How Conservative Presbyterianism Lost Its Mojo

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thought provoking article from Rev. Dr. William Evans of Erskine Seminary

How Conservative Presbyterianism Lost Its Mojo | TheEcclesialCalvinist

 

[DMcFadden]

There are at least two big issues in play—the Baptistic Reformed success as driven by institutions (e.g., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Founders’ Movement) and gifted individuals (e.g., Don Carson, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll) on the one hand, and the apparent Presbyterian decline on the other.

If one looks at the Kingdom of God from a wide lens perspective, the first explanation should not lead to too much hand wringing. After all, who cares who gets the credit?

But the second issue raises nettlesome concerns, many of which have made more than one appearance on the PB.

There has been a decided turn to intramural theological squabbles in conservative Presbyterian circles since the 1970s—the Shepherd controversy, theonomy, Federal Vision, the Pete Enns controversy, literal six-day young-earth creationism, 2K. The list goes on and on. Some of these issues reflect historic fissures in the tradition, while others are evidence of the breakdown of earlier theological consensus and the loss of a sense of proportionality. Not every issue requires that one go to the mat. John Frame chronicled some of this in a controversial internet article “Machen’s Warrior Children.” I don’t quite agree with Frame that a penchant for theological controversy is hardwired into the conservative American Presbyterian consciousness, and I’m certainly not saying that such issues don’t need to be addressed. In fact, I’ve been personally involved in some of these discussions. Rather, when such issues consume us it is both a distraction to those inside and off-putting to those outside. Complicating the situation is the fact that some of these theological conflicts have clear connections to institutional agendas.

As a Reformational Christian, but not a Presbyterian, I find this extremely sad. If people do not find the Gospel, they will end up seeking an "experience" of the divine through moralism, legalism, rationalism, or mysticism. We are quite simply hard-wired from the factory with a need for God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Thought provoking, yes, but I disagree that we have "lost" our mojo. Did we ever have it? Really? The story of American Christianity in the post-bellum US has NOT considered Reformed Presbyterianism a major character.

 

[Jack K]

But the second issue raises nettlesome concerns, many of which have made more than one appearance on the PB.

There has been a decided turn to intramural theological squabbles in conservative Presbyterian circles since the 1970s—the Shepherd controversy, theonomy, Federal Vision, the Pete Enns controversy, literal six-day young-earth creationism, 2K. The list goes on and on. Some of these issues reflect historic fissures in the tradition, while others are evidence of the breakdown of earlier theological consensus and the loss of a sense of proportionality. Not every issue requires that one go to the mat. John Frame chronicled some of this in a controversial internet article “Machen’s Warrior Children.” I don’t quite agree with Frame that a penchant for theological controversy is hardwired into the conservative American Presbyterian consciousness, and I’m certainly not saying that such issues don’t need to be addressed. In fact, I’ve been personally involved in some of these discussions. Rather, when such issues consume us it is both a distraction to those inside and off-putting to those outside. Complicating the situation is the fact that some of these theological conflicts have clear connections to institutional agendas.

As a Reformational Christian, but not a Presbyterian, I find this extremely sad. If people do not find the Gospel, they will end up seeking an "experience" of the divine through moralism, legalism, rationalism, or mysticism. We are quite simply hard-wired from the factory with a need for God.

That exact same paragraph caught my attention, too. As a conservative Presbyterian who does a little writing, I'm accutely aware that it can be nearly impossible to address a topic that's even tangentially connected to certain relatively minor issues without either one half of my fellow Presbyterians or the other half (or maybe both) jumping up to skewer and defame me in their zeal to defend the truth. Vigilance is good, but it feels like there's an overeagerness to defend turf in ongoing Presbyterian squabbles over issues that, while worth addressing, are nowhere near as critical as the liberal/conservative divide that made us who we are. These battles consume the attention of too many Presbyterians, and I do think it's off-putting to many who're watching.

 

[DMcFadden]

Jack,

How true. If you don't take your faith seriously enough to be willing to defend it (e.g., "squabble" intramurally), then you end up dying the death of a thousand exceptions to the confessional standards. If you do take your faith seriously enough to oppose errors, then you get accused of having a "penchant for theological controversy" that is "hardwired" into your motherboard. I feel sorry for my conservative Presbyterian brethren. It is reprobated if you do and reprobated if you don't.

 

[py3ak]

Assuming one agrees with Dr. Evans' analysis, I'm not convinced that this is the sort of problem it's possible to address directly. Say that at a series of GAs it were decided that waning influence was a problem. Would it not be a greater problem if the decision were made to deliberately pursue influence? In history, has that ever ended well? One needn't go to the lengths of E.J. Carnell to create real issues when one seeks to be influential. Influence is one of those things, like happiness, that can never be attained by aiming for it. If our scholarship is sloppy, let us work to fix it on the basis of honesty and the doctrine of vocation, not because we desire reputation or prestige. In the same way, if we are squabbling over petty matters let's quit because it's wrong.

The influence of individual personality and talents should also not be overlooked. You can't just order a Presbyterian D.A. Carson from Amazon - the Spirit gives to each one gifts as he wills, and we are forged for our roles in unique and unpredictable ways.

Except for apologetic encounters between different religions, it would seem that debates always start as intramural issues: Arius and Athanasius belong to one structure; Pelagius and Augustine are in the same communion; Luther has to be excommunicated. Not all intramural debates are reasons for division; but the fact that something is taking place within the confines of a denomination does not automatically mean that it is not a disciplinable offense which will cause a split if discipline is not rightly exercised and received.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'll hold my judgment till I see what the proposed solution is. But whenever this kind of topic comes up this way (whoa, our influence is waning, people don't want to be us, our church won't grow, etc.), my fear is the proposed solution many will pitch upon will be some variation of watering down, reducing the number of and jettisoning positions worth recovering and strengthening from those musty old confessions. We've got problems and each of them need addressing due to the nature of them (e.g. churlishness and schism are sins, error must be corrected, etc.), not with the hope that if we fix our problems we somehow will get our magic back; which btw, sure seems a rather poor way of casting the influence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God's folk as they endeavor to be faithful to His Word.

 

[Unoriginalname]

I think he definitely makes some valid points. We do over use the term covenant so that everything is covenant. I have joked that whenever I want to sound more reformed I just use the word covenant because it has become the nebulous concept synonymous with Refomedness. I think he also makes a very valid point about Calvinism currently being too personality driven. Right now it American Calvinism in general is too much about names and not the church.