Unless we have been living under a rock or in a garage, the demise of many ecclesiastical denominations have been clearly portrayed before our very eyes, and yet for whatever reason, there are those who believe such a demise cannot happen to us.

In this series of articles (Part I), we are asking a question that it seems few in the PCA wish to address, namely, within the context of a “big tent” mentality where more and more is becoming accepted and acceptable, when does the “big tent” become too big? We would also like to know who makes that decision and how it is decided, because currently it seems that no one is willing to tackle those questions.

It cannot be denied that these are relevant, pertinent, and germane questions in light of a number of the controversies currently within the PCA. The modern Church is almost rudderless. The United Methodist Church went the way of all flesh a long time ago, and was followed closely by the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church.

In an upcoming commentary on Galatians by Dr. John Fesko that I was privileged to read, he cited Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop in the Episcopal Church of the USA who was asked in an interview: “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?” She responded:

We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways, is, I think, to put God in a small box.” (1)

This type of response is unfortunately not atypical in modern church circles. Moreover, it is not uncommon to speak to pastors and other church leaders, who essentially say that by staying in their current church affiliation they hope to “turn it around” or “be a voice crying in the wilderness.”

I chronicled in my Herman Bavinck biography how many Dutch pastors strove to stay in the old State Church (Hervormde Kerk) in Holland in the nineteenth century, and especially how Abraham Kuyper strove valiantly, but in vain, to rescue that which no longer could be rescued. Kuyper and his followers were “polishing the brass on the Titanic.” Pastors had chipped away at the Dutch State Church slowly and, at times, almost imperceptibly. Synods had failed to heed the call that there was a hole in the dike and once the waters overflowed it was impossible to tell the water where to go.

Unless we have been living under a rock or in a garage, the demise of many ecclesiastical denominations have been clearly portrayed before our very eyes, and yet for whatever reason, there are those who believe such a demise cannot happen to us.

This attitude is analogous to America looking at the dire straits that countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and other countries in Europe are in and still believing that socialism could be made to work here.

One has to wonder why it is that when there is a solid church affiliation, someone, who believes that he is “forward thinking” or “progressive,” feels the compunction to come along and make things better. This is analogous to President Obama’s statement that he wanted to take the greatest country in the world and make it better. Apparently, they did not teach superlatives at Harvard Law School, Columbia, or Occidental.

Of course, another perennial problem is that no one wants to take responsibility for pointing out that denominations are blowing through biblical “stop signs” with impunity. We like to “bend over backwards” to accommodate. As one of my wrestling coaches explained to me, bending over backwards is a very awkward position to be in when you are attempting to defend yourself. The “let’s-bend-over-backwards” syndrome or mentality is all too prevalent in our time, even when it comes to biblical principles and practices.

Most certainly, one of the reeds that props up the “big tent” mentality is that diversity is to be embraced. Another is that tolerance is the watchword. Both unchecked diversity and tolerance tend to lead to doctrinal indifference.

What is your view of liturgy? Diversity and tolerance! What is your view of women reading Scripture and praying in the worship service and distributing the elements or the Lord’s Supper? Diversity and tolerance! (Has anyone ever paused to ask the question why a woman could not put the water in the pastor’s hand so that he could baptize an infant or adult, since helping administer the sacraments seems to be so important?) What is your view of justification by faith? Diversity and tolerance! What is your view of illegal aliens? (or for the sensitive PCA pastor “undocumented workers”) Diversity and tolerance!

At its 2012 General Assembly, the PCA is probably going to be required to deal with the doctrine of theological or theistic evolution, the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the questions surrounding the use of intinction in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Did these subjects merely fall from the sky one day? No, of course they did not. They have been available on church web sites, in the blog-o-sphere, on FaceBook, in sermons, and in writings, but no one wanted to say that the emperor was not wearing any clothes.

Eventually, however, the matter grows to an embarrassing, undeniable size and becomes the proverbial “elephant (or gorilla) in the room.” The list of “issues,” “safe conversations,” “friendly discussions,” and “subjects” could go on, but once we have settled into the “big tent” mentality and no one has given any clear guidelines about where the boundaries are and what constitutes a big tent that is too big, we are comparable to the folks that drive around with a COEXIST bumper sticker on their car.

In Part III, I want to make my point even further by walking us through an article written by William Brenton Greene, Jr., in 1906 in The Princeton Theological Review. It bore the title, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life.” Greene did not employ the phrase “big tent,” but “broad churchism” is about as close as you can get without using the exact words themselves. Moreover, the parallels between what was occurring then and what is transpiring now in the PCA are eerie and uncanny. His words serve as a good and an apt warning to those who avidly desire a “big tent” mentality that the tent can, at times, become too big.

The inevitable result is that the “tent” collapses under the weight of its own size. Few have believed that the load bearing walls could only bear so much “load” before the bending and stretching resulted in utter collapse. Everything seemed fine before the collapse, but in the aftermath realists had to conclude that even though things looked fine, they were not. There were serious structural problems that everyone should have seen coming. Most of us have watched clips where a portion of a soccer stadium collapsed when it was “over-full” of fans. The results are devastating and tragic. Everyone agrees that such things could have been prevented if more and better attention had been paid.

My purpose in walking us through Greene’s article is to give us pause to reflect. What are we doing—in the short and long term—and what are the perimeters where an ecclesiastical “tent” can bear the load of unrest, and what constitutes its undoing? History inexorably points us to example after example of “crashes” that could have been avoided; that could have easily been avoided.

It seems to me that there is an element or component in the PCA that pushes the edge of the envelope every year. Every year there is an “item” or a “controversy” that the PCA has to deal with. As often as not, these matters or issues are not being raised by the rank and file of PCA leaders and members, but rather from a segment of those who rarely, if ever, seemed pleased.

I am not arguing that the PCA has “arrived” and that there is nothing more or new to be said ecclesiastically. There is always room for improvement. The last word was not spoken in Geneva, Switzerland or in Kampen, Holland. By the same token, it is not necessarily being spoken in our PCA congregations today.

What I am saying is that many of our current controversies are not based on questions of biblical exegesis. In fact, in many of these attempts at change, biblical exegesis is nowhere to be found. As often as not, the arguments are almost purely arguments from culture. Therefore, in my final article, I will present William Greene’s arguments and let you decide how pertinent and relevant they are for the PCA today.

Ron Gleason, Ph.D., is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, Calif.

@Copyright 2012 The Aquila Report – All Rights Reserved

(1) Forthcoming commentary by John Fesko, Galatians, (Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2012), citing Katharine Jefferts Schori, “Ten Questions for Katharine Jefferts Schori,” Time, 17, July 2006: 6.