Why is the PCUSA going so liberal?

[HereIstand.Todd]

This is the hymnbook that we use and this is the same edition, 1955.

The Hymnbook: Presbyterian Church in the United States, The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., Reformed Church in America, David Hugh Jones: 9781499037951: Amazon.com: Books

 

[DannyD2]

Pretty similar here. I'm not sure the pastor is a teaching elder exactly but part of the national session (I might be wrong). We have a separate committee for maintenance although they do work with the elders.

 

[hedrick]

We have a prayer where we do confess sin before God but there is not a actual public pardon as done by a minister. My aunts church (PCUSA) does this in her church.

In PCUSA churches I'm familiar with, the pardon is technically not by the minister. The minister reads words of pardon from Scripture. The point being that it's God that pardons.

Monthly communion is now typical in the PCUSA. This is a change from when I was growing up in the 60's, when it tended to be quarterly. I believe monthly (or more often) communion is now common in many Protestant churches.

I'd be curious what communion liturgies look like in the more conservative churches. The PCUSA had a very undistinguished liturgy in the 60s. However that has changed

Here's a typical service these days:
http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/sharedcelebration/pdfs/liturgy.pdf. (This is only the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving, after the sermon, near the end. Sometimes the Kyrie is said earlier in the service, and Apostles or Nicene Creed after the sermon.)

The new hymnal moves the words of institution to near the beginning of the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving, consistent with the earliest model, e.g. Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[hedrick]

Pretty similar here. I'm not sure the pastor is a teaching elder exactly but part of the national session (I might be wrong). We have a separate committee for maintenance although they do work with the elders.

In PCUSA and I believe other groups, the term "teaching elder" means in effect pastor. In Presbyterian theology there are only two NT offices: elder and deacon. So the pastor is viewed as one kind of elder. The session members are called "ruling elders". Perhaps your terminology is different.

 

[DannyD2]

Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity. The pardon is a piece of scripture which is read as well. The text typically varies week to week. I somehow missed Todd's post.

The hymn of response is a hymn and it usually is related in some way to the message of the sermon.

 

[DannyD2]

In PCUSA and I believe other groups, the term "teaching elder" means in effect pastor. In Presbyterian theology there are only two NT offices: elder and deacon. So the pastor is viewed as one kind of elder. The session members are called "ruling elders". Perhaps your terminology is different.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm right. My understanding is the elders are part of the local session. The pastors are not actually part of the local session but the national session. For church business at the session level the pastor(s) can place votes in situations of ties. I don't know if it is simply my church but our pastor has the practice of not placing any votes on business in the church session and allows all tied votes to fail.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Yeah, I'm not sure if I'm right. My understanding is the elders are part of the local session. The pastors are not actually part of the local session but the national session. For church business at the session level the pastor(s) can place votes in situations of ties. I don't know if it is simply my church but our pastor has the practice of not placing any votes on business in the church session and allows all tied votes to fail.

Hedrick's terminology is pretty much universally correct with respect to Presbyterianism. There is differentiation in Elders in the New Testament. The terms Ruling Elder and Teaching Elder did not generate itself in a vacuum.

Historically, Ruling Elders have been chosen from amongst the congregation for the purpose of administrating the church. Teaching Elders have generally been reserved for the teaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. Teaching Elders are approved by the Presbytery in the great majority of the Presbyterian Denominations. There are some exceptions. Whether the writers of the New Testament intended to equate Teaching Elders with Pastors is probably debatable, and a case could probably be made for either yea or no.

However it is not important. It is certainly not an issue to divide over.

That is not to say that there is any order of importance between Teaching and Ruling Elders. Both are Elders, both should have the respect due their position. They merely have different functions.

 

[DannyD2]

Hedrick's terminology is pretty much universally correct with respect to Presbyterianism. There is differentiation in Elders in the New Testament. The terms Ruling Elder and Teaching Elder did not generate itself in a vacuum.

Historically, Ruling Elders have been chosen from amongst the congregation for the purpose of administrating the church. Teaching Elders have generally been reserved for the teaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. Teaching Elders are approved by the Presbytery in the great majority of the Presbyterian Denominations. There are some exceptions. Whether the writers of the New Testament intended to equate Teaching Elders with Pastors is probably debatable, and a case could probably be made for either yea or no.

However it is not important. It is certainly not an issue to divide over.

That is not to say that there is any order of importance between Teaching and Ruling Elders. Both are Elders, both should have the respect due their position. They merely have different functions.

Anyway from the OPC website from a Q&A you can take it how you wish:

"As to the implied question—why do ministers have their membership in presbytery instead of in the local church?—in some Reformed traditions, particularly those of Dutch heritage, ministers are in fact members of the local church. In our own denomination the membership of ministers is in the presbytery, though such ministers have communing fellowship with the local church.

There are three reasons or arguments in favor of this practice: First, we expect our ministers to have a broader range of responsibilities over the whole work of the church than do the elders. Their responsibility, more than that of the elder, is in the region. (Yes, individual elders from the different congregations are also called to serve the regional church through their presence and voting at meetings of the presbytery, but not all elders are called to do such.) Second, we recognize the need for a large measure of specialized education for our ministers that we do not require for our elders (e.g., knowledge of Greek and Hebrew). Consequently, we think it more proper that they are subject to the examination and oversight of others with that same level of training. Finally, since the ministers are members of presbytery, that fact makes any discipline of them, or any dispute over their call to a particular church, immediately the concern of the presbytery. This provides a large window for the regional church to view the happenings, and to participate in working to promote the purity and peace of the church."

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Anyway from the OPC website from a Q&A you can take it how you wish:

"As to the implied question—why do ministers have their membership in presbytery instead of in the local church?—in some Reformed traditions, particularly those of Dutch heritage, ministers are in fact members of the local church. In our own denomination the membership of ministers is in the presbytery, though such ministers have communing fellowship with the local church.

There are three reasons or arguments in favor of this practice: First, we expect our ministers to have a broader range of responsibilities over the whole work of the church than do the elders. Their responsibility, more than that of the elder, is in the region. (Yes, individual elders from the different congregations are also called to serve the regional church through their presence and voting at meetings of the presbytery, but not all elders are called to do such.) Second, we recognize the need for a large measure of specialized education for our ministers that we do not require for our elders (e.g., knowledge of Greek and Hebrew). Consequently, we think it more proper that they are subject to the examination and oversight of others with that same level of training. Finally, since the ministers are members of presbytery, that fact makes any discipline of them, or any dispute over their call to a particular church, immediately the concern of the presbytery. This provides a large window for the regional church to view the happenings, and to participate in working to promote the purity and peace of the church."

That is the majority report of Presbyterianism. It is also true in my own denomination the EPC.

i would add to that from experience. Teaching Elders belong to the Presbytery in order to protect pastors from abusive congregations, and congregations from abusive pastors. i have seen both in my years. i have been a member of an abusive congregation --it does not exist any more.

There is one denomination, i believe it is called the Evangelical Orthodox Presbyterian Church, [and offshoot of the OPC] which mandates that ministers be members of their congregations. They are the one notable exception to the general opinion that i am aware of.

The requirements to teach are rather strict, and they should be. The bible consistently warns us about handling the Word of God carefully, rightfully dividing the word, etc. That does require some training.

However nothing in the OPC's publication maintains that one type of elder is 'better' than another type. Both Ruling and Teaching Elders are Elders.

 

[DannyD2]

You are probably right. Our church often doesn't use all the most formal Presbyterian terminology at times. Mainly because I'd say at least of 1/3 of our church members are people who left the Christian Reformed Church.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Below is a link to the ARP directory of public worship. There is no hard and fast rule that each church use the same order of worship but this in my understanding of it is more of a guide. At the very end there are 4 different orders of worship listed but these are not mandatory.

http://www.arpsynod.org/pdf/Standards/Directory of Public Worship.pdf

 

[DannyD2]

Makes sense. My church has 2 minor changes in our order of worship in the past few years. We changed to a "hymn of thanksgiving" instead of a "hymn of repentance" after the declaration of pardon. Rational was the response to pardon from God should be thanksgiving. I think we also added the apostles creed or other creed into the order instead of another element. This simply probably was because the elders liked it. There is sort of a flow back and forth between our OP church and a large non-denominational church of a reformed theology and I think we picked this up from them since they say the apostles creed weekly. We do the apostles creed but sometimes do parts of the Westminster or Heidelberg.

 

[hedrick]

Below is a link to the ARP directory of public worship. There is no hard and fast rule that each church use the same order of worship but this in my understanding of it is more of a guide. At the very end there are 4 different orders of worship listed but these are not mandatory.

http://www.arpsynod.org/pdf/Standards/Directory of Public Worship.pdf

The current orders of worship (i.e. things more recent than Westminster) are all PCUSA. The most recent is from the 1990 hymnbook. While an excellent hymn book, I wasn't so happy with the communion service. Many churches use a separate one, which is fairly close to the one that's in the new hymn book. I'll be interested to see whether the ARP picks up the 2013/14 hymn book. Our congregation is moving to it. It's got a lot of good new hymns, and the liturgy looks good.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

The current orders of worship (i.e. things more recent than Westminster) are all PCUSA. The most recent is from the 1990 hymnbook. While an excellent hymn book, I wasn't so happy with the communion service. Many churches use a separate one, which is fairly close to the one that's in the new hymn book. I'll be interested to see whether the ARP picks up the 2013/14 hymn book. Our congregation is moving to it. It's got a lot of good new hymns, and the liturgy looks good.

I doubt they will.

 

[JGiddings]

As a former member of the PCA I can attest to the fact that (in the PCA) the pastor is assigned by the national and is confirmed by the local elders (more of a formality than anything.) An associate pastor is chosen by the congregation/elders from whomever "applies" for it. In our case he was an interim pastor from the local but was elevated to assistant pastor. An associate pastor is usually a "retired" pastor from a church who chooses to stay a part of the congregation. At least that's how it happened in the PCA church I attended.

 

[DannyD2]

It is not that way in the OPC for sure. We have a lot of licensed ministers without a church and some churches who haven't figured out what minister they wish to call from those ministers. A lot of those licensed ministers will get frequent calls to fill pulpits short term but it is the church who calls the pastor.

 

[JothamDavidParker]

I'm sure there are a lot of complex reasons why the PC(USA) has gone the way it has, but might one contributing factor be that so many who might have opposed the changes have split off into other groups and left their opponents in the majority in the PC(USA)?

 

[DannyD2]

Depends what you mean by left. The OPC and Westminster Seminary were formed after Gresham Machen was defrocked for refusing to support denominational missions such as those of the universalist missionary Buck. Obviously each case is different but the PC(USA) has forced some conservatives out for sure.

 

[JothamDavidParker]

I was thinking more recently. It seems a lot of congregations have been leaving for the PCA, ECO and the like.

Like I said, I'm sure there are lots of reasons, including people being forced out, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[DannyD2]

I can't speak for the PC(USA), but I'm more familiar with the liberalizing Christian Reformed Church. Pretty much every summer issues brought up at the national Synod pushing certain changes. One summer was interesting were there was a move to accept changes and then table the discussion of certain issues for five years. You have a lot of the denomination trying to hold itself together but a lot of members leave with each additional vote and language change at the synod. I suspect it is a fairly similar dynamic with the PC(USA). At denomination meetings a lot of things can happen with changes in church government and policy and those changes often cause certain members to leave.