It seems like every generation a group of conservatives in the PCUSA suddenly realize they're in a liberal denomination and get all upset about the church falling away. I'm not sure how they would not have noticed that they were in a liberal church all along.
Historically the PCUSA was not a liberal church. Indeed, the PCUSA was a very theologically stable, conservative denomination, and indeed until very recently, it adhered to the dictates of sacred scripture and holy tradition regarding human sexuality.
It needs to be stressed that the liberal elements did forcibly take over the mainline denominations in the 1930s-70s, after first emerging as a force to be reckoned with in the late 19th century (which is why Pope Pius X, who I do admire, wrote an encyclical condemning modernism; he also did a brilliant job improving the Roman Rite liturgy, and his encyclical on church music which revitalized Gregorian Chant and the churchly music of the likes of Byrd and Palestrina, and deprecated the bombastic orchestral masses that emerged in the Classical period, should serve as a template for a return to traditional church music across all denominations, and the rejection of praise and worship rock music, which is infinitely worse than even the noisiest and busiest Classical or Romantic era mass arrangement).
The first “mainline” church to have a major problem with liberalism in some quarters was the UCC, my old stomping ground, but for many parishioners, it was a problem that crept up on them, because the decentralized nature of the UCC allows for a minority of conservative “Faithful and Welcoming” congregations to exist even today (the Hungarian Reformed Church in Long Beach, CA, comes to mind as a good example of such a parish).
When the UCC began its downward trajectory, both theologically and in terms of membership (of congregations and parishioners alike, the CCCC broke away in response increasing liberalism in the 1940s, and then the NACCC broke away in response to the merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church, fearing that merger would create an unwieldy bureaucracy that would threaten the congregational polity (fears that were at least partially justified).
Before all this began to happen, my own research has led me to the conclusion that the main liberal denomination in the US was the heterodox Universalist Church, but this became intolerable for liberal Christians of Nicene faith after it merged with the Unitarians to create the non-Christian Unitarian Universalist Church (which is designated by our Christian Forums Statement of Faith as non-Christian, and rightly so, because even those Unitarians which claim to be Christian and are members of the small number of remaining Christ-centric congregations, like King’s Chapel in Boston more likely than not do not believe in the divinity of Christ. In this respect their error is more extreme than that of Arius and neo-Arians like the J/Ws, so I suspect some Universalist Church members did take flight after that point, although probably not in numbers sufficient to make a difference anywhere.
From the Methodists I know, the first sign of large scale liberalism in the newly formed UMC became apparent in the late 1960s and early 70s. I am inclined to believe that liberal movements within the UMC were emboldened by four developments: a misinterpretation of Vatican II, a misunderstanding of the point of the Ecumenical Movement (liberalism within this caused several conservative churches, including the LCMS and especially ROCOR to shy away with it, Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR going so far as to declare it a “pan heresy”*), a takeover of the Liturgical Movement by modernists**), and a massive leftward shift in the Protestant Episcopal Church, which had always been a close cousin of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the two sharing a common Anglican heritage, and both owing their existence as independent denominations to the refusal of the Church of England to provide bishops for, or pastoral care to, the United States, following the Peace of Paris. The leftward shift in the Episcopal Church was epitomized by the episcopate of James Pike, whose views on the Trinity and other subjects were so extreme he might not be Christian according to the CF.com Statement of Faith***; certainly they were more extreme than any Episcopalian priest, bishop or layman I’ve met today, the Episcopal Church being liberal, but still doctrinally orthodox. To their credit, the Episcopal Church put Bishop Pike on trial for heresy, but could not agree to convict him. While nearly all of the liberal Christians who assumed positions of power in the mainline denominations in the 1970s were both less liberal and less heterodox**** than James Pike, I believe the failure of the Episcopal Church emboldened liberal Christians to be more aggressive, along the lines of “if he could get away with that, we can surely pursue a more orthodox modernism in the spirit of the changing times in which we live.”
~
* I myself am a strong supporter of ecumenical reconciliation and disagree entirely with Metropolitan Philaret (Vechnaya pamyat) on this particular issue, although I do like much of what the late Metropolitan has to say on other issues.
** Specifically, the Liturgical Movement went from being about increased celebration of, and participation in, the Eucharist, into a trend to modernize the liturgy, with contemporary vernacular language and shorter, simpler services, in an effort to “keep up with the times,” the results in many cases being a huge degradation in the quality of worship services, and also schisms in the Episcopal and especially the Roman Catholic churches due to extreme frustration with the new liturgies being forced upon them by the hierarchy. This should not have caught anyone by surprise, because the largest schisms in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church were the result of forced changes to the liturgy, by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1666, and most of the Greek Orthodox churches in 1920, and the moral of that story is that churches should always provide the option for congregations to decline changes to the liturgy they are uncomfortable with. In this respect, I think the LCMS and the Church of England are models to follow; both have newer service books, but an LCMS parish is not required to use the 2006 Lutheran Service Book, and the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal remains extremely popular, and likewise, many parishes in the Church of England continue to use the traditional 1662 Book of Common Prayer instead of Common Worship. Indeed, Choral Evensong is sung almost exclusively using the BCP, or a nearly identical service contained within Common Worship.
*** Without criticizing James Pike as a man and violating the ancient Roman ethical principle of
nil nisi bonum, I do feel that, without commenting on his personal character, which I am neither informed on nor fit to judge, that being the jurisdiction of our Heavenly Father alone, it should I think be remembered by all Nicene Christians, especially those connected with North American Christianity what James Pike believed, which was minimum, extremely heterodox. To quote Wikipedia, “Pike's theology involved the rejection of central Christian beliefs. His writings questioned a number of widely accepted tenets, including the
virginity of
Mary, the Mother of Jesus;
[23] the doctrine of
Hell, and the
Trinity.
[23] He famously called for ‘fewer beliefs, more belief.’” He also was a member of a group which opposed the presidency of John F. Kennedy because of President Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith, which I find scandalous. Given his rejection of the Trinity, I am pretty sure he would not be allowed to post on this forum were he still alive today. Tragically, he died in the desert in Israel while on a sabbatical, of dehydration and heat exhaustion, while his wife was rescued by Bedouins. Curiously, the science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, a close friend and admirer of Bishop Pike, whose religious beliefs might best be called neo-Gnostic, believed he had been murdered, and offered a compelling argument to that end in his semi-autobiographical novel VALIS.
**** Just to be absolutely clear, I do not believe there is an inherent correlation between liberal Christianity and heterodoxy, any more than there is a correlation between conservative Christianity and heterodoxy. There are specific doctrines which I personally consider erroneous that have a tendency to crop up among liberal Christians, and still others that crop up among moderate Christians, and still others that crop up among conservative Christians. For example, I very much disagree with Liberation Theology, feminist and womanist theology, the ordination of homosexuals and gay marriage, commonly associated with liberal Christianity, with latitudinarianism and ecumenism without doctrinal agreement, comminly associated with moderate Christianity, and with fundamentalist Calvinism, Dominionism and the Prosperity Gospel, which are doctrines espoused by different factions of conservative Christianity. I myself am neither a liberal, nor a moderate, nor a conservative Christian; rather I consider myself to be a traditionalist interested in the Patristic faith and the ancient traditions of worship, and my greatest desire would be to see a majority of Christians everywhere abandon the drum kits and electric guitars and return to traditional forms of worship.
Also on a personal note,
@hedrick , who often speaks on behalf of liberal Christians on CF.com, is a fine gentleman of enormous warmth, kindness and piety and an exemplary Christian, who I respect enormously even though we might disagree on various questions of doctrine and practice. I hope some day to meet him and visit some churches with him.
