Thoughts on the Present State of the Presbyterian Church in America: A Series of Theses Presented by a Concerned Member—Part Four

Thoughts on the Present State of the Presbyterian Church in America: A Series of Theses Presented by a Concerned Member—Part Four

That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.

[Read Part Part One, Part Two, and Part Three]

  1. That a group of elders meeting in organized fashion to discuss or decide upon the affairs of the church or of some part thereof may be rightly termed a presbytery.
  2. That the National Partnership, as it meets the criteria above, may be fairly termed a presbytery.
  3. That presbyteries should be formally organized and should operate according to normal prescribed processes, as provided for by the constitution of the church.
  4. That the normal affairs of presbyteries should be reasonably public and open, and that secrecy should be used only in cases of true need, as for example to protect the privacy of individuals involved in ministry in hostile nations, or in the early stages of discipline.
  5. That irregular presbyterial operations, such as the use of secrecy when it is not needed, are out of accord with the practice of good church government.
  6. That internal factions undermine the good order, unity, and peace of the church and confound its operations by leading men to form strong opinions on various issues prior to and apart from discussions upon them at stated meetings conducted for that purpose. What is meant to be done by the church in her courts is instead done by sundry factions behind the scenes, the courts being then not occasions for deliberation but rather occasions to act out what has already been decided.
  7. That secretive formal or de facto factions within the denomination among her ministers and members were not intended by the founders of the church, and are not provided for by its constitution.
  8. That the constitution not providing for such factions ought to call into question their validity and propriety, and that some such groups, if not formally unlawful, are yet contrary to the spirit and right practice of presbyterian polity, and threaten to undermine or corrupt it.
  9. That needless secrecy in political organization cannot be defended in the Christian church, unless it be to avoid grave persecution by hostile governments or by others who would afflict God’s people. The avoidance of slander or unpopular controversy alone is not reason enough to act clandestinely, for the sufferance of such things is a part of the Christian life, and because there are means available to redress such sin if one is assailed by it.
  10. That the publication of anonymous manifestos or open letters is out of accord with the conspicuous and forthcoming honesty that ought to characterize ministers of the gospel and other leaders in the church.
  11. That the use of unnecessary anonymity bespeaks a spirit of cowardice or mischief and ill intentions – for why should a man hide his identity from his brethren if his words be true?
  12. That the use of anonymity breeds distrust and suspicion and destroys all credibility as regards a letter’s claims or as regards the personal character of its author if he is discovered.
  13. That the use of anonymity insults the audience, for it intimates that they are so unfair in judgment that they cannot be trusted to know an author’s name. It further denies them the opportunity of a personal response; for to whom does one address a response to an anonymous letter?
  14. That the use of anonymity and secrecy, as they have recently been used by some in the denomination, is indefensible and suggests a poor character for those involved, and a probable unfitness for office.
  15. That any right to secrecy in political organization in the Presbyterian Church in America is forfeit owing to the fact that the denomination from which we separated, the former Presbyterian Church in the United States, is believed to have been hastened in its doctrinal decline by the politicking of the clandestine “Fellowship of Saint James.”
  16. That those who hide their machinations can little object if others, feeling suspicious because of their secrecy, are moved by an understandable concern to disregard their imagined right to privacy in such matters and to avail themselves of their secrets when they are brought to the light.
  17. That they who accuse others of bad faith and ‘toxicity’ for prying into their secrets ought to consider that they should have no such secrets into which to pry, and that it was their own bad faith in clandestinely organizing that provoked such behavior in others. He who acts dishonorably has but little ground for complaint if others do likewise.
  18. That such secrecy may be interpreted as involving its participants in undermining the peace and purity of the church, and that the denomination would be within its rights and the dictates of prudence to legislate against it going forward, and to punish judicially those that are involved in it.
  19. That the National Partnership meets the foregoing description and owes it to the church either to disband, or else to at least forgo its secrecy and to do as honor and honesty demand and come forth into the public eye as an open organization.
  20. That those organizations and groups which have a formal, public character must take great heed lest they fall and become mere political factions whose efforts are wholly taken up with questions of intradenominational politics.
  21. That this, which applies to such groups, applies also to the individuals associated therewith. Many a man has ruined his effectiveness as a minister by giving too much of his effort to polemics.
  22. That the slowness by which the courts of the church operate is neither just nor wise, and is a disservice to all parties involved. He who would remove leaven from a lump must move quickly, else the possibility of doing so is lost. For the church to move as slowly as it has hithertofore done is to yield the momentum to wrongdoing, which has much occasion to multiply itself while awaiting the adjudication of cases involving it.
  23. That the slowness and ineffectiveness of our courts demoralizes the pious, who see in the advance of wickedness and the weakness of all official responses to it the certain triumph of such wrongdoing.
  24. That the apparent slowness wherewith God often moves in judging wickedness provides no warrant for the church to move with equal slowness. For God is longsuffering and patient, and he has his purposes which are often hidden from us or that are best accomplished by forbearing the prevalence of wickedness for a time. The judgments of God’s people are often quick (Ex. 32:25-28, Nov. 25:6-8, 2 Sam. 4:11), a principle that the Presbyterian Church in America ought to embody as well, lest she be found to be guilty of sloth and a lack of the commanded zeal for holiness.
  25. That no one has any right to office, office existing rather for the benefit of those who are served than for that of those who would hold it (Mk. 10:42-45).
  26. That many yet act as though there is a right to office, and that any qualifications respecting it are an infringement upon their rights, not least their rights of conscience.
  27. That those who elevate their own rights above the rights of the church, whether as a whole or in its sundry presbyteries, proceed from a principle that is contrary to the heritage of the Reformed churches and which owes its character to other, more radical Protestant traditions, and to the values of contemporary American society at large.
  28. That the standard of ordination is not the practice of other denominations, least of all those that are looser in doctrine or broader in practice than ourselves. Many men of great talent and just character are yet not eligible for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America because of their incomplete adherence to our doctrinal standards, or for other reasons determined by the presbyteries.
  29. That the freedom of the conscience applies to those things which are either contrary to Scripture (as some of the practices of Rome), or else ungoverned by it (Book of Church Order, Preliminary Principle 1).
  30. That the individual’s conscience is not free in those matters – as questions of vital doctrine or gravely consequential practice – in which God has endowed his church with ministerial power or with the power to govern itself. No man may teach whatever he deems right and expect for it to have the approval of the church, for it is the essence of church government that it exists to provide good order and to suppress the teaching of that which tends to cause confusion or disorder.
  31. That presbyteries may sometimes exercise this power to forbid the teaching of that which is not obviously false, if it is thought that such teaching would have an ill effect upon the church. For not all truths are equally profitable, and the manner in which they are taught matters greatly.
  32. That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.
  33. That the bluntness of speech of these theses, and of other dissenting opinions, is not motivated by hatred.
  34. That these theses are not intended to offend anyone, but are offered as a humble and sincere reproof. For both Scripture and common human experience teach that flatterers are vile and that it is a kindness to speak frankly with one who has erred. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

Scroll to top