Question about the PUSA

[AndOne]

While on the PCA website I was reading about the history of the PCA and how they split from the PUSA in the 197o's and one of the main reasons is because they claim that the PUSA stopped adhereing to the doctrine that Christ was divine - yet when I went to the PUSA website they absolutely proclaim the divinity of our Lord - so I am wondering why the PCA makes such a claim. Did the PUSA stop proclaiming Christ as divine and then correct their error at a later time. Anyone have any incite on this? Just curious....

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

I am not PCUSA - but can tell you a bit about them as my Denomination (regrettably) has open communion with them.

What I just wrote may sound as if I am completely against the PCUSA; but that is not the case. Many congregations are healthy and not following the growing liberalism of PCUSA, however, many are and I am saddened bu this (as I am with my own denomination).

To say 'Dont ATTEND PCUSA." would not be a good choice of words as one could say the same about my denomination (RCA), however, there are solid, conservative and bible based congregations in my denomination, as I am sure there are in the PCUSA.

I would research each individual congregation prior to becoming a member in one. Or, to be safe at all costs, you would be hard pressed to find a liberal PCA church (if you did, it would be like a needle in a hay stack). So if presbyterian is your prefered denomination - stick with PCA unless you find a conservative PCUSA congregation. (or if you would like, I could try and locate a conservative RCA church in your area).

Now - I have told you NOTHING on what the PCUSA beleive - so I will just direct you to their website so you can evaluate for yourself.
http://www.pcusa.org/

HTH

 

[frumanchu]

Do you mean the PCUSA or Presbyterian Church (USA)?

 

[frumanchu]

If you want a really in-depth understanding of the history of the PCA and the PC(USA), I recommend Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church by Gary North. It's a heavy read, but IMO a profoundly impactful book...and not just from the standpoint of a denominational history. It has actually affected the way I view the Bible, specifically how Covenant Theology actually applies to and plays out in history.

There is a growing confessional movement within the PC(USA), and hopefully it will one day recapture control of the church.

 

[Macrina]

The PC(USA) is my church. To my knowledge, we have ALWAYS believed in the Lord's divinity. If official belief were otherwise, I would not be here.

We do struggle in the battle for orthodoxy. In some ways, I consider us to be "the last of the mainline denominations" to tiptoe over the edge... there are many of us within the denomination who are fighting tooth and nail to maintain orthodoxy. Personally, I feel called to ministery TO the PC(USA) just as much as THROUGH it.

With that said, I might be able to clarify a couple of points -- Although there is a very loud, strong, liberal minority in the denomination, including a majority of clergy, the majority of elders and members still hold very strong biblical beliefs. As more and more people leave the denomination, those of us that are left have to fight more and more of the battles alone. We have not given up, yet, though. God is still working in and through this church, and until I am asked to subscribe to an unorthodox belief, or until I sense that God is no longer working in the PC(USA), this will still be my church.

I ask that those who condemn my denomination will instead pray for it, and for those of us who are struggling to uphold biblical doctrine. Thank you.

 

[frumanchu]

I ask that those who condemn my denomination will instead pray for it, and for those of us who are struggling to uphold biblical doctrine. Thank you.

I for one absolutely will continue to pray for the denomination.

 

[Macrina]

I for one absolutely will continue to pray for the denomination.

Thank you. We, and many other denominations with similar struggles, are grateful for those prayers.

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

Thank you. We, and many other denominations with similar struggles, are grateful for those prayers.

I surely hope that I did not come across as hating the PCUSA...like I said, my own denoomination has problems.

My BIGGEST issue, with my denomination (RCA) and yours (PCUSA) is the open communion we both have with the UCC. That is intolerable IMO. To me it is 'hand-holding' and sugar coating heresy. My Synod has actually threatened to leave the RCA because of this Open Communion with PCUSA,UCC and ELCA. I can not see any right in it **sigh**

Nevertheless, like I noted prior, there are congregations within OUR denominations that remain steadfast and true.(I can NOT say the same for UCC) However, as the older generation fades away, it almost appears as if solid doctrin is also. This is such a 'people pleasing' world we live in today. It appears MANY denominations are aiming at making people 'happy' instead of making people 'Saved"! And I fear for the church.

Having said that...the end may be drawing near.

 

[Macrina]

I surely hope that I did not come across as hating the PCUSA...like I said, my own denoomination has problems.

My BIGGEST issue, with my denomination (RCA) and yours (PCUSA) is the open communion we both have with the UCC. That is intolerable IMO. To me it is 'hand-holding' and sugar coating heresy. My Synod has actually threatened to leave the RCA because of this Open Communion with PCUSA,UCC and ELCA. I can not see any right in it **sigh**

Nevertheless, like I noted prior, there are congregations within OUR denominations that remain steadfast and true.(I can NOT say the same for UCC) However, as the older generation fades away, it almost appears as if solid doctrin is also. This is such a 'people pleasing' world we live in today. It appears MANY denominations are aiming at making people 'happy' instead of making people 'Saved"! And I fear for the church.

Having said that...the end may be drawing near.

I'm very sorry if I came across too defensive. I'm just used to a lot of condemnation from people that don't understand that the vocal minority does not speak for all of us in the PC(USA). The children from my congregation get teased on the playground because they are "not Christian." I'm not into the saccharin, politically-correct kind of "unity" -- but at the same time, I sometimes feel like we get the short end of the stick when it comes to demoninational divisiveness.

I have the same concerns as you about various mainline denominations, including the UCC. I thought I would mention, though, that through a friend I have been shocked to learn that there are staunchly evangelical congregations in the UCC! My friend is an evangelical going through their ordination process, and she has told me about some churches that she is personally involved with that are fighting hard for orthodoxy in their denomination. I was quite surprised, but heartened to hear that there are voices such as hers in the UCC, although they are a small minority. At the same time, though -- I think I have the same reservations about them as you do.

Perhaps I should clarify that there are a lot of things I do not like about my denomination, probably the same things that have caused others to leave. But I would like to correct two common misconceptions, should they be out there:

1) The stances that generally cause the most controversy are NOT OFFICIAL stances. Liberal agendas routinely come up at the national level, and sometimes get "recommended," but they are always shot down when it comes to the actual presbyteries voting about whether or not to put it into effect.

2) The people pushing such agendas are not the majority of our membership. The lobbying groups within our denomination only have to meet a minimum of 50% presbyterians -- the rest can come from outside the denomination. These groups and a certain contingent of liberal clergy have a loud voice, but they do not speak for the majority. Many of us clergy, and the majority of members, are deeply disturbed by the threats to our orthodoxy.

The biggest problem that I see (and I admit there are many) in the PC(USA) is that we do not adequately enforce our official stands. We have a very effective polity, when used properly, which deals with matters of doctrinal "discipline." This tends not to be used, however, in the name of unity. That is why you get certain congregations and presbyteries that can get away with things that go against our church constitution (Book of Order and Book of Confessions, polity and doctrine respectively). IMO, we spend so much energy trying to put out fires that we don't get down to the root of our polity problem, which is an accountability issue.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If you want a really in-depth understanding of the history of the PCA and the PC(USA), I recommend Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church by Gary North. It's a heavy read, but IMO a profoundly impactful book...and not just from the standpoint of a denominational history. It has actually affected the way I view the Bible, specifically how Covenant Theology actually applies to and plays out in history.

There is a growing confessional movement within the PC(USA), and hopefully it will one day recapture control of the church.

after fighting with the book for a week, getting several very good emails about it's quality, i really have reached the point the i don't recommend CF. despite the fact that it is free online at North's website.

He really modifies history and has done an extremely poor job of fact checking. i dearly love his organizational principles and how he really tries to tie things together. but in this case, he makes too neat of a package and in doing so misses the important nuances of history.

the big problem is that there isn't another single book that covers the field to recommend. rats.

...

 

[AndOne]

Thank you Macrina -

I was primarily looking for wx or not the church holds to and teaches the divinity of our Lord - and you have set me straight. I was aware of all the other "issues" already.

i/C
Dave

 

[frumanchu]

after fighting with the book for a week, getting several very good emails about it's quality, i really have reached the point the i don't recommend CF. despite the fact that it is free online at North's website.

He really modifies history and has done an extremely poor job of fact checking. i dearly love his organizational principles and how he really tries to tie things together. but in this case, he makes too neat of a package and in doing so misses the important nuances of history.

the big problem is that there isn't another single book that covers the field to recommend. rats.

...

What specifically do you have disagreement with? Everything I've checked on so far has been accurate.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the largest number of factual errors have come from people who know CRC and Dutch Reformed history. things like the dates and events associated with the PRC breakaway from the CRC, pg 354. I mark my books up when i read then, i use a "!?" to mark a place i want to research, i probably have 500 of them in CF, more than any other book i can remember reading.

but the factual errors are just indicative of a pattern, he is a polemicist, a fighter, not an objective historian. it is both his strength-for it is fun and interesting reading, and his greatest weakness-for he modifies history to fit his principles he desires to prove.

take the big motif of conspiracy and crossed fingers.
it is a nice and handy motif and organizing principle, but no one sat down in 1889 or 1899 or 1910 or 1920 and said:
we are all liberals, we know this traditional Christianity is a crock, but we want the wealth of their churches.

additionally, he wants to make the 6 day creation into a crossed fingers for warfield and machen (for example) and use it to show that they were morally paralyzed as a result. i see no evidence of this in either man's writing, but rather a desire to rewrite the WCF if it where possible. they relegated the 6- 24hr day creation week to adiaphora where you could take an exception to the confession. North does not and reads his feelings back into them, unjustifiably.

well. i don't want to hijack the thread, there is another here about the class i'm writing on American Presbyterian history, we can take it there.

 

[JaelWasWickedCool]

this thread is interesting. i've been in the pca church all my life, and all i ever really hear about the pcusa is that they're "liberal." it's nice to read things with a little more perspective (as well as just information in general!).

 

[frumanchu]

Jael, the PC(USA) is institutionally liberal, but conservatives remain within the church and they are attempting to take it back.

 

[frumanchu]

the largest number of factual errors have come from people who know CRC and Dutch Reformed history. things like the dates and events associated with the PRC breakaway from the CRC, pg 354. I mark my books up when i read then, i use a "!?" to mark a place i want to research, i probably have 500 of them in CF, more than any other book i can remember reading.

but the factual errors are just indicative of a pattern, he is a polemicist, a fighter, not an objective historian. it is both his strength-for it is fun and interesting reading, and his greatest weakness-for he modifies history to fit his principles he desires to prove.

take the big motif of conspiracy and crossed fingers.
it is a nice and handy motif and organizing principle, but no one sat down in 1889 or 1899 or 1910 or 1920 and said:
we are all liberals, we know this traditional Christianity is a crock, but we want the wealth of their churches.

additionally, he wants to make the 6 day creation into a crossed fingers for warfield and machen (for example) and use it to show that they were morally paralyzed as a result. i see no evidence of this in either man's writing, but rather a desire to rewrite the WCF if it where possible. they relegated the 6- 24hr day creation week to adiaphora where you could take an exception to the confession. North does not and reads his feelings back into them, unjustifiably.

well. i don't want to hijack the thread, there is another here about the class i'm writing on American Presbyterian history, we can take it there.

well, there's no doubt that North believes in conspiracies. That's not to say he believes all conspiracies, but he definitely believes they happen. I'm inclined to believe him to an extent.

I'll have to spend some more time researching some of the facts he presents. I'm just now getting to the part you cited regarding the PRC breakaway. I'll give it a little closer scrutiny.

Link me to that thread when you get a chance. I'd like to continue the conversation

 

[Macrina]

Jael, the PC(USA) is institutionally liberal, but conservatives remain within the church and they are attempting to take it back.

Even the phrase "institutionally liberal" is a relative term, though. To take one of the issues we get the most criticism for, we are against the ordination of unrepentant practicing homosexuals, and we are against the blessing of same-sex unions. Our church constitution formally defines marriage between one man and one woman as the only context in which sexual activity is appropriate. Yet there are individuals and groups within the church who defy our constitution by participating in same-sex "blessing" ceremonies and even "ordaining" gay elders and clergy. These actions are in direct violation of our constitution and our official authoritative statements, therefore we are not institutionally in favor of these things. We do, however, have a serious flaw in the practice of our church discipline; if we would follow our institutional standards in this respect, such defiant actions would not be so pervasive. This is just one example, because I know that different issues mark the "liberal/conservative" boundary for different people... but I wanted to allow a little insight into our theology and polity from someone who is inside this "institution." Thanks for listening (reading ).

 

[Elderone]

Here is a quote from the latest issue of Presbyterians-Week a product of the Christian Observer Foundation, publisher of the oldest international Presbyterian an Reformed periodical. Dr. Edwin P. Elliott, Editor - Dr. John P. Elliott, Associate Editor.

PRESBYTERIAN EXECUTIVE CONDEMNS CONFESSING CHURCHES

President of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., Davis Perkins, has
condemned the Confessing Church Movement within the Presbyterian Church
(USA).

Perkins stated that "the term 'confessing church' has come to mean
something altogether different in the current Presbyterian context . . .
as right-wing organizations seek to use confessional statements as
theological sledgehammers to bludgeon Presbyterians into a rigid
orthodoxy that divisively excludes certain persons from ecclesiastical
leadership."

By "certain persons," Perkins was referring to practicing homosexuals,
who are prohibited by the church's constitution from being ordained as
officers. But denominational leaders have chosen not to enforce the
prohibition and many ministers and lay officers are open about their
same-sex relations.

+ Presbyterian Church (USA), 100 Witherspoon St., Louisville, KY
40202-1396

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

Maybe I am a nut...BUT;

What ever happened to 'turning them over to their own sin"?.

If a brother or sister within the church is sinning and not turning away (or at least trying to) from that sin, are we not to cast them out of the church? Why hand-hold with those not willing to recognise sin, nor repent from it. There is a difference between a repentent homosexual striving to be freed from their sin, and someone who simply 'doesnt care' or refuse to change! Even in a liberal sense, I can see church aceepting homosexuals into the church, yet praying for them and leading them into repentace...but that is simply NOT happeneing, they are being ordained and blessed in marraige for godness sake. There is no striving to reveal truth to them. IMO, that is sad. These people need to recognixe their sin, and for many to sit there and simply accept their sin, is not doing these brothers and sisters ANY good at all! They believe they are 'loving' these people...but in fact, it is saying the EXACT opposite of love! Allowing someone to be held in bondage to sin and accepting that sin is being VERY hateful to the sinner! Do you see my point?

Arg. This frustrates me as my denomination is supporting PVUSA and UCC which is sin I believe. The PCUSA, for example, if they hold to the FACT that homosexuality is a sin, should turn the congregations that are odaining these ministers, over to their sin. Should my Denomination begin to accept that 'individual congregations' choose to accept ordaining homosexuals, I surely hope they would reveal truth to the congregations and pray for them, but if they continue in this sin, request for those congregations to leave the denomination. If not, my congregation would leave the denomination - it is THAT simple.

 

[Macrina]

Maybe I am a nut...BUT;

What ever happened to 'turning them over to their own sin"?.

If a brother or sister within the church is sinning and not turning away (or at least trying to) from that sin, are we not to cast them out of the church? Why hand-hold with those not willing to recognise sin, nor repent from it. There is a difference between a repentent homosexual striving to be freed from their sin, and someone who simply 'doesnt care' or refuse to change! Even in a liberal sense, I can see church aceepting homosexuals into the church, yet praying for them and leading them into repentace...but that is simply NOT happeneing, they are being ordained and blessed in marraige for godness sake. There is no striving to reveal truth to them. IMO, that is sad. These people need to recognixe their sin, and for many to sit there and simply accept their sin, is not doing these brothers and sisters ANY good at all! They believe they are 'loving' these people...but in fact, it is saying the EXACT opposite of love! Allowing someone to be held in bondage to sin and accepting that sin is being VERY hateful to the sinner! Do you see my point?

Arg. This frustrates me as my denomination is supporting PVUSA and UCC which is sin I believe. The PCUSA, for example, if they hold to the FACT that homosexuality is a sin, should turn the congregations that are odaining these ministers, over to their sin. Should my Denomination begin to accept that 'individual congregations' choose to accept ordaining homosexuals, I surely hope they would reveal truth to the congregations and pray for them, but if they continue in this sin, request for those congregations to leave the denomination. If not, my congregation would leave the denomination - it is THAT simple.

I think you may be missing my point. We ARE TRYING to do this, trying to discipline (which includes kicking out) individuals and groups who violate our constitution. But our efforts have been thwarted, even though we have church law on our side.

So what we're left with is this situation where even though we are in the majority and also in accordance with our constitution, we are ineffective because the liberals control this one part of the denomination (the disciplinary branch). So the dilemma that "evangelical" presbyterians (for lack of a better label) face is that we are trying desperately to hold to our church's own standards, and to hold those who do not accountable.

We also face the dilemma of whether to leave the denomination or stay. There are two concerns with this, in my book: 1) Why should I have to leave? We're in the majority, we are holding to orthodoxy, and this is MY church. I will fight for it. 2) Every person who leaves is one less vote for orthodoxy, tipping the scales towards this denonimation to get more and more liberal.

So I am sorry, truly sorry, for the sins of my denomination. We have been negligent in discipline and lax in our standards. But please, please know that we are working hard to restore discipline and hold ourselves to those standards. We need all the support we can get, especially from more conservative denominations -- we already have all the "help" we need from the more liberal folks.