Those questions have provoked much thought, now that a major Assembly-level task force and a cottage industry in books and broadsides. The stated clerk of the General Assembly, at least three former moderators of the Assembly, several pastors and seminary professors have given their insights.
Here a Presbyterian sociologist makes his case that the fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century in the PCUSA (the so-called “Northern Church”) and its resolution give the avenue for resolution. According to William J. “Beau” Weston, competition from the “right” and “left” in the 1920s for a “loyal middle” led to a healthy resolution of that difficult theological problem. The fundamentalists sought a church that was “too small,” excluding those who questioned traditional theological categories and methods of interpreting Scripture. The liberals sought “too big” a church, one that included ecumenical partners and historical critical insights concerning the Bible. A commission of what Weston calls “loyal constitutionalists,” pastors and elders with national visibility, came up with a church that was “just right.” Three bears. Neat.
In a two-sentence transition. Weston summarizes the arguments and presents the situation which currently obtains: “By allowing competition within the Constitution, the loyalist Special Commission of 1925 effectively ended the church’s civil war and, despite Machen’s best efforts, prevented a major schism. The center-right coalition that had run the church from time of the Brigg’s case was displaced by a center-left coalition that has run the church up to the present crisis” (p. 41).
The remainder of the book analyzes the current constitutional crisis, relates some of the findings of the Presbyterian Panel concerning beliefs and social location of members, elders, pastors and specialized ministry, and describes some of Weston’s own research on the matter. It concludes with two chapters — one setting forth some “Practical Principles for a Competitive Church,” and the other advocating letting “Presbyters Rule.”
Weston argues well a position close to that of Bradley Longfield (The Presbyterian Controversy:Fundamentalists, Modernists and Moderates, 1993) in assessing the fundamentalist controversy and following the analysis of our time by Jack Rogers and Clifton Kirkpatrick (who provided a foreword). Personally, I find the current situation more comprehensible through the image of a now “regulatory” denominational structure an dthorugh believing the allegiance of most Presbyterians is to their congregations rather than to a PC(USA). I find the categories of “right,” “left” and “center” confusing. I do not think the original, unexpurgated Goldilocks and the Three Bears story concluded so neatly, either — or nicely, especially for Goldilocks.