The Theological Disconnect With The PC(USA)

A theological disconnect is one of the reasons FPC is seeking dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA). One particular theological issue is the lack of clarity regarding the saving work of Jesus Christ. Is Christ alone the only means by which we are saved? Is faith in the work of the Cross necessary for salvation? Gaining clarity about where the PC(USA) stands on this essential belief or any other is difficult.

The Presbyterian Church has a rich theological heritage. The essence of that heritage is captured in the Book of Confessions (BOC), a collection of theological statements. The BOC is the first part of our Constitution. The Book of Order (BOO) is the second part of the Constitution. The BOC contains beautiful statements affirming our most essential theological beliefs, like the necessity of Jesus Christ’s atoning death to ransom us from our sin and resolve our guilt before God.

There are times and places that the PC(USA) has rightly expressed our historic faith in the Cross. The 214th General Assembly (2002) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted (497-11) to affirm a document called "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Within that document, you find strong statements like “Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him.” You can go to the PC(USA) website today and find a moving statement about the saving grace of Jesus Christ. If these statements defined the reality of life within the denomination, we would not be having this discussion and the health of the denomination would be much stronger than it is currently. To the contrary, they don’t comprise a clear picture of the theological identity of the PC(USA). There are two important reasons for this disconnect.

The first reason is our inability to define nationally our essential beliefs. Every minister and Elder are asked in their ordination if they

Sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do…?

Every time I teach an Elder training class, I am asked to explain the essential tenets (or beliefs) so that they can honestly answer the question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer the question. The PC(USA) will not define those tenets nationally. Instead every ordaining body, like a presbytery or a Session, is to decide for themselves what is essential. You can see why we are confused! Also, it is against our “laws” for a congregation to define those essentials and to require new Elders to “receive and adopt” them. Are you confused yet? If you are then, you are in good company.

The other reason surfaced at the last General Assembly meeting. A motion was made to change the definition of marriage in the BOO from “one man and one woman” to “two people.” A commissioner challenged the legality of that change because our BOC, the theological part of our Constitution, defines it traditionally. The Stated Clerk ruled against the commissioner on the advice of GA’s constitutional specialist, who said that the BOC should not be treated as a “rule book.” The BOO, on the other hand, “does contain the standards by which we operate.” Therein lies the problem. Our historic beliefs are disconnected from our behavior. It has been that way for a long time. The clerk’s ruling was the first public articulation of the truth at a national level. If our theology does not shape and define “how we operate”, it is no surprise that we are one confused denomination.

The examples of theological confusion abound. If you attend many presbytery meetings, you know how maddening it is to see pastors approved despite how their theological views depart widely from the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage. Several pastors take great delight in rejecting key tenets of the Christian faith like the virgin birth, miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What is more telling, however, is the lack of disciplinary action from their presbyteries. Our committee to produce a new hymnbook rejected the very popular hymn, “In Christ Alone”, because of its wording: “Till on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied.” In her explanation, the committee chair stated:

People making a case to retain the text with the authors’ original lines spoke of the fact that the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history: the view of Anselm and Calvin, among others, that God’s honor was violated by human sin and that God’s justice could only be satisfied by the atoning death of a sinless victim. While this might not be our personal view, it was argued, it is nonetheless a view held by some members of our family of faith; the hymnal is not a vehicle for one group’s perspective but rather a collection for use by a diverse body. (Mary Louise Bringle, “Debating Hymns”, christiancentury.org, May 01, 2013)

What was once the primary view of the Reformed tradition is now one view held by “some among us.” Lastly, our theological confusion is highlighted by the 2011 survey of PC(USA) pastors in which it is reported that almost half of our pastors strongly disagree or disagree (45%) with the statement, “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

In light of our theological disconnect, the content and the clarity of the theological beliefs of the ECO, Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, is most welcomed. We resonate with their understanding of the historic truths of the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. Their willingness to define the essential tenets is refreshing. Their expectation that beliefs shape practices offers great hope for the quality of their future leaders. All of which make the ECO a good fit for us theologically.