The Reconquista of Mainline Protestant Churches

bbbbbbb said:

I apologize. I did not realize that it was posing a challenge. I had hoped to differentiate my responses from his posts.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, I am a woman.

bbbbbbb said:

I apologize. I did not realize that it was posing a challenge. I had hoped to differentiate my responses from his posts.

Click to expand...

The quote tags do that, if you would like I can show you how to make them. Alternately if you used a slightly brighter shade…

RamiC said:

Excuse me, I am a woman.

Click to expand...

I apologize for that oversight.

The Liturgist said:

The quote tags do that, if you would like I can show you how to make them. Alternately if you used a slightly brighter shade…

Click to expand...

Thanks!

bbbbbbb said:

Thanks!

Click to expand...

If you see the color purple I used in my signature that works with both the bright and dark color scheme - I have tested it (although the equivalent shade of blue might be easier on the eyes, since purple can be a difficult color to read due to the short wavelength, just as bright red can also be harder to read in some contexts due to the long wavelength.

The Liturgist said:

If you see the color purple I used in my signature that works with both the bright and dark color scheme - I have tested it (although the equivalent shade of blue might be easier on the eyes, since purple can be a difficult color to read due to the short wavelength, just as bright red can also be harder to read in some contexts due to the long wavelength.

Click to expand...

Thanks again!

There are already conservative versions of all the mainline churches. I'd really like to have a church I can continue in. Why can't he join the OPC?

In the Presbyterian tradition, one problem is that each time there was a conservative withdrawl, it was over one issue, so they never got together to form a single alternative. Perhaps getting the conservative Presbyterian churches together would be a better start than producing more splinters.

hedrick said:

There are already conservative versions of all the mainline churches. I'd really like to have a church I can continue in. Why can't he join the OPC?

In the Presbyterian tradition, one problem is that each time there was a conservative withdrawl, it was over one issue, so they never got together to form a single alternative. Perhaps getting the conservative Presbyterian churches together would be a better start than producing more splinters.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. It seems that most conservative mainline folks are within driving distance of a conservative version. For me, it depends which version happened to be available. I don't have major issues with any of the varieties of conservative Presbyterians. The option I had here in the Quad Cities was an EPC church.

hedrick said:

There are already conservative versions of all the mainline churches. I'd really like to have a church I can continue in. Why can't he join the OPC?

Click to expand...

He argues that the conservative versions of mainline denominations have several disadvantages:

• They usually lose most or all of the "institutional equity" (my term, not his) - think seminaries and their associated endowments, historic church buildings, name recognition from historical contributions to civil society - that the mainline denomination built up
• They usually abandon their liturgical roots and denominational distinctives and become generic low church Evangelicals
• They suffer moral injury because the liberals are the ones who have changed their beliefs, not the conservatives, so the liberals are the ones who should have to leave

Of these, I think the second point has the most legitimacy. All too often the conservative versions of mainline denominations completely trash their liturgy for some reason. What's conservative about replacing an altar with a praise band and a sleek podium? How can anyone who claims to value tradition throw out centuries-old hymns in favor of Hillsong? Why is it so common for the conservatives to get rid of their pews and replace them with folding chairs, or exchange vestments for a polo and skinny jeans, or put projector screens all over the sanctuary?

jas3 said:

He argues that the conservative versions of mainline denominations have several disadvantages:

• They usually lose most or all of the "institutional equity" (my term, not his) - think seminaries and their associated endowments, historic church buildings, name recognition from historical contributions to civil society - that the mainline denomination built up
• They usually abandon their liturgical roots and denominational distinctives and become generic low church Evangelicals
• They suffer moral injury because the liberals are the ones who have changed their beliefs, not the conservatives, so the liberals are the ones who should have to leave

Of these, I think the second point has the most legitimacy. All too often the conservative versions of mainline denominations completely trash their liturgy for some reason. What's conservative about replacing an altar with a praise band and a sleek podium? How can anyone who claims to value tradition throw out centuries-old hymns in favor of Hillsong? Why is it so common for the conservatives to get rid of their pews and replace them with folding chairs, or exchange vestments for a polo and skinny jeans, or put projector screens all over the sanctuary?

Click to expand...

In my experience with conservative spinoffs from the PCUSA, it is the PCUSA that has been abandoning its historic roots and traditions. My childhood church, Westminster, recently decided to go generic and rebrand itself as Bread of Life Church. Locally, where I live now four failing PCUSA churches have merged and become Grace Church.

It has been my experience that the conservative spinoffs are theologically robust and are not keen to abandon practices simply to conform to contemporary society and to compete with churches that do not share the same theology at all. A key example has been the relationship between denominations and homosexuals. Although hardly a theological issue per se, it has become a litmus test which pits those which favor "inclusivity" which is viewed as embracing contemporary cultural norms, against those who do not and who firmly believe that sexual morality is clearly distinguished in scripture.

The larger discussions within the EPC tend to focus on gender roles within the church, which is in contradistinction to contemporary churches which long ago abandoned any notion of specific gender roles.

bbbbbbb said:

In my experience with conservative spinoffs from the PCUSA, it is the PCUSA that has been abandoning its historic roots and traditions. My childhood church, Westminster, recently decided to go generic and rebrand itself as Bread of Life Church. Locally, where I live now four failing PCUSA churches have merged and become Grace Church.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it's happening in the mainline denominations too, but I had examples from the PCA and GMC in mind where they've gone generic. Maybe it's less of a problem in the OPC, I don't know. But either way, that's the argument he gives.

jas3 said:

He argues that the conservative versions of mainline denominations have several disadvantages:

• They usually lose most or all of the "institutional equity" (my term, not his) - think seminaries and their associated endowments, historic church buildings, name recognition from historical contributions to civil society - that the mainline denomination built up
• They usually abandon their liturgical roots and denominational distinctives and become generic low church Evangelicals
• They suffer moral injury because the liberals are the ones who have changed their beliefs, not the conservatives, so the liberals are the ones who should have to leave

Of these, I think the second point has the most legitimacy. All too often the conservative versions of mainline denominations completely trash their liturgy for some reason. What's conservative about replacing an altar with a praise band and a sleek podium? How can anyone who claims to value tradition throw out centuries-old hymns in favor of Hillsong? Why is it so common for the conservatives to get rid of their pews and replace them with folding chairs, or exchange vestments for a polo and skinny jeans, or put projector screens all over the sanctuary?

Click to expand...

On who changed, it depends upon whether you look at specific beliefs or approach. Since the late 19th Cent, the mainline Presbyterian church has followed Biblical and theological scholarship. The conclusions aren't necessarily fixed, but the basic commitments are. Indeed many of the critical issues were already clear by the early 20th Cent in the fundamentalist controversy.

Since the fundamentalist controversy, the main new issues are gender and sex. But given the orientation of those who rejected fundamentalism, it was pretty obvious that they would accept women and gays as those became issues. There's a reason the conservative offshoots became a different sort of church. If RZ won, the PCUSA would as well. You can't maintain premises and change conclusions.

The nearest to what he wants is the ECO. They started out retaining all of the PCUSA confessions, even the recent ones, and looked like a body that was going to be similar to the PCUSA but with a conservative position on same-gender sex. My impression is that that hasn't been maintained. At some point you have to conclude that what he wants isn't possible: something just like a liberal church that is conservative on things he cares about.

But along with bbbbbb, I'm not so sure moving from specific Presbyterian tradition to generic is specific to either orientation. Protestants as a whole seem to be converging into generic Evangelicalism and mainline. I haven't seen nearby Presbyterian churches stop being Presbyterian, but outside the US, a lot of the denominations merged into united churches. We considered it in the US in the 1960's. I wonder if it will come back. The PCA seems determined to maintain traditional confessional Presbyterianism, even if a generic Evangelical spirit also affects them.

As to church equity, it's precisely with the institutions that change started: seminaries, national leaders and institutions. It's not like a few people managed to take over the church and force it on the seminaries. That's not likely to change, without a complete faculty change. Of course a conservative takeover could make that happen. We have the example of Concordia in the LCMS. But conservative takeover was a lot easier in the LCMS than the PCUSA, UMC, etc.

jas3 said:

I don't doubt that it's happening in the mainline denominations too, but I had examples from the PCA and GMC in mind where they've gone generic. Maybe it's less of a problem in the OPC, I don't know. But either way, that's the argument he gives.

Click to expand...

I agree. What has surprised me is the relative amount of diversity in these smaller conservative churches. These denominations seem to be in a formative stage such that there are frequently no denominational seminaries, as in the cases of the EPC or the ECO, which can train pastors in some of the finer points of church praxis. A lot of churches, as has always been the case, are really very small and thus have had little interest from denominational headquarters, leaving them to their own devices. These churches struggle to employ a pastor, especially one that meets denominational standards, so they often have lay leaders engaging in Sunday morning meetings which fall outside the official definition of a "service". Communion is a huge challenge.

By contrast, in the remnant of the parent body, there are seminaries and there is a sincere desire to provide a church service which is uniform across the denomination. Hence, when the decision was developed, long ago in the case of what became the PCUSA, to embrace Modernism, there has developed a culture of Progressivism which, slowly, but surely, moved that denomination to its present position.

I should note that the PCA does have seminaries.

hedrick said:

I should note that the PCA does have seminaries.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that, which is why I did not mention it. Thank you for mentioning it, though. The PCA congregations seem to be more uniform than most of the churches in the other spinoffs, IMO.

jas3 said:

Of these, I think the second point has the most legitimacy. All too often the conservative versions of mainline denominations completely trash their liturgy for some reason. What's conservative about replacing an altar with a praise band and a sleek podium? How can anyone who claims to value tradition throw out centuries-old hymns in favor of Hillsong? Why is it so common for the conservatives to get rid of their pews and replace them with folding chairs, or exchange vestments for a polo and skinny jeans, or put projector screens all over the sanctuary?

Click to expand...

I think both the second and third points have equal legitimacy - insofar as the denominational leadership changed doctrine and in so doing, caused actual temporal and spiritual harm and suffering.

These are acts which caused real suffering, and if the traditional Protestants are able to take back control, I support them. From my point of view those who flagrantly challenged, disobeyed and contradicted the doctrinal standards of their denomination should have been deposed, and should have lost their pensions, rather than being promoted, and conservative parishioners being turfed out of their own parishes as happened in the Methodist and Episcopal churches (perhaps less so in the case of Presbyterianism).