[PHS director] told the assembly of executive presbyters, presbytery stated clerks, committee on ministry chairs and members of presbytery response teams that “gracious separation policies are a wise, prudent approach and are a step in the direction of reconciliations. They don’t guarantee it, but they do preserve the possibility.”

Fred Heuser, director of the Presbyterian Historical Society, told presbytery representatives that “what we’re feeling today is the sum total of what’s been going on for 300 years. It builds on existing tensions – it is the sum total of who we have been.” And then he told them that “how you allow churches to leave now will, in part, determine the possibility of reunion down the road.”

Heuser gave his talk, “Historical Overview of Conflict and Division in the Presbyterian Church and Lessons for Today’s Church” at the Office of the General Assembly’s recent “Spiritual and Practical Aspects of Negotiation of Church Conflict” seminar held in Louisville, Ky.

Taking the group back to the Reformation, Heuser noted that “We have been a people since the Reformation that has engaged in a variety of conflict.” He then answered the question of why Presbyterians are so contentious, saying, “We are a discerning people who seek to discern the will of God in community. That means that we have a long history of disagreement, conflict, schisms and reunions.”

Heuser then told how he PCUSA arrived at this point. “1906 observations are equally true in 2012. Today’s patterns are visible in our past. What is new is that these conflicts and tensions feel new to us – as we try to understand them outside of a historical framework.”

He constructed that frame, saying, “Since the early 1700s, American Presbyterians have disagreed about many things. Five broad areas of conflict that shape our past and present disagreements:

1. “The role of our confessions and our basic theological beliefs

2. “The Bible as the “literal vs. inspired” Word of God

3. “Our polity as a reflection of our theology

4. “Church and state relationships

5. “The prophetic witness dilemma.”

Heuser outlined the 12 major conflicts that produced divisions within the Presbyterian family since the 18th century.

A 1729 compromise subscription act designed to produce unity through liberty on non-essentials set the stage for division in 1741 known as Old Side and New Side. “The Old Side kicked the New Side out,” Heuser said and then added, “And in 1758 there was a reunion.”

The trend of division an eventual reunion is the picture Heuser painted throughout his presentation. As if to say “how you let churches leave now will affect the probability of a reunion later on.”

Heuser continued, “19th century Presbyterians disagreed about church and state issues, moral issues, ecumenical issues … and it all resulted in a nastier split called Old School and New School.” Again the old school kicked out the new school at a GA meeting. And according to Heuser, “one Philadelphia newspaper said, ‘the necessity for the separation of these two parties is urgent … they do not receive the same gospel nor do they adopt the same moral code.'” Heuser then noted, “In 1869 there was a reunion … those irreconcilable differences were reconciled.”

The Historical Society then noted that at no point in Presbyterian history has “reunion meant an end to conflict.” The reason Heuser gave: the role of the Bible and the differing interpretations of it in relationship to “Darwinism, the social gospel, race relations, ecumenical partners, the inclusivity of women, native Americans and newly arriving immigrants, what constituted Presbyterian essentials, even what hymns Presbyterians should sing and issues of war.” Wherever you look, Heuser said, “the 19th and 20th centuries are filled with debates about Biblical standards.”

Defining moments

But there have been some defining moments. Heuser said that in “1910 a group of conservative Presbyterians distributed the five fundamentals setting the stage for the next big debate which would take place in the 20s and 30s.” That was the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and it too resulted in a split.

Then, as now, Heuser noted the question was “should Presbyterians have fundamentals and if so, what should they be? Those tensions continue to resonate among us today.”

Referring again to the issues that split the church in the 1930s Heuser said, “in my opinion it was a contest for the soul of the church” and “those who believed that the Presbyterian tent should be a broad one, won out.”

Since then, Presbyterians have confronted a myriad of issues that have threatened the peace, unity and purity of the church. At each challenging crossroads, the speaker acknowledged that “Presbyterians have sought to be faithful in their understanding of both the Bible and the times.”

Assessing where things stand today

Taking up the issues surrounding the adoption of the new Form of Government, Heuser said, “Presbyterians are a reflective people. The prolonged discussions that resulted in nFOG followed many years of discussion.” Those discussions, according to Heuser, centered around an “increasing dislike of a regulatory style of government,” and a “desire for more flexibility in a rapidly changing landscape.” In the end “we acted as Presbyterians should: decently and in order.”

He then addressed the issue of human sexuality which he framed as a discussion over “inclusivity, justice and how we interpret Scripture.” Heuser said, “the debate is a Biblical one – but equally important is that it’s a justice issue and whether or not Presbyterians were going to truly embrace inclusivity.” Then, tying the current issue to the historical narrative, Heuser added, “since the 1930s the issue has been and still is whether the Presbyterian church will be inclusive.”

Which raises the question of connectivity. Heuser said that “we are actually less connected than ever before; our theological and emotional connection has been weakened.” According to Heuser, larger churches see themselves as having “no need” and smaller churches are “suspicious of governing bodies above the session.”

Is schism unavoidable?

Putting the current perceived crisis in context, the chief historian of the denomination reminded those gathered that “churches have been leaving for 300 years.” Heuser acknowledged that in recent years “some have left, some are considering it. Schisms are never pleasant but sometimes they are stimulated … by great moral issues.” He concluded that “unfortunately, the body of Christ has been broken despite our efforts for unity.”

How then shall we divide?

Drilling down into the matter presently at hand, Heuser said, “amiable separations are always desirable.” He told the assembly of executive presbyters, presbytery stated clerks, committee on ministry chairs and members of presbytery response teams that “gracious separation policies are a wise, prudent approach and are a step in the direction of reconciliations. They don’t guarantee it, but they do preserve the possibility.”

‘Although we divide, we also reunite’

Heuser has great hope that although churches have left and will leave, there is always on the horizon the hope of another reunion. “Part of reunion is that people die and part is that the church moves away from entrenched positions.” He spoke of the history of the split among Presbyterians prior to the Civil War and then pointed to the reality that “125 years after the split, reunion did occur.”

He also gathered hope from the fact that historically “a relatively small number of churches leave” in any schism. Using the Fundamentalist-Modernist split as an example, Heuser said, “inclusive theology prevailed because Machen and others were thrown out;” adding that “it was really a contest between folks who had a rigid theology and those who did not.”

Reflecting further, Heuser remarked that “after the 1930s split, those who left couldn’t get along with each other. All they agreed on was that they hated the PCUSA.”

Continuing the narrative, Heuser said that the “1970s split was a continuation of the 1930’s divide – over issues of race and woman in one part of the country.” Adding that “the EPC was formed by those who were unhappy” and reiterated that “a relatively small number of churches left.”

Making it personal

The hope Heuser cast is not only institutional but intensely personal. “In 1936 the Presbytery of Philadelphia kicked out Edward Ryan,” Heuser began, “and 12 years later he was reinstated, restored to the ministry.” Heuser said that Ryan denounced the separatist movement that resulted in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and returned to the denomination of his birth out of deep Biblical conviction.

Heuser continued, “Ryan’s experience was not all that unique. The dream of living in a true Presbyterian church is elusive.” As evidence of that statement, Heuser said that “shortly after the formation of the OPC – a year after its founding another break-off occurred. While they may have been able to escape the breadth of the PCUSA, they could not escape the troubles of being Presbyterian where consensus does not exist.”

In conclusion, Heuser noted sadly that “self-inflicted wounds have defined us as Presbyterians since the beginning.”

Q&A

Q: What does all of this tell us about today? Is it simply to say that this is who we are, love it – or can history give us a better way forward?

Heuser’s Answer: “The better way is to learn the history. We have to develop a perspective that is more historically oriented. This is not new in the context of our history.

“I don’t think it could have been avoided. The tensions were there. The change in ordination standards ratcheted it up for some, but the tensions have been there for many years.”

Q: What’s the eventual reconciliation 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road?
Heuser’s Answer: “My sense in all of this is that the change in ordination standards – those who did not support the change knew they were on the losing side of that war – the change in standards was reflective of a broader change. There’s a more of a chance for reconciliation as that continues.

“The Fellowship is not monolithic. They know what they’re against but they don’t know what they’re for.”

“Depending on how we handle the separation will affect the chances for reconciliation. Gracious separation may ratchet down the tension and convey brotherly and sisterly love that acknowledges that we just can’t agree on everything.”

Carmen Fowler LaBerge is president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of its publications. This article first appeared on The Layman website and is used with permission. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]