What was the essence of the Thornwell-Hodge debate?

[RamistThomist]

The recent multiplying and ubiquity of parachurch organizations got me thinking about high ecclesiology. What was the essence of the Thornwell-Hodge debate and why is it important today? I am currently reading through Thornwell's Volume 4 on the Church.

 

[Pergamum]

I was just skimming over some of this the other day. The essence of the argument seems to be that mission boards are to be found nowhere in Scripture and while Scripture gives us the qualifications for church office, there are no qualifications given for a "mission president" or the like.

Jure Divino Presbyterianism and The Board Debates, 1841-1861.

Delegating the Church’s Mission? J.H. Thornwell and the Future of SGM | Our Back Pages

But Thornwell argued against these “mission boards”—even the Presbyterian ones—altogether. He argued that even if the mission boards are ultimately accountable to a visible church, they themselves are not the church. By giving the mission board a wide sphere of independent authority to select and position missionaries and to dispose of the church’s money, the Presbyterian church had wrongly delegated away her own authority and responsibility.

http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2013/12/december-17/

The Board Debates began in 1841 and continued on until their culmination in the famous debate between Thornwell and Hodge on the floor of the General Assembly in 1860. By some accounts, the debate continued on for another few decades at least. These Debates were essentially a leftover or unaddressed issue that resulted from the 1837 split of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. into Old School and New School factions. That split had occurred for a number of reasons, but the heart of the matter lay in the 1801 Plan of Union, whereby Congregationalists and Presbyterians worked in concert to plant churches throughout the rapidly expanding western territories. That association between the two denominations soured when the heterodox New Haven Theology began to spread first among Congregationalists and subsequently among Presbyterians.

Here is a quote that got my attention:

“It is not to be disguised, that our Church is becoming deplorably secular. She has degenerated from a spiritual body into a mere petty corporation. When we meet in our ecclesiastical courts, instead of attending to the spiritual interests of God’s kingdom, we scarcely do anything more than examine and audit accounts, and devise ways and means for raising money.

A Recurring Issue of Mission Administration

 

[RamistThomist]

I wonder--if we extrapolate this debate to today--if "Mission boards = parachurch organizations."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The recent multiplying and ubiquity of parachurch organizations got me thinking about high ecclesiology. What was the essence of the Thornwell-Hodge debate and why is it important today? I am currently reading through Thornwell's Volume 4 on the Church.

Jacob, David McKay has a good, brief summary of the debates in his book An Ecclesiastical Republic. For a pro-Hodge view, see Andrew Hoffecker's recent biography of Charles Hodge. To cut a long story short, Hodge argued that Thornwell advocated a form of hyper-Presbyterianism, while he argued that he was being true to the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government. Keeping in mind that this was the 19th-century, there was probably a fair amount of overstatement, hyperbole, and talking past each other on both sides of the debate.

 

[TylerRay]

Which Thornwell-Hodge debate? As you probably know, the two disagreed on a number of things.

The biggest issue, if I'm not mistaken, was whether a quorum could be made in presbytery without Ruling Elders. This opened up a huge can of worms concerning the eldership.

I am currently reading through Thornwell's Volume 4 on the Church.

How far are you? I recently read through the first portion (on office). It was a good read. That's where I learned most of what I know about the "Hodge-Thornwell" issues.

 

[RamistThomist]

Which Thornwell-Hodge debate? As you probably know, the two disagreed on a number of things.

The biggest issue, if I'm not mistaken, was whether a quorum could be made in presbytery without Ruling Elders. This opened up a huge can of worms concerning the eldership.

I am currently reading through Thornwell's Volume 4 on the Church.

How far are you? I recently read through the first portion (on office). It was a good read. That's where I learned most of what I know about the "Hodge-Thornwell" issues.

Around 100 pages into the Banner of Truth edition.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If I remember right, I thought Thornwell's argument was that ministry was suppose to be primarily through the local congregation, not driven by the GA boards. It's been a awhile since I studied it though.