There are most definitely a number of church affiliations or denominations whose tent became so big that they eventually collapsed under the weight of their diversity. Could it happen to the PCA as well? Yes it could.

In this third installment (Part I and Part II) of a look at the PCA before the 40th General Assembly, I want to walk through an article written by William Brenton Greene, Jr., in 1906. My aim is to draw parallels between what Greene described in 1906 and the PCA in 2012. To my mind, the parallels are striking and noteworthy. Therefore, without further ado, let’s embark on our journey of listening to this early twentieth century church father.

In a very informative and provocative article written by William Brenton Greene, Jr. for The Princeton Theological Review what he called “broad Churchism” in 1906 was put under the microscope.[i] His opening sentence captures a great deal of what is afoot in our time. He writes, “Broad Churchism is the tendency to regard Church union as more important than Church distinctions.”[ii] In other words, Greene feared a kind of ecclesiastical “erosion” that pertained both to the life of the individual Christian as well as to the spiritual health of the Church.

He outlines a progression (or regression) that is observable.

“At first disposed to give up only the minor distinctions of polity in favor of union, it is eager at last to set aside fundamental doctrines and even to unite organically Churches whose regulative principles are contradictory.”[iii]

It is noteworthy that this phenomenon can present itself in the form of denominations that are at odds with each other becoming “bedfellows,” or it can occur in an intramural manner within a particular church affiliation.

I believe this is precisely what is occurring within the PCA in the front end of the twenty-first century. It matters little whether the issues are the so-called New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision, or the question of un-ordained deacons and deaconesses, the concept of “broad Churchism” is alive and well within the PCA. What makes matters worse is that far too many continue to mouth the “connectionalism” mantra in spite of the glaring differences within the PCA.

This all begs the question, of course: How can we be truly connected when there are such broad and wide divergences among us? The short, hackneyed answer is: the PCA is a broad tent. Greene observes that “Broad Churchism…in all of its forms, is characterized by more or less of indifference to truth. It is ecclesiastical utilitarianism. Distinctions in polity and in doctrine it would overlook or ignore or deny because of the greater efficiency which it is supposed that organic union would secure.[iv]

The three words “overlook,” “ignore,” and “deny” are apt descriptions of what has been the standard modus operandi in the PCA when it has attempted to “hold things together.” Greene contends that true “Federation is animated by love of the truth,” however.[v]

By contrast, “Broad Churchism…cares little for creeds; it would regard unity of purpose and character the ground of Church union…. Broad Churchism prevails widely and is increasing. It is one of the chief characteristics of the Christianity of our day.”[vi]

Remember, Greene penned these words in 1906. Whereas there is not a wholesale discounting of the Westminster Standards among some within the PCA, there is a consortium of pastors who quite easily adopt the modern mantra of “deeds, not creeds.” Even those who are not so blatant in their disregard for the creedal statements of conservative Presbyterianism can be heard to say from time to time, “Of course I hold to the creeds, but….”

There is a parallel between what Greene described and broad Churchism and what today is called the “big tent.” There exists an inverse relationship between the largeness of the “tent” and the appreciation for theology. For both the 1906 as well as the modern big tent version

Theology is the least popular department of your literature, and in theology it is on Christian doctrine that the fewest books are now being read or issued.. The preaching of to-day is anything and everything but doctrinal: let it be known that a minister is given to preaching doctrinal sermons, and few are the congregations that will think it safe to call him. Creeds are commonly laid on the shelf as having only an historical interest.[vii]

Since Greene’s criticisms are so trenchant and pertinent, I want to outline them briefly.

His analysis of what was transpiring in 1906 sounds very much like some of the arguments one hears in the modern church. This is especially disconcerting when it comes to the PCA. The “Broad Church Movement” was “indifferent to the truth of Christ, not because it is hostile it, but only because it would emphasize what it regards as more important, viz., the life of Christ.”[viii]

That is precisely the attitude that is expressed on innumerable occasions. No one in a conservative Presbyterian affiliation would be so brazen to say that they care little for doctrine. That would be far too obviously a frontal attack. No, the approach is more subtle and employs vague jargon such as “ecclesial” and “missional.” There is an air of superiority about such terms. The proponents—not all, but a good number—give the impression that they have transcended the fray and have opted for a kinder, gentler Christianity than was previously in vogue. Their notion is more along the quasi-condescending lines of this: “It would do away with doctrinal preaching: this may have been useful once, but that was before the days of slum work and of foreign missions.”[ix] In other words, people are much, much more important than doctrine.

Therefore Broad Churchism and “big tent” mentalities would put theology under a ban: “This is not to be disrespectful to Paul; it is only to go back to Christ Himself and to the ethical Gospel which He preached as well as lived.”[x] Who would possibly deny that the calls for “social justice” are becoming more and more prominent in the modern Church and in the PCA? The main question is whether these calls are biblically driven or more of a current cultural disposition. It can be posited that in the 2000s the PCA has witnessed a paradigm shift that at times has been reminiscent of the Social Gospel movement. The expansion of the “tent” has been accompanied by a movement to the left, both politically and ecclesiastically—or, ecclesially.

As well-meaning as Broad Churchism was and the “big tent” mentality is today, Greene was convinced that the phenomenon—in either form—“is one of the great foes of Christian living.”[xi] This is one of the paradoxes of broadening the tent. How can that be? Greene asserts that,

The Broad Church attitude of mind, must…in and of itself be opposed to mental clearness and vigor. It must tend to arrest that discernment of differences by which the intellect is sharpened, and in so doing it must also impair that power of generalization in the exercise of which, more than in aught else, vigor is developed.”[xii] The bigger the tent the more the lines of distinction become blurred. With the Social Gospel or social justice approach “ethics soon supplants dogmatics.[xiii]

Most assuredly that truth is clearly traceable in the broader context of ecumenism and also applicable to the PCA situation today. The tenure of discussions has to do with how to help the poor, the outcast, the marginalized, and the disadvantaged (ethics) without much time and attention being given or devoted to the doctrinal truth that should function as the foundation for one’s ethics.

The emphasis is placed on how to help people (admirable), but the credo aspect of that emphasis is either neglected or non-existent (not admirable). Or, “What is the duty which God requires of man? becomes the question. The inquiry, What are we to believe concerning God? loses all but a merely academic interest.”[xiv]

It has been said before, but it warrants being repeated: “There must be knowledge in the head before there can be feeling with the heart.”[xv] Watering down or ignoring creedal statements does not aid one in firming up one’s convictions. Both head as well as heart are indispensable in the life of faith (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 7, Q/A 7).[xvi]

The impression is given that those who desire a “bigger tent” and are missional-minded have a much greater heart for the lost. They are not hung up on all the doctrinal differences; they desire to see more “grace renewals” in people’s lives and for those who do not know Jesus to be shown that they are loved. Greene believes that “the head and the heart are not in opposition. They are not, as often represented, rival faculties…. The religion of the heart and the theology of the head cannot be divorced.”[xvii]

Greene also appeals to the history of the Christian Church to make his point. Life, he contends, “has been according to doctrine…and that indifference to the truth…has resulted in misdirected effort.”[xviii] In making his point, Greene appeals to the Huguenots of France, the Dutch Republic, the Covenanters of Scotland, and the English Puritans. He might very well have included the Reformers in the mix. His central point, however, is that “Their uniquely grand characters were the expression of their uniquely grand belief.”[xix] He cites an unknown source who said of all these groupings, “It was their faith in God’s direct rule over all human spirits and all social relations which made them the strong men they were.”[xx]

The lingering threat in the PCA currently is that if the ecclesiastical tent does not expand exponentially, some pastors and congregations in the PCA might “walk.” All the while, few are asking when the tent might expand to the breaking point. Those adept at church politics are acutely aware that no one wants pastors and congregations to leave the PCA; I know that I do not want that to occur. I know, love, and appreciate my fellow-brothers in Christ. I attended seminary with a number of them. I do not want them to walk away from the PCA.

But I am conflicted at this point. While not desiring brothers and sisters in Christ to leave, I also do not want to see the PCA losing its Presbyterian and Reformed distinctive traits either. I also greatly desire for every pastor to play by the same ecclesiastical rules and decisions. It is my desire for the entire PCA to embrace the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, to embrace the Westminster Standards, and to embrace what our rich tradition has handed down to us in our Book of Church Order. To reiterate God’s common grace in Camille Paglia’s statement, we have the majesty of history on our side.

It does not cease to astonish me that those who want to expand the “tent” beyond what it can realistically bear expect to keep pushing, while they dangle the ecclesiastical “sword of Damocles” over the PCA’s head. In personal relationships we call that type of thing “manipulation” and it is unseemly and disconcerting to watch one side of a relationship cower as the other party threatens to leave if demands and ultimatums are not met. What is the solution then? The most appropriate solution is for everyone to comply with what we as Presbyterians agreed to in the first place in our ordination vows. That is a step in the correct ethical direction.

And there are other ethical solutions as well, but they do not involve being disingenuous or deceitful. They do not involve, for example, having to find out that a colleague has females—commissioned or un-commissioned; ordained or un-ordained—functioning with the elected (or non-elected and ordained) deacons. It does not involve not electing male deacons so that we can fiddle with and bend the rules and have what we want: deaconesses by any other name.

Note well: I am not making a case about what is constitutional and non-constitutional in the Book of Church Order. My argument is more stringent than that. It involves the indictment that when a congregation—any particularized PCA congregation—and its leadership refuses to elect and ordain biblically qualified men to the office of deacon, they are acting against Scripture—irrespective of who they are.

As we look around us, there are most definitely a number of church affiliations or denominations whose tent became so big that it eventually collapsed under the weight of its diversity. Could it happen to the PCA as well? Yes it could. Soon—very soon—the PCA needs to put its collective head together and set some very clear boundaries and limits. Otherwise, it could be too late.

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

[i] William Brenton Greene, Jr., “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, (1906): 306-316..

[ii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 306.

[iii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 306.

[iv] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 306. (Emphasis added.)

[v] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 306.

[vi] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 306.

[vii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 307. He adds, “Even among us it is not generally thought worth while to teach our children our matchless ‘Shorter Catechism.’ Of our eight thousand six hundred and eighty-one Sabbath-schools, in only three thousand six hundred and twenty-six was the Catechism taught last year. Year before last, however, though our schools numbered eighty less, the Catechism was taught in two hundred and seventy-two more; and ten years ago, though our schools were eight hundred and twelve fewer than last year, those in which instruction in the Catechism was given were four hundred and ninety more numerous.”

[viii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 307.

[ix] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 307.

[x] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 308.

[xi] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 309.

[xii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 309-310.

[xiii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 310.

[xiv] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 310.

[xv] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 312.

[xvi] What is true faith? True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.

[xvii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 312.

[xviii] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 314.

[xix] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 314.

[xx] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” 314.