend the great themes of the Reformation. We are sinners who cannot save ourselves from our depraved condition. We are desperately in need of rescue from above. Our only hope is the sovereign grace made available to us by the sacrificial death of the heaven-sent Savior. To know the wonders of his saving mercies is to be called to participate in the life of a covenant community whose mission it is to demonstrate to the larger world what it means to glorify God and to enjoy God forever — calling others to join us in doing the will of the Savior who alone is mighty to save.
These are exciting times to be bearing witness to these marvelous themes. Like other evangelicals, I find it discouraging when prominent folks in our denomination seem bent on denying — often even by ridiculing — these important teachings. But I also worry about those others — a much larger number in our denomination — who don’t seem to have strong views about these matters. They have not been convinced of the importance of theology as such, to say nothing of a theology grounded in Reformed orthodoxy. In their voting patterns on major issues, sometimes they lean one way and sometimes another way. I would hate to think that they would no longer have to listen to strong Reformed voices when mainline Presbyterians debate crucial topics.
And, frankly, I worry also about what would happen to Presbyterian evangelicals ourselves if all of us were to leave the denomination together. When we evangelical types don’t have more liberal people to argue with, we tend to start arguing with each other. I can testify to the fact that intra-evangelical theological arguments are not always pleasant affairs. I would much rather see us continue to focus on the major issues of Reformed thought in an admittedly pluralistic denomination than to deal with the tensions that often arise when evangelicals decide to focus on maintaining a “pure” church.
Many of my friends will quickly reply to this line of argument by pointing out that things cannot simply go on as they have been. I agree wholeheartedly. But we are not faced with a choice between the status quo and a split. We can explore together new structural ways of organizing the evangelical cause within our present denomination. Some creative thoughts on such matters are presently being formulated. They are worth working on — diligently. To be sure, sometimes it is necessary for folks to leave a denomination where they no longer feel they can pursue effective ministries. But that is not a decision to be taken lightly. History teaches us that splitting comes at high costs!
Richard J. Mouw is president and professor of Christian philosophy, Fuller Seminary, Pasadena, Calif.
Send your comment on this viewpoint to The Outlook.
Please give your hometown and state the subject of the viewpoint you are replying to.
