A Presbyterian layman shares his concerns
The United Presbyterian Church, in which I was raised and my father before me and his father before him, is being taken away from me by The Establishment—the staffs of the various headquarters, boards, and agencies that make up the hierarchy of our church. I am being deprived of my Presbyterian birthright, my religious heritage, as originally written in statements of belief that were rooted in the Reformation and signed and sealed myriad times over by dedicated laymen and clergy who have continued their belief in the Bible. Now this heritage is being subverted by a new statement of belief—the “Confession of 1967.”
We of the Presbyterian faith still believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the revelation of salvation through the grace of God and of the spiritual rebirth of the individual. But The Establishment by and large does not fully believe this and has made its unbelief our church’s official position.
We still believe the Bible when it says that Jesus Christ, as one member of the Godhead, came to earth as the divine Son of God through the Virgin Mary. But The Establishment apparently does not subscribe to this belief.
We still believe the Bible when it reveals that Christ’s kingdom on earth is not material but spiritual, and that the true mission of the Church is to preach the good news of the Resurrection to the end that each person will be reborn and thus will love and serve his neighbor. But the “Confession of 1967” does not follow this divine plan. Christ’s plan is to change people through the power of the Holy Spirit. The new plan is to change things through the intellect and power of the church hierarchy.
Lack of total belief in the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God has been present among the clergy for years, but only as whisperings of a comparatively small minority. Now we find that the undercover whisperings have come into full voice as the official creed of the church.
The voice of the new confession, however, speaks in words that almost obscure the startling fact that faith in the Bible has been turned to doubt, that belief has been changed into unbelief, and that reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit has been changed into reliance on the fallible interpretations of men.
Most of us who now realize all this have been too slow in finding it out. I daresay that even now the great majority of Presbyterian laymen do not realize that the “Confession of 1967” has confused and negated much of our Reformed faith. It is a far cry from the clear, concise, contemporary statement that was desired by the two Presbyterian denominations when they merged in 1958.
Now let me anticipate those who will accuse me of criticizing anyone who does not believe as I do. Not for a minute would I deny anyone the right to have honest convictions that differ from the historic Presbyterian beliefs. It certainly is fair and honest enough to disagree with previously stated tenets. These basic beliefs that Presbyterians share with most of the other denominations have been attacked before and have withstood the assault.
But that is not to say that the question of honesty and morality is not involved. It is. How can anyone tack the Presbyterian name on an official statement that cannot honestly be associated with that name as it has existed over the years? This is a tragic betrayal of all the members, visible and invisible, whose faith and works have created that name. I salute the Unitarians and others who, when they had basic differences with their former affiliations, were honest enough to leave and institute a different church under a different name rather than take over the existing church and radically change its statement of faith.
My opposition to the new confession has made me unpopular with most of the clergymen I know. This is understandable, since clergymen constitute the backbone of The Establishment. One of them who heard me express my convictions invited me to leave the church if I was not willing to go along with the decisions made by the “duly elected representatives” who compose our ruling bodies.
But are they “duly elected representatives”? Let’s see how representative they are.
We Presbyterians have been rather boastful about how our representative form of church government parallels that of the Republic of the United States, and how the two constitutions were created at the same time in the same city with many delegates serving in both conventions. We have been proud to say that we do things in “a truly representative way.”
That statement is substantially true at the individual church level. The church members elect a group of lay “elders,” with the minister as moderator, that governs the church. This body is usually representative, at least in the long run, and its structure accords with one of the basic Protestant tenets, that of the “priesthood of all believers.” This phrase means, in plain words, that the church members and clergy alike are responsible for the functioning of the church. If this method works as it should, the basic power emanates from the bottom of the church government structure.
Now let’s follow this matter of representation a step higher in the governing structure. A considerable number of individual churches in an area are grouped together in a “presbytery” to which each church sends commissioners. This arrangement appears representative in the true American tradition. But the actuality contradicts the appearance, since it reverses the principle found in the churches. In the churches, the power is in the hands of the laity; but in the presbytery, the power is in the hands of the clergy despite the original democratic concept of our church government.
This distortion of the representative principle in the presbytery comes about in three ways:
1. The minister or ministers of each church are commissioners ex officio, and for every clergy commissioner there is one lay commissioner (an “elder”). The lay commissioner should consider the views of all church members in voting his conscience, and most would. But his vote is matched by that of the minister, who is not actually a member of the local church but a member of the presbytery. As such the minister may not feel any responsibility at all for representing the local church. This proportion of one layman to one minister can hardly be considered true representation.
2. A number of clergymen serving in official staff positions or other non-parish assignments also are voting members of the presbytery. But since they are not ministers of local churches there are no lay commissioners to match them. This means there are substantially more voting clergy than lay commissioners in most presbyteries, especially in those where headquarters staffs are located. (True, an overture to any presbytery can request “elders at large”; but this procedure is little known and seldom used.)
3. The manner of operating the presbyteries works against obtaining lay representation that is adequate both in quality and in quantity:
a. In most presbyteries, the meetings are held during the daytime on weekdays. This suits the convenience of the clergy but discourages the attendance of the most able lay prospects, who are occupied in their trades, professions, and businesses and are unable to get away during the week, but could attend on a weekend.
b. Unlike a congressional or state legislative representative, the lay commissioner to presbytery generally is not a regular and therefore does not “know the ropes,” is not well acquainted with the other commissioners, does not know what has been going on, and usually has had little opportunity to learn about the issues to be discussed and voted on.
c. Because of these situations, the attendance of lay commissioners suffers by default. The majority of the clergy over the laity then becomes even larger. And many lay commissioners who do come are not well informed, lack a basis for independent judgment, and too often blindly follow the lead of their ministers.
Thus the predominance of the clergy means that the presbyteries cannot possibly be truly representative. And therefore, the General Assembly itself cannot be truly representative, since the selection of commissioners to the assembly is made under presbytery influence.
Take for example the original committee appointed by the General Assembly to write the “Confession of 1967.” On this rather large committee there were only two lay persons, and one was a paid member of the church headquarters staff.
In view of all of this, how can anyone say that our church, financed almost entirely by laymen, is the truly representative church it was intended to be?
For me, one of the unhappiest aspects of this whole business is the necessity of expressing criticism of the church organization. My father was a Presbyterian clergyman, and my whole upbringing puts me in sympathy with the parish minister. As a preacher’s son and a longtime elder, I can appreciate the frustration the minister must often feel as he sees the lack of spiritual rebirth in so many parishioners and the consequent lack of Christian living and loving in material matters.
How human it is, then, for him to be tempted to abandon the indirect method of working for betterment of material conditions through individual redemption and to seek to get results through direct action—even though the authority for and correctness of that action may be dubious. The fact that the method he has abandoned is Christ’s method (as explained in the Bible) may bother him. Certainly he must be aware that the Bible expresses disapproval of his humanistic approach. He may even rationalize his position by trying to diminish the authority of the Bible and the omniscience of Christ. This attempted diminishment can be seen in the “Confession of 1967.”
A vast number of our clergy, however, do not accept the humanistic concept, and they have had the courage to say so. Many others are likeminded but have not dared to speak out for fear that their future progress in the church might suffer.
And what do the lay members of the church think of all this? No one knows. They are not allowed to vote on matters of this kind. Even straw votes would not show an informed opinion, simply because the membership has not been well informed on the pros and cons of the various issues. In fact, a huge number of them do not know what the real issues are. How could they? The national church magazine is dependent on church headquarters for its material and its direction. In the individual church, the pulpit and usually the church news sheet are controlled by the minister. What other means of informing the people are there? The mailing lists of church members too often are not available to organizations like the Presbyterian Lay Committee that seek to keep lay members informed.
In the recent controversy over the new confession, the case for resisting the proposed confessional change was not adequately presented because there was no effective way for informed laymen to voice their dissent.
It has been pointed out that the Westminster Confession, which expresses the historic Presbyterian beliefs, is not being discarded but will be included in the omnibus “Book of Confessions,” and that this will be the official Presbyterian document. Then what am I concerned about? Just this: Because the “Confession of 1967” is the latest statement of church belief, it will naturally take precedence over the Westminster Confession.
The theory that both can be valid in the Presbyterian faith is untenable for the simple reason that they are not supplementary, as sometimes claimed, but in many basic aspects are contradictory. In fact, the chairman of the committee that wrote the confession said one reason for writing it was to make honest men out of hundreds of Presbyterian clergymen who vowed at their ordination that they believed the Westminster Confession even though they did not wholly believe it.
In other words, we could well say that the Presbyterian Church has been infiltrated by men who perjured themselves in order to gain entrance as clergymen and who, joined by others who have renounced their vows, are now in the forefront of those who wish to change the contents of the package without changing the wrapper.
Truth Or Treason?
Do you imagine that the Gospel is a nose of wax, which can be shaped to suit the face of each succeeding age? Is the revelation once given by the Spirit of God to be interpreted according to the fashion of the period?
My very soul boils within me when I think of the impudent arrogance of certain willful spirits from whom all reverence for revelation has departed. They would teach Jehovah wisdom: they criticize his Word and amend his truth. Certain scriptural doctrines are discarded as dogmas of the medieval period; others are denounced as gloomy because they cannot be called untrue. Paul is questioned and quibbled out of court, and the Lord Jesus is first lauded and then explained away. We are told that the teaching of God’s ministers must be conformed to the spirit of the age. We shall have nothing to do with such treason to truth. Is the Spirit of the Lord straitened? Shall his ministers speak as if he were? Verily, that same treasure of truth which the Lord has committed unto us we will keep inviolate so long as we live, God helping us.—C. H. SPURGEON.
When we peel the wrapper from the package, what do we find?
• A church that advocates concessions to alien ideologies “even at risk to national security.”
• A church that condones the assertion that a civil law should be broken if the lawbreaker thinks it is unfair or unjust.
• A church that seems intent on repeating the tragedy of the Middle Ages and expanding its power materially instead of deepening its power spiritually.
• A church that is diverting an increasing amount of its time and attention from developing character to developing official, corporate pronouncements on the fair level of wages, the proper course of action in Viet Nam, the recognition of one union over another in a jurisdictional dispute, the merits of a local bond issue, the admission of Red China to the United Nations, the seating of Adam Clayton Powell, and many other complex economic and political matters over which even the most sincere Christians and our justices of the Supreme Court will differ.
• A church that equates social action with the primary mission of the Church instead of teaching the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as the primary way of changing the lives of individuals—and a church that, as a result, is developing social workers instead of ministers who proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
• A church that believes Christ’s words and the words of the prophets as recorded in the Bible are the “words of men” who were witnesses in the “times at which they were written” and thus do not represent eternal or infallible truths in this “changing world.”
• A church that not only is non-Presbyterian but comes dangerously close to being non-Christian.
Those who want this kind of a church should have one like it if they can find it. If they can’t find it, let them organize one. What keeps them from it? Is it because they are reluctant to leave behind the time-honored Presbyterian name and the church properties, those places of worship built by the Presbyterian laity over the years? It is more comfortable, of course, to take possession and let the dispossessed like it or lump it. This is what the dissenters have done.
I am not angry over all this. The anger has been replaced by sadness—sadness when I think of that large segment of the church that, perhaps unwittingly, has turned away from the light of biblical authority and flown like a moth to a flame that will prove but a will-o’-the-wisp in the end.
No, I do not expect that the hard core of these dissidents will be persuaded of their error. But I still can hope that those who are true believers will continue to oppose the assaults made on our faith by such declarations as the “Confession of 1967” and, in due time, will accomplish a reaffirmation of the eternal faith and truth upon which the Presbyterian Church was founded.
Only in this way can we save our church.
