Schism, like everything else in the Presbyterian Church, appears to be “decently ordered.” Like the neat, clean Excel spreadsheet rows that delineate the membership decline of America’s largest Presbyterian denomination (PCUSA), the process of leaving the PCUSA is laid out for churches and groups who decide they can no longer exist under the its authority. And I’m not just saying that tongue-in-cheek: In an interview not too long ago, Dr. Laura Smit, a professor at Calvin College and Presbyterian minister, made the case that schism is actually a form of obedience to PCUSA polity.
And if that’s not enough, here is what you might read—as the member of a PCUSA congregation—when your church is going through the process of changing denominations:
The Exploratory Task Force gave their final report to Session last month. Their recommendation was to leave PCUSA and enroll the church in [insert your favorite flavor of new Presbyterianism here]. On motion, and after much discussion, the Session accepted the Task Force recommendations and agreed to move forward with the discernment process as defined by Presbytery. The Listening/Discernment Team from Presbytery presented their proposed Listening/Discernment Process plan which the Session agreed to implement. This will result in a number of congregational informational meetings and discussions culminating in a congregational vote, which will decide on the options of staying with the PCUSA or joining another Presbyterian denomination.
See what I mean by decently ordered?
Of course, like divorce, reading about the legal requirements of separation is always much more sterile and tidy than the truth about the situation for those living through it. I know this because the excerpt above was lifted from this month’s newsletter from my own church here in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Here are a few thoughts, in no particular order, which may flit through the mind of a Presbyterian when it is announced that his/her church might be leaving the PCUSA:
- Are we considering the PCA, EPC, or another newfangled denomination?
- Will we keep our building?
- How will this impact the church budget?
- Is this because of the gay issue?
- What about the ordination of women?
- Why now?
- I have to vote on this.
At least, these were the things I pondered (instead of listening to the sermon) a couple of Sundays ago when I heard that my church was considering leaving the denomination.
At some point during the same service, a representative from the PCUSA interrupted our pastor mid-sentence to let the congregants know that he had joined us “to listen” to the congregation’s concerns. My pastor, to his credit, graciously affirmed the interrupting voice, introducing the man as someone who had been assigned to us from the Presbytery.
After the service, I was given a stack of informational documents that were supposed to help me in my discernment process leading up to the congregational vote. Included in these documents was a denomination comparison chart, in which I was shocked to learn that a majority of PCUSA pastors and elders question the exclusivity of Christ as a means to salvation.
Could this be true?
Having grown up in an age of constant media spin, I wondered if this was perhaps an embellishment based on an obscure survey’s poorly worded question.
Unfortunately, subsequent research has only served to reconfirm this shocking fact. In a 2011 survey—released by the PCUSA itself—it was found that only 40 percent of elders and pastors believe that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” As if to demonstrate that their commitment to order is stricter than their commitment to scripture, tradition, or religious authority—the PCUSA continues to make this stat widely available through an easily searchable document on their own website (see for yourself by clicking here).
Of course, the Institute on Religion and Democracy reported on this alarming statistic years ago. I guess in the deluge of dismal statistics about the PCUSA over the last few years, I missed this finding of the Presbyterian Panel Survey.
Still, I think it is important to note that the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions—which describes the central tenets of Presbyterian faith—is quite clear: Jesus is the only means to salvation.
There is no easy way to reconcile the fact that the results of the 2011 Presbyterian Panel survey are at odds with PCUSA’s own guiding statement of faith. The writing is on the wall, though. Presbyterians often boast that democracy is older in our church than it is in our country. With scores of Presbyterians leaving the PCUSA every year for more orthodox denominations, the voting body is becoming increasingly liberal. It seems inevitable that the day will come when the denomination votes to add language to the Book of Confession which rejects the exclusivity of Christ.
There is one silver lining, though, for those who insist on remaining in the PCUSA: The denomination could very well grow after they formally vote to reject Christ’s unique role in salvation. After all, such a vote would align the PCUSA nicely with the Unitarian Universalist church and perhaps the two could merge.
Peter Johnson is External Relations Officer at the Acton Institute. A graduate of New York University where he studied English and philosophy, Johnson lived and worked in Africa and in South America, where he taught rural subsistence farmers.
Comment by Sean McDonald on May 28, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Where are you a member?
Comment by Peter Johnson on May 29, 2015 at 9:12 am
John Knox Pres. It’s a small, but vibrant community. And–bucking the trend among PCUSA churches–it is very diverse.
Comment by Sean McDonald on May 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm
I just realized that your church is about 10 minutes from my house. My family and I are members of First Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA); we meet at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary for Sabbath worship.
Comment by ken on May 28, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Regarding the closing paragraph of the article: Given the membership losses in the de-Christianized churches (which include the PCUSA), I predict that within 20 yrs, probably less, they will all merge, probably with a name like United Church of America (there is a United Church of Canada, very liberal), and the bureaucrats will get a brief buzz from creating something large and left-wing. There is already “pulpit fellowship” between Episcopalians and the ELCA, plus various “union” churches (cases where two or three dying congregations, from different denominations) chose to merge for financial reasons. The author’s reference to the Unitarians was intended in jest, I’m sure, but at this point in time the only real difference between the Unis and the other left-wing denominations is that the Unitarians do not call themselves Christians – that is, they are more honest.
Comment by Peter Johnson on May 29, 2015 at 9:10 am
Yeah, I would recommend reading the interview with Dr. Smit that I link to in the first paragraph. Great interview. I think serious theological conversations aren’t happening in a lot of these old mainline Protestant denominations. Dr. Smit says she left the PCUSA over questions about “scriptural authority.” In short, PCUSA has made a decision–whether consciously or not–to value the modern impulse toward “multiculturalism” over biblical wisdom. The irony, of course, is that PCUSA churches tend to have very, very little diversity (mostly old white people).
Comment by Paul Hoskins on May 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm
Conservative churches are more ethnically diverse than liberal churches.
Percentages of non-whites:
Episcopal, 92%
United Church of Christ, 90.8%
Presbyterian Church USA, 92.6%
United Church of Christ, 91%
Assemblies of God, 84%
Southern Baptist, 86%
Hispanics:
Episcopal, 1.5%
United Church of Christ, 1.5%
Presbyterian USA, 2.2%
Assemblies of God, 18.6%
Church of God, 10.6%
This data is from the Association of Religion Data Archives, http://www.thearda.com
Comment by O'Pinyon on May 30, 2015 at 4:35 am
The top numbers look like percentages of whites, rather than non-whites.
Comment by Paul Hoskins on May 30, 2015 at 7:33 am
Thanks for catching that. I corrected it.
Comment by Presby on May 29, 2015 at 11:04 am
Such a red herring comment on the “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” survey question, this is a really bad survey question – even the Westminster Confession admits that elect infants (who are not “followers of Jesus Christ” may be saved. In my experience, those in the PC(U.S.A.) affirm unconditionally that Jesus Christ is Savior of the World. Having said that, I would note that most would also claim that who is saved is decided solely by God. God is free to give salvation to whomever he chooses.
Here is a description of how I believe most in the PC(U.S.A.) view the unique role of Christ in salvation in a short passage from the book Presbyterian Questions, Presbyterian Answers by Donald McKim: He says: “Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him. No one is saved apart from God’s gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ – nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine”.
The vast majority PC(U.S.A.) position admonishes that the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation is to be preached with energy and with the acknowledgement that God is free and is at work in ways we simply cannot know. Overall in my experience, the PC(U.S.A.)’s stance is that the good news of the gospel should not be positioned as a message of condemnation or judgment of any people or group.
Comment by SeattleAl on May 29, 2015 at 11:54 am
The PCUSA’s polity is no longer connected or dependent on their Confessions. It is very clear in this GA exchange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjG6PJzEgfw
Comment by Eric on May 30, 2015 at 6:23 pm
The Westminster Confession says “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (Section 6.066)
Our doctrine in the PC(USA) clearly provides salvation to the elect, including infants and others who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word – and these are not followers of Jesus Christ yet our doctrine in the Westminster Confession, the confession some consider our gold standard, provides them a means of salvation.
Chapter 16 of The Second Helvetic Confession also teaches there is salvation to the children of believing parents.
Knowing that, and believing that, how would you or the pastors and elders at John Knox have responded to the survey’s claim that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved?”
Comment by Peter Johnson on May 31, 2015 at 1:53 pm
I guess I would ask, then, why the survey’s respondents were nearly divided when answering that question? After all, if the confessions are so clear that salvation apart from Jesus is possible, why would 40% of PCUSA pastors say that it is NOT possible?
Comment by geoffrobinson on May 31, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Not possible to hear the outward call doesn’t appear to cover somebody in the Amazon who never heard the gospel. It means the mentally retarded, etc. And those are not apart from Jesus. The elect from among that group are regenerated.
Your point is well taken.
Comment by Eric on May 31, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Our confessions are clear that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.
I think the way we respond to this survey and the way we respond to the results depends on if we put the emphasis on the word “followers” or the words “Jesus Christ.” If the emphasis is on the word “followers” then the PC(USA) does not and should not agree with the statement. Because we do not believe that only “followers” of Jesus Christ can be saved. But if the emphasis is on the words “Jesus Christ” then the PC(USA) should and does agree with the statement. Because we do believe that salvation is through Christ alone.
I suspect the reason the survey’s respondents were nearly divided is because one group read it with an emphasis on the word “followers” and the other read it with an emphasis on the words “Jesus Christ.”
Dana Allin, synod executive of ECO has said, “I think the survey was maybe not articulated in the way that it should have been and led to results that could be skewed.” That’s my point too.
Never-the-less, I’m still curious how you would respond to the statement “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved” when your only choices are 1) strongly agree 2) agree 3) neutral or not sure 4) disagree 5) strongly disagree and you don’t have any opportunity to qualify your response?
Comment by Bedouin2015 on May 30, 2015 at 9:17 pm
No Bible believing church should be forced to remain in an apostate denomination.
Comment by Patrick98 on May 30, 2015 at 11:03 pm
It is too bad that Peter Johnson has never sat in a recovery room with a mother following a still birth, or consoled a family whose child died of SIDS, or talked to a woman who wondered if the baby she aborted was in heaven. None of those children had an opportunity to become a follower of Jesus Christ. Are those children saved?
Comment by geoffrobinson on May 31, 2015 at 9:26 am
Those babies are commended to the grace and mercy and justice of God. Scripture doesn’t address those cases clearly, but it does address adults very clearly. Read Romans 10. People need to call on the Lord Jesus, which means they need to hear, which means preachers need to be sent.
It seems to be you are trying to justify false teaching by appealing to these cases which Scripture doesn’t clearly address, but you are avoiding that Scripture does clearly address the topic for able-minded people.
Comment by Patrick98 on May 31, 2015 at 9:53 am
geoffrobinson, you are missing the whole point. The question on the survey was “Are only followers of Jesus saved?”(agree, disagree, etc.) The question was not “Is Jesus the only way of salvation?” He is, but that was not the question. The question on the survey looks at the broader question of who receives the salvific work of Jesus on the cross. Is David, who wrote “The Lord is my shepherd” saved? I believe he is because of the grace of God and the saving work of Jesus Christ. If only followers of Jesus are saved all of our Old Testament (yes, I still use that term for a portion of the Holy Scriptures) ancestors in the faith would not be – how could they have been followers of Jesus? We can speculate about Christophanies in the Old Testament – R.C. Sproul has a message about that – but there isn’t much explicit evidence in the Bible for appearances of Christ to people prior to his incarnation and birth.
Trust me geoffrobinson I have read Romans 10. I have also been with the parents and grandparents during their time of grief. I commend that to you and to Peter. Go volunteer at a hospital as I have. It will be a good experience for you.
Comment by geoffrobinson on May 31, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Ok, I think I get what you are saying. The poll’s wording doesn’t cover the hard cases.
Let me say a few things. Re-wording to “Jesus is the only way of salvation” misses the false teaching which says you can adults running around who believe in Jesus but they don’t know they do. Romans 10 cuts that off at the knees.
We know, specifically from Romans, that we all including babies are sinners and have Adam’s sin nature. Also, God is perfectly capable of giving babies faith because He is the one who gives faith out freely as a gift. We have very little to go on in terms of Scripture on what happens to babies. We have David’s baby, which definitely gives us hope. Is that only for children of the covenant? All babies? Some babies?
We don’t need to know otherwise Scripture would be more clear on the point. God will do what’s right according to the council of His will. If they go to heaven, they will be receiving grace and mercy.
Old Testament saints were justified by faith alone, just like we are. They looked forwards. We look backwards. They had the promise of a coming Redeemer and types and shadows of that Redeemer. But they needed explicit faith, just like we do.
Comment by Peter Johnson on May 31, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Besides, it would be hard to make the case that the pastors and teaching elders were thinking about the “hard cases,” when this was the result of the next question in the same survey: “Around one-third of members (37%) and ruling elders (30%) — but only one in ten pastors (11%) and one-quarter of specialized ministers (23%)—strongly agree or agree that all the world’s religions are ‘equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth.'” Nearly 40% of members think Christianity is equal to any other world religion. With that outlook, I wonder why they’re having trouble making a compelling case for joining the denomination???
Comment by Bruce on June 12, 2015 at 5:25 pm
The affirmations “Jesus is the only means to salvation” and “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved” are not equivalent. One can believe the former without having to deduce the latter in an exclusive manner. Karl Rahner, renowned Catholic theologian from the 20th century, wrote of “anonymous Christians” as those who have never heard the name of Christ, but by virtue of the mercies of God in Christ may be saved through him according to the perfect judgment of God. Though not all the saved may confess Christ in this life, nevertheless he is the only Savior of all.