# The Decline of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.



## W.C. Dean (Aug 2, 2020)

I prepared this history of the PCUSA and its decline. I borrowed most of the material from John P. Galbraith's book, _Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? _Right now it goes from 1788-1936. I plan on adding more soon. 


1788 - General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. constituted. 
1801 - Plan of union adopted to work with the General Association of the State of Connecticut, a Congregational church that opposed the doctrines of limited atonement and the federal headship of Adam over the human race.
1810 - Group leaves the PCUSA to form the Cumberland Presbyterian Church because they believed the standards for ministers were too high. The Cumberland Church is explicitly not Reformed and denies predestination.
1837 - GASC Plan of Union is abrogated, but Auburn and Union Theological Seminaries founded on the beliefs of GASC now influence the PCUSA. 
1869 - Those with defective views on federal headship and atonement are welcomed back into the church. 
1893 - General Assembly convicts Charles A. Briggs for denying the infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture. This conviction overturned the acquittal he received from his presbytery. 
1903 - PCUSA’s Confession of Faith (WCF) is revised to accommodate non-Reformed views. 
1906 - Most of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church is welcomed back into the PCUSA.
1918-20 - About one-third of the church’s presbyteries approve a “plan of organic union” with other Protestant bodies. The creed used as the basis of union did not require belief in the Trinity or the sufficiency of Scripture. 
1923 - General Assembly reemphasizes the necessity of ministers to hold to basic tenets of Christianity. These tenets are: the infallibility of Scripture, Christ’s virgin birth, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and Christ’s miracles. 
1924 - Auburn Affirmation is signed by about 1300 ministers within the PCUSA. The statement repudiated and protested the 1923 declaration of basic Christian truths. The statement claims the five tenets are “theories” and that “there is no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept from error.” 
1925 - Final year in PCUSA history orthodox ministers control the Permanent Judicial Commission, which oversaw discipline matters. Also the final year the church had an orthodox minister be its Moderator. 
1929 - Men who favor the Auburn Affirmation join the Board of Trustees of Princeton Seminary. 
1929 - The orthodox Westminster Seminary is founded. 
1932 - An interdenominational report on mission works is published. It advocates for missionaries to borrow from the good parts of other religions and effectively denies the exclusivity of Christianity. 
1933 - Orthodox minister John Machen proposes his presbytery ask the General Assembly to ensure the members of the Board of Foreign Missions be believers in the exclusivity of Christianity and the five tenets from 1923. The proposed overture is overturned by the Presbytery and General Assembly. 
1933 - Dr. Machen leads a group of conservative ministers to form the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. 
1934 - General Assembly mandates that any church member or church that does not give to the officially authorized missionary program is in the same position as those who refuse to partake in the Lord’s Supper. 
1936 - After being charged with disturbing the peace of the church (on authority of the 1934 mandate) by his presbytery, Dr. Machen’s appeal reaches the General Assembly. Dr. Machen’s appeal is denied and he is suspended from the ministry. Other ministers are suspended for not supporting Liberal movements within the church. 
1936 - Dr. Machen leads other ministers to form the conservative Presbyterian Church of America (later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 2, 2020)

The US Westminster revisions came in 1789, that seems a significant date that some use as the start of the church. That was adopted at the second General Assembly in Philly?

I would think the formation of the southern church at Augusta, GA, would be a significant event.

A shift developed in the late 1880s-1890s that has never been clear to me. It culminated in the 1903 revisions to the confession.

I wasn't familiar with how clearly the modernist position was stated in 1910-1920, nor its ecumenical nature. Wow!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 2, 2020)

OPC!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Aug 2, 2020)

One thing I’ve wondered is why the PCA formed later in the 1970’s instead of just joining the OPC?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 2, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> One thing I’ve wondered is why the PCA formed later in the 1970’s instead of just joining the OPC?


This article gives an interesting take on the flip question, "why didn't those forming the OPC go into the PCUS?" https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=426 If it were possible in 1936, and I'm not sure if it was, this could have turned the decline around in the southern presbyterian church. For an answer to your question as to the PCA, I suppose one could fall back on the rather "provincial" desire to found the "continuing church" of one's heritage, the OPC for the PCUSA as PCA for the PCUS, which is clearly the main reason given in the linked article why the OPC founded a new church rather than merge with another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Aug 2, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> The US Westminster revisions came in 1789, that seems a significant date that some use as the start of the church. That was adopted at the second General Assembly in Philly?
> 
> I would think the formation of the southern church at Augusta, GA, would be a significant event.
> 
> ...


My main goal was to show the theological downgrades, hence why the Presbyterian Church of the C.S.A. (later PCUS) and 1789 revisions are left out. I do not consider either one a significant decline in doctrine.

Also, on the decline in the late 1800s, I would assume the seminaries had to do a lot with it. I think the seminaries were slowly (especially Auburn and Union) getting more liberal, and that was trickling into the church. There was a massive revival in the early 1800's which led to a shortage of ministers. The Cumberland Presbyterians desired for non-predestinarian ministers to be allowed to boost numbers of ministers to accommodate all the new members. Hence the split. Perhaps the desire for a larger, more powerful church also caused some change.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Aug 3, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This article gives an interesting take on the flip question, "why didn't those forming the OPC go into the PCUS?" https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=426 If it were possible in 1936, and I'm not sure if it was, this could have turned the decline around in the southern presbyterian church. For an answer to your question as to the PCA, I suppose one could fall back on the rather "provincial" desire to found the "continuing church" of one's heritage, the OPC for the PCUSA as PCA for the PCUS, which is clearly the main reason given in the linked article why the OPC founded a new church rather than merge with another.


I suspect at least half the congregation (myself included) in my OPC church were former PCA members who could no longer stomach the PCA churches in this area. 

I suppose it’s perhaps a good thing the PCA founders didn’t simply join the OPC, because then they would have likely inherited a lot of the corruption that has hit the PCA.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 3, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I suspect at least half the congregation (myself included) in my OPC church were former PCA members who could no longer stomach the PCA churches in this area.
> 
> I suppose it’s perhaps a good thing the PCA founders didn’t simply join the OPC, because then they would have likely inherited a lot of the corruption that has hit the PCA.


Hard to say playing "what ifs". But the problem in the PCA is the structure. If it had never formed that flaw would not have wrecked havoc nor would it have merged with the RPCES which put the forces not committed to an old school confessional church in the majority.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 4, 2020)

I agree with Chris - the problems in the PCA are tied to the "Joining and Receiving". 

I thought it was a good idea at the time. 

I was wrong. (For the long term members - how many time can you recall me having said that?)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Aug 4, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I suspect at least half the congregation (myself included) in my OPC church were former PCA members who could no longer stomach the PCA churches in this area.



....and half of the PCA congregation you left were probably former Southern Baptists who could no longer stomach the SBC.

The migration pattern of church birds would be an interesting subject to study further.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Grits (Aug 5, 2020)

I am one of those folks who was, until recently, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, a deacon in my local church. I was never satisfied with the quality of teaching in the Baptist churches that I attended, but I never found my way into a Reformed church. The one Presbyterian church (PCUSA, I suppose) I tried out was trying to figure out their position on homosexuality (this was back in the '90's). I visited one time and never returned. As deficient as the SBC was, at least they could get an easy one like homosexuality straight without much effort. At the time, I was not familiar with the PCUSA/PCA/OPC/RPCA distinctions.

For years I taught Sunday school in the SBC using the Westminster Confession of Faith as my guide. I stayed away from using terms like "Reformed" and "Calvinist" and simply pointed people to Biblical texts and they always responded well to sound Biblical teaching. Most were shocked to read passages like the first chapter of Ephesians, the sixth chapter of John or the 8th and 9th chapters of Romans - as if those chapters lay hidden. Of course, I never heard those chapters preached from the pulpit. It always surprised me that people were so unaware of what the Bible actually says. I taught like this for years. 

Then, one day, our local church got a new pastor, one who was rabidly anti-Reformed - a real, flesh and blood Pelagian. He knew before he took the position that the Assistant Pastor as well as some of the deacons were solidly Reformed. One by one the Reformed members of the congregation left as the new pastor taught things that were in direct opposition to the clear teaching of scripture. He seemed to make up his theology on the fly. I tried discussing things with him one on one, but he was not at all receptive to disputation. When the people in my Sunday school class began to question why the sermons contradicted what we studied in Sunday school, things got rather awkward. I was probably the last of the Reformed holdouts to head for better pasture. I finally left and found a PCA church about 30 minutes away.

Since joining the PCA, I met a number of the pastors in the Calvary Presbytery in South Carolina. I am quite happy to say that the ones whom I have met and talked with are soundly Reformed and confessional. I couldn't be more pleased. For the first time in my rather long life I am actually in a church with solid Biblical teaching. From what I am reading on this board, not all Presbyteries are as blessed as ours. That is unfortunate and I will make it a matter of prayer. 

If all of the churches in this country had pastors as gifted as ours and as Biblically faithful as ours, I suppose most of them would be empty. But, at least the few churches that remained would be faithful. As D.A. Carson says, "I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, though I work for a non-profit," but my sense is that God is about to take matters into his own hands and send some much needed chastisement our way. Perhaps that will encourage us all to take our faith and the Bible a little more seriously.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Aug 5, 2020)

Edward said:


> I agree with Chris - the problems in the PCA are tied to the "Joining and Receiving".
> 
> I thought it was a good idea at the time.
> 
> I was wrong. (For the long term members - how many time can you recall me having said that?)


Can you elaborate on the “joining and receiving” issue?


----------



## Edward (Aug 5, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Can you elaborate on the “joining and receiving” issue?



Since you are Baptist, I'll start with the basics, with apologies if I have misunderstood your question, or your starting point. 

In the late 70's - early 80s the PCA, the OPC and the RPC,ES were in merger negotiations. The PCA initially rejected the OPC, and then changed their minds, But by then the OPC had decided to remain independent. The PCA and the RPC, ES decided to proceed. But it wasn't a merger of equals with a combination of administrative functions, but structured as the RPC, ES joining the PCA, and the PCA receiving them - thus "Joining and Receiving" in 1982. That's how Covenant College in Chattanooga and Covenant Seminary in St. Louis came to be institutions of the PCA. 

In retrospect, theolgical and cultural differences ended up having a negative impact on the PCA. And there are those in the OPC that look back and pretty much think that they dodged a bullet 38 years ago. 

Now, all of the problems in the PCA can't be laid at the door of Covenant Seminary and the RPC,ES heritage. Fred Harrell, as I recall, was a Reformed Seminary Jackson grad. (Fred had a PCA church in San Francisco that was 'affirming' to homosexuials and eventually permitted them in leadership roles long before the current controversies in St. Louis. Fred's church ended up leaving the PCA unlike the folks of similar views in St. Louis. And unlike the St. Louis situation, however, Fred is straight.) 

Most of this is from memory, so if other folks want to fact check, feel free.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

