Was the PCA wrong to schism from PCUSA?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Sojourner

Puritan Board Freshman
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful? Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?
If the schism had not occurred, could the liberalism have been overcome internally? Can it even now be overcome from within?
 
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful? Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?
If the schism had not occurred, could the liberalism have been overcome internally? Can it even now be overcome from within?
The church history of the PCUS in the 1960s and 1970s shows that the dominant liberal wing of the denomination exercised incredible hostility toward the conservatives. I'm not a fan of denomination-by-mitosis but in this case it sounds like the conservatives were so heavily sidelined that I feel rather comfortable stating that schism was caused by the mother denomination rather than by those who departed.
 
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful? Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?
If the schism had not occurred, could the liberalism have been overcome internally? Can it even now be overcome from within?
No to all.
 

This book has some significant shortcomings, but the brief overview of the history behind the founding of RTS gives some great insight into the state of affairs in the main line Southern denomination at the time.
 
The church history of the PCUS in the 1960s and 1970s shows that the dominant liberal wing of the denomination exercised incredible hostility toward the conservatives. I'm not a fan of denomination-by-mitosis but in this case it sounds like the conservatives were so heavily sidelined that I feel rather comfortable stating that schism was caused by the mother denomination rather than by those who departed.
Thank you for sharing this historical perspective.
Post automatically merged:


This book has some significant shortcomings, but the brief overview of the history behind the founding of RTS gives some great insight into the state of affairs in the main line Southern denomination at the time.
Thank you for sharing this title.
Post automatically merged:

No to all.
Short and sweet!
 
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful? Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?
If the schism had not occurred, could the liberalism have been overcome internally? Can it even now be overcome from within?
PCA didn't separate from the PCUSA, but from the PCUS some ten years prior to that denomination's merger with the PCUSA. So the PCA was never part of the PCUSA to begin with and its separation from the PCUS had nothing to do with the downfall of the PCUSA, which was already in progress before the PCUS merger.

When the PCA (then called NPC) separated from the PCUS, the following linked statement was issued by the separating churches.

 
PCA didn't separate from the PCUSA, but from the PCUS some ten years prior to that denomination's merger with the PCUSA. So the PCA was never part of the PCUSA to begin with and its separation from the PCUS had nothing to do with the downfall of the PCUSA, which was already in progress before the PCUS merger.

When the PCA (then called NPC) separated from the PCUS, the following linked statement was issued by the separating churches.

I see. I clearly need to brush up on my history. Thank you for the link you shared. Going to check it out now.
 
The PCUSA hasn’t been part of “the church” for decades. And I’d say that about some supposedly “Baptist” denominations as well.
 
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful?
No.

Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?

No.

If the schism had not occurred, could the liberalism have been overcome internally?
No.

Can it even now be overcome from within?
Absolutely not.

First, there was much dissatisfaction in the southern church concerning the merger, and some churches would have left in any event. But the immediate cause of the split was a betrayal of the conservatives. There had been an agreement that conservative churches would be able to withdraw peacefully. That was suddenly jerked off the table and the initial withdrawals were a result of that - a last chance to get out cleanly. The final agreement did include Article 13, but by then, the damage had been done. (My recollection is that information about the betrayal first came to light in a meeting at the Air Host Inn near the Atlanta Airport. But it's been many decades since I read the full story, and some details of that meeting may be fogged by time.

Second, the unanimous vote of the southern presbyteries for union deserves, at the least, a footnote. The Presbytery in southwest Georgia voted against the merger; the presbyters were ordered to hold a new vote to approve the merger. That vote was not entirely voluntary.

I've been aware, if not involved, since before there was a NPC (now known as the PCA) - I was on Paul Settle's mailing list back in those days. And decades later, he was one of my pastors.

I was a member of a PCUSA church in Southwest Georgia at the time the presbyteries voted for merger. It was a smallish church and the pastor was aware of my separatist tendencies, and kept me in the loop as to what happened.

Later, my parents were next door neighbors to Parker Williamson's parents (he was the long time man behind the Presbyterian Layman, the newspaper of the conservative PCUSA Presbyterian Lay Committee).

And finally, at the end of the Article 13 I was a member of a PCUSA church and involved in a petition drive to force a vote over the objections of the Pastor and his loyal elders - and some billionaires. Since this recital began with mention of liberal lies and betrayal, I'll end it with one as well. That vote ended with the separatist getting a simple majority, but not the supermajority needed to leave. One of the things that held the vote below the supermajority was a representation that the Presbytery would allow the church to leave after the end of the Article 13 window without having to buy their way out if the church later decided to do so. When that church several years later did later decide to go with the EPC rather than stick with the PCUSA, there was no free exit. It cost them millions of dollars in congregants' contributions to get out. I fortunately was long gone by then to the PCA.
 
@Edward - you must be older than you look. Based on your profile picture, I had you pegged at about 7 or 8.

Joking aside, that is some fantastic history you've added to this fed. Thank you.
 
Can you elaborate as to why you believe voluntary schism from the church is sinful...
I believe all schism is sinful. I believe we are all bound to stay in whatever church we are in, however corrupt, until they kick us out. Luther is a prime example - he stayed and fought until he was excommunicated (it only took 4 years). I am not advocating complacency - far from it. Speak up, speak out, spark reformation or get kicked out. I don't see any other Biblically justifiable course. If calling for a return to the doctrines of the true Church (reformation) gets you kicked out, you are the true continuation of the Church. Your departure is not schismatic - that sin of schism lies at the feet of those who kicked you out. Again, see Luther.
...and do you believe the PCA separating from PCUS is an example of such?
I don't know enough about the history of this side of American presbyterian history (I prefer this chart to the one in post #10 ). The PCA situation seems like a departure from an existing schism and an attempt to return to the foundation (perhaps like Ruth returning with Naomi?).

History aside, I think the most important question to focus on NOW is not why groups left such-and-such a body but why they won't join with others. The schismatic spirit of not joining is perhaps worse than that of leaving (like Paul's chastisement of Peter in maintaining separation in Galatians 2).
 
I believe all schism is sinful. I believe we are all bound to stay in whatever church we are in, however corrupt, until they kick us out. Luther is a prime example - he stayed and fought until he was excommunicated (it only took 4 years). I am not advocating complacency - far from it. Speak up, speak out, spark reformation or get kicked out. I don't see any other Biblically justifiable course. If calling for a return to the doctrines of the true Church (reformation) gets you kicked out, you are the true continuation of the Church. Your departure is not schismatic - that sin of schism lies at the feet of those who kicked you out. Again, see Luther.
If after the body kicks the godly out, Joe Schmoe is converted, must he wait until they kick him out too, or preemptively join the continuing branch that got kicked out a few years, decades or centuries prior? Should someone sit under the teaching of a Lesbian Heretic until you are disciplined for calling her out? Should someone never in his life have communion, just because he happens to be in a Lutheran church, when there is a Reformed church just up the street?

To clarify I am neither disagreeing nor agreeing with your view, I am myself not sure what all the right answers are
 
History aside, I think the most important question to focus on NOW is not why groups left such-and-such a body but why they won't join with others. The schismatic spirit of not joining is perhaps worse than that of leaving (like Paul's chastisement of Peter in maintaining separation in Galatians 2).
Are you proposing a merger between the RPCNA and the PCA?
 
If after the body kicks the godly out, Joe Schmoe is converted, must he wait until they kick him out too, or preemptively join the continuing branch that got kicked out a few years, decades or centuries prior? Should someone sit under the teaching of a Lesbian Heretic until you are disciplined for calling her out? Should someone never in his life have communion, just because he happens to be in a Lutheran church, when there is a Reformed church just up the street?
Are you proposing a merger between the RPCNA and the PCA?
I am not proposing staying in a less pure church/congregation if there is a more pure alternative.

I neglected to include this point in my previous post - leaving for a more pure church (if one exists) is not schismatic. It's the leaving to set up a completely separate entity when there is a viable alternative to join. Again, failure to join is just as schismatic as leaving voluntarily. My concern with groups like the PCA and OPC is not so much the leaving but the not joining existing bodies.

Are you proposing a merger between the RPCNA and the PCA?
Ultimately, yes. But baby steps. As is often noted on this forum, why are the OPC and PCA not one (and others who have the same American confession and same view of worship)? Why are the PRC and FCC (and others who are EP and still subscribe to the original confession) not one? Start with the low-hanging fruit. I understand if churches remain apart if they have different confessions with major differences, but if you have the same confession but remain apart, I don't see how that is not schismatic.

Why is NAPARC's stated aim limited to "facilitate cross-denominational conversation and co-operation"?
 
I think the most important question to focus on NOW is not why groups left such-and-such a body but why they won't join with others.
At the time, I was in favor of the PCA / RPC,ES joining. History has proven me wrong on that. I was also in favor of the proposed PCA / OPC merger. While I still think it would have been beneficial, the OPC probably made the right decision on that as far as they are concerned.

I do take a strong position of disfavoring the micro denominations. Particularly the ones that split and re-split. If one's denomination is smaller than my congregation, one probably ought to engage in some introspection.
 
I am interested to hear what the alternative to the OPC would have been? In 1936, I don't think there was another denomination to join. Creating their own seemed like the only option.
 
I am interested to hear what the alternative to the OPC would have been? In 1936, I don't think there was another denomination to join. Creating their own seemed like the only option.
Pardon my ignorance, but what was the state of the ARPC at the time?
 
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. It's one of the biggest denominations in NAPARC
Doing a quick Internet search, they appear to be smaller than the OPC at this point. I do think the various NAPARC denominations should enter serious talks about merging together. However, there would be difficulties and there would need to be concessions on various sides. Sadly, I do think the PCA would have the hardest time in this endeavor at this point. There is a very wide spectrum in that denomination. The ones in my state are more like a mega church than a reformed church at this point in their litergies. Although, I know there are many really good conservative ones still.
 
Is voluntary schism from the church sinful? Did the PCA’s separation from the PCUSA over liberalism accelerate the PCUSA’s trend toward liberalism?
They didn't schism from the PCUSA though. They left the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) in the 70s voluntarily before the PCUS merged with the Northern mainline (UPCUSA).

One thing that people don't talk about is that the PCUSA owns the property of the churches. Recently, they have been getting quite nasty with churches that have tried to leave for other denominations like the PCA, EPC, or ECO. When a church tries to leave, the higher-ups will often instigate nasty legal battles that involve absurd payouts to the denomination. Not so tolerant, you see.

Because of the degree of connectionalism in the PCUSA as well as the denomination's ownership of property, it made sense why the PCA formed out of the faithful in the PCUS before they merged with the Northern mainlines, which had gone apostate (not entirely, but it started) in the late 1920s.

I honestly think that it would have been OK for people to stay in the PCUSA if the polity was less connectional, if the denomination had less power (e.g. not requiring per-capita funding to the denomination), etc. And if the moderately conservative/broadly evangelical people in the PCUSA and the PCUS spoke up, I don't think the liberalism would have gotten as bad.

In these fights, it's always the somewhat moderate/conservative elders/congregations that tolerate and enable liberalism. If the broad evangelicals supported Machen in the 1920s, the PCUSA would be an entirely different denomination today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top