History of the PCA

[xapis]

It is my understanding that the PCA broke away from the PCUSA in 1973.

My question: Why did they form another denomination instead of just joining another existing branch of Presbyterianism such as the OPC?

 

[Elderone]

If you want to get the information from the horses-mouth, so to speak, contact Dr. Elliott at the following address. Christianobserver@comcast.net His father was one of the founders of the PCA.

 

[heymikey80]

It is my understanding that the PCA broke away from the PCUSA in 1973.

My question: Why did they form another denomination instead of just joining another existing branch of Presbyterianism such as the OPC?

Having been a member in both and looked into both histories, I think I can answer.

The churches first investigated a number of conservative denominations and couldn't find one that was specifically set on their focus and vision. At that time the PCA was interested in an evangelistic approach to Reformed theology. I've books celebrating its first 25 years, plus a history of the PCA, pointing out this fact. It wasn't simply that they were intent on preserving a place where Reformed doctrine was taught and lived. It was that the loss of Reformed theology impacted the ministry of the Gospel in specific ways.

Different churches had different concerns about the OPC's approach to ministry and their own heritage of church decisions, as well as other smaller denominations in the US. No church is perfect; the OPC had early endured a split with premillenial Presbyterians which even it recognized had darkened some of its ministry. In addition, the initial group of churches outsized the OPC. Their addition to the OPC would also do harm to its heritage, its history. And their intent was not, as Gresham Machen stated at the first meeting of his denomination, "Now we have got a truly Presbyterian church." Their intent was to spread the Gospel and to advance the Reformed faith. It's a subtle distinction; but Presbyterians are known for recognizing when subtle distinctions result in serious differences.

Among the issues which would've caused serious conscientious objection on the part of the churches removing from the PCUS: the OPC invites breadth of conscience on the matter of alcohol. Some among the PCA consider alcohol distinctly pernicious -- not all, but enough to where this church decision would cause definite confrlict. For another, the OPC rejects all Masonic practice as heretical. Some among the PCA hold to a Masonic view or are in Masonry in particularly evangelical groups in the South.

Most of the books I know of don't make much of these differences, because they're differences of approach. But they do exist, and they may bind the consciences of some more than others.

Some books on the split and formation of the PCA:
"The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America" by John Edwards Richards
"How is the Gold Become Dim" by Morton Smith
And the more-flattering but still fairly accurate "To God All Praise and Glory", by Paul Settle

You may also get an answer from one of my mentors, a John WP Oliver at Reformed Theological Seminary. I would hope he would write more about this time at some point for our later reference, and the interest of others may lead him to do something about it.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Having been a member in both and looked into both histories, I think I can answer.

The churches first investigated a number of conservative denominations and couldn't find one that was specifically set on their focus and vision. At that time the PCA was interested in an evangelistic approach to Reformed theology. I've books celebrating its first 25 years, plus a history of the PCA, pointing out this fact. It wasn't simply that they were intent on preserving a place where Reformed doctrine was taught and lived. It was that the loss of Reformed theology impacted the ministry of the Gospel in specific ways.

Different churches had different concerns about the OPC's approach to ministry and their own heritage of church decisions, as well as other smaller denominations in the US. No church is perfect; the OPC had early endured a split with premillenial Presbyterians which even it recognized had darkened some of its ministry. In addition, the initial group of churches outsized the OPC. Their addition to the OPC would also do harm to its heritage, its history. And their intent was not, as Gresham Machen stated at the first meeting of his denomination, "Now we have got a truly Presbyterian church." Their intent was to spread the Gospel and to advance the Reformed faith. It's a subtle distinction; but Presbyterians are known for recognizing when subtle distinctions result in serious differences.

Among the issues which would've caused serious conscientious objection on the part of the churches removing from the PCUS: the OPC invites breadth of conscience on the matter of alcohol. Some among the PCA consider alcohol distinctly pernicious -- not all, but enough to where this church decision would cause definite confrlict. For another, the OPC rejects all Masonic practice as heretical. Some among the PCA hold to a Masonic view or are in Masonry in particularly evangelical groups in the South.

Most of the books I know of don't make much of these differences, because they're differences of approach. But they do exist, and they may bind the consciences of some more than others.

Some books on the split and formation of the PCA:
"The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America" by John Edwards Richards
"How is the Gold Become Dim" by Morton Smith
And the more-flattering but still fairly accurate "To God All Praise and Glory", by Paul Settle

You may also get an answer from one of my mentors, a John WP Oliver at Reformed Theological Seminary. I would hope he would write more about this time at some point for our later reference, and the interest of others may lead him to do something about it.

Very interesting.

Thanks,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

You may find more information at http://www.pcahistory.org/ . It is more general than your particular question, though it's got some truly powerful reading about conservative Presbyterian history and ecclesiology.

 

[JimfromOhio]

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) was founded by conservative Presbyterians who revolted against the modernist theology within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) during the 1930s. Led by J Gresham Machen, who had helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, the church attempted to preserve historic Calvinism within a Presbyterian structure. On June 11, 1936, Machen and a group of conservative ministers, elders, and laymen met in Philadelphia to form the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America which organized half a century later). The PCUSA filed suit against the fledgling denomination for their choice of name, and in 1939 the denomination renamed itself the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The two differ from each other more in origin and history than doctrine, the OPC is traditionally more conservative than the PCA in its services. OPC is more committed to a fundamentalist direction, distinguished by ministers who would preach total abstinence from alcohol, tolerance of premillennialism, opposition to the ecumenical movement. Which therefore, PCA was created simply because PCA believes that believers are to have a real relationship with God and can enjoy living a Christian life without being a legalist. The Biblical process of solving personality and behavioral problems begins with God's Word revealing our hearts (James 1:21-25, Heb. 4:12).

 

[heymikey80]

Ah, hm.

I'm not certain of the exact reason for the OPC's rename from "PCA", but the mainstream church didn't have a claim on the name, as the PCA today demonstrates. When the PCA decided on the name they actually consulted with the OPC on their selection to make sure it didn't offend them. The PCA early on named itself the "National Presbyterian Church", but they were indeed threatened with a lawsuit by the church of the same name in Washington, DC.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is not directly fundamentalist, not by any means. It is intentionally Presbyterian. "Just as there are differences between political conservatives, like the ones separating those who favor free markets from others who stress issues of public morality, so there are differences between the conservatism of fundamentalists and Orthodox Presbyterians. Whereas fundamentalists looked back to the American traditions of revivalism and moral crusades to abolish slavery and alcohol, Machen took sustenance from the theology and practice of true American Presbyterians like Hodge and Warfield, the leaders of what was called "Old School Presbyterianism." Fighting the Good Fight

The OPC is narrower on premillenialism than the PCA is. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=142

The OPC is broader on alcohol than the PCA is. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=122 And just so you know, I was mentored at a PCA church that required teetotalling elders and pastors. The PCUS -- where the PCA started from -- was serious about such issues in the past, and so some churches and indeed teachers in the PCA retain a heritage of opposition to drink. My PCA mentors can recount the conflicts it caused in my church, and the advice given to me personally against any drinking when considering college. Which itself is rather ironic, because I've never been drunk, and have had fewer drinks in my lifetime than the age of any of my youth group kids.

So the PCA was not founded because they found the OPC too fundamentalist. It was that the OPC's decisions already conflicted too much with the PCA's eldership, one on the issue of alcohol, but another on the issue of Freemasonry.

Of course as my distinctions with the OPC and the PCA appear to have grown in significance to them, I'm less and less passionate about the path either denomination has taken.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is my understanding that the PCA broke away from the PCUSA in 1973.

My question: Why did they form another denomination instead of just joining another existing branch of Presbyterianism such as the OPC?

This is a really good question, the answer has to do with the fact that cultural differences between the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) and the OPC, a descendent of Old School Northern Presbyterianism, outweighed the Scriptural commands to see the Church as a single body.

Essentially cultural history trumped Scripture.

The evidence is several years of discussion and voting to have the RP,ES and OPC join the PCA and that (unfortunate) outcome.

It appears we are more comfortable with split P's soup coupled with seeing the visible disunity of the Body of Christ then we are willing to invest in the great effort of working out visible denominational differences and present to the unbelieving world a consistent conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Church.

 

[heymikey80]

This is a really good question, the answer has to do with the fact that cultural differences between the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) and the OPC, a descendent of Old School Northern Presbyterianism, outweighed the Scriptural commands to see the Church as a single body.

Essentially cultural history trumped Scripture.

The evidence is several years of discussion and voting to have the RP,ES and OPC join the PCA and that (unfortunate) outcome.

It appears we are more comfortable with split P's soup coupled with seeing the visible disunity of the Body of Christ then we are willing to invest in the great effort of working out visible denominational differences and present to the unbelieving world a consistent conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Church.

That also gets a quizzical look from me.

The OPC was actually interested in resuming talks after its 50-year celebration of its own heritage. The PCA was not. The fact of the matter is that there are distinct theological issues involved, even if they're heavily embedded in the OPC's precedent.

The RPCES actually did dissolve itself and join the PCA -- a marvel at the time. However, if you know anything about that you must also realize a number of those churches had more and more significant theological problems with the PCA. I'm a member of one that withdrew for the EPC.

When you try to put groups together without serious consideration of their differences, you produce more splinters. It's like moving two houses up against one another and calling them one: in a storm you end up with a pile of splinters. Instead you need to start at the foundation and work your way up. Then the whole house is supported with as much care as either house was supported at first.

The OPC is highly sensitive to this need. Their early split cause longstanding pain between the two sides.

"How can two walk together unless they are agreed?"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the metaphors God uses in the New Testament to describe the Church all stress it's unity and oneness.
body, building for example.

It doesn't express this as a hope, or a wish, but as a description or in several places as commands-love, be united, be of one mind.

If i had to argue the atheist position, i would first concentrate on theodicy and the problem of evil and secondly on the inability of the church to express organizational and doctrinal unity. This is not a minor problem but strikes deep into the epistemology and origin of faith. Why should i trust what the Scriptures say when Christians themselves can not agree on what they mean, when they declare that the Spirit of God speaks to them.

The problem of unity is that is really isn't very high on our organizational or personal priority lists.


The OPC was actually interested in resuming talks after its 50-year celebration of its own heritage. The PCA was not.
i think both this and the original turning the OPC down was organizational sin on the part of the PCA. Just as the original PCUS and PCA split rather than those PCA congregations joining existing conservative Presbyterian denominations can lead to charges of being schismatics.

The original OPC and PCUSA split looks like it was proper but can be faulted in retrospect for tactics. (a case of hindsight being 20-20 more than anything else)

There ought to be a single major conservative Presbyterian church in the US. conservative-liberal is a genuine and important distinction, perhaps a single church from the EPC to the theonomists is a little much to ask. But from the right most (non-women ordaining) EPC to the rest ought to be doable except for a few personality based splinter groups of less than a handful of congregations. Anything less than this is simply not up to the standard given to us in Scripture.

The only issue that appears to be truely irresolvable for this spectrum is the ordination of women. Even on the right, theonomy and YECism has co-existed in the denominations with their opposites, certainly with friction but it does not appear to have to divide the body.

of course, this is just my personal opinion.

"How can two walk together unless they are agreed?"
then we need to make conflict resolution and institutional agreement techniques higher on our personal and organizational priority lists. If it is true that the Holy Spirit will lead Christians into the truth then we need to show that in our personal and organizational lives.

When you try to put groups together without serious consideration of their differences, you produce more splinters. It's like moving two houses up against one another and calling them one: in a storm you end up with a pile of splinters. Instead you need to start at the foundation and work your way up. Then the whole house is supported with as much care as either house was supported at first.

depends on the organization. The same people that just can't seem to get along in the pews work in the same businesses during the week. Serve in the same military, vote and serve in the same political system, and walk down the street together without fighting.

 

[heymikey80]

It's a tough issue all around. I think it's high on many priority lists; but orthodoxy is higher. For instance I expect to be limited to the EPC shortly, because of the strident calls against New Perspectivists.

If the OPC actually merges with another church -- its heritage will be lost. And it's quite a heritage of most of the major conservative Presbyterian theologians of the 20th Century.

There's really only one major conservative Presbyterian denomination if you omit the EPC, and that's the PCA. The OPC consists of less than 25000 members.

There's no such thing as a "right" split, nor is there any such thing as a "right" merger or a "right" remaining together. That's the essence of Total Inability. The theodicy of Reformed thought demands that "such things must happen" (1 Cor 11:~17) so the surprise of those outside isn't really a major factor for me. It's part of the fact of evil. We aren't God.

Each church must be in a position to redeem the times. If we could get some kind of unity around that principle, I think maybe we could deal with the doctrinal differences in toleration and appreciation.

'Til then I'll be in the EPC, which has already scoped out its doctrinal essentials. The rest we must approach redemptively and not with the force of denominational courts.

I think people can "get along" in the marketplace because there is no true unity of communion implied there. But in the Body of Christ ... a certain kind of heart-unity is important. And maybe that's the point. Without enough appreciation for our own sin we're left telling Christ-in-the-Sinner, "Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you." Is 65:5.

Oh, the days when I drew lines around my faith
To keep you out, to keep me in, to keep it safe
Oh, the sense of my own self entitlement
To say who's wrong or won't belong or cannot stay

'Cause somebody somewhere decided
We'd be better off divided
And somehow despite the damage done
He says, "come" ...

There is room enough for all of us, please come
And the arms are open wide enough, please come
And our parts are never greater than the sum
This is the heart of the One
Who stands before an open door and bids us, "come"

Oh, the times when I haved failed to recognise
How may chairs are gathered there around the feast
To break the bread and break these boundaries
That have kept us from our only common ground
The invitation to sit down
If we will come ...

There is room enough for all of us, please come
And the arms are open wide enough, please come
And our parts are never greater than the sum
This is the heart of the One
Who stands before an open door and bids us, "come"

Come, from the best of humanity
Come, from the depths of depravity
Come now and see how we need
Every different bead on this same string
Come ...

There is room enough for all of us, please come
And the arms are open wide enough, please come
And our parts are never greater than the sum
This is the heart of the One
Who stands before an open door and bids us, "come"

(Nicole Nordeman, "Please Come")

​

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There's no such thing as a "right" split,

right vs left.
not right vs wrong.


theonomy is a right split from the OPC.
ordaining women is a left position for the PCA or OPC.
allowing women preachers is a leftward movement for the CRC.
strict subscriptionists are to the right of system subscription.

just convenient vocabulary borrowed from the french assembly *grin*