Responding to Joe Small: On Bitter Schism

In the interest of constructive dialogue, I would like to respond to the “Open Letter” written by Joseph D. Small and published yesterday in The Presbyterian Outlook.

First, a little background and an affirmation: I have been acquainted with Joe for many years most especially through our participation in a Reformed dialogue on the Sacraments in Geneva in the late 1990s. I last spoke to him at breakfast in Minneapolis during the August Gathering of Presbyterians. The grief he expressed then and now about the divide in the PCUSA is based on a grounded orthodox understanding of our faith and heritage. He is a steady guy, a thorough thinker, and a patient, devoted Christian. I think the world of him, and was glad to see his name on the New Reformed Body theological statements released last week.

Joe makes three points I would like to comment on, having to do with bitter schism, naming essential tenets, and possible historic missteps. In the interest of limiting the length of my posts, I’ll take these one at a time this week.

Schism. Joe mentions three significant separations, dating back to the 1930s (Orthodox), 1960s and 70s (PCA), and 1980s (EPC). Each of these peeled away from the UPCUSA the most conservative congregations so that what reunited with the PCUS in 1983 was a more liberal church than the Northern stream of the early 1860s. (One recalls the “North-South” split ostensibly caused by the Civil War but with deep theological issues at the root.) He characterized these separations as “bitter” and admonishes the church, if it is to differentiate now, to avoid the bitterness of the past. He is, of course, justified in giving this caution; but it is a tough sell.

While not intending to avoid the charge of bitterness, we should at least take a look at what bitterness is and whether it is bitterness or something else we have been experiencing together. In English usage, the word bitterness is defined as “marked by intensity or severity” as in relentlessly determined (partisanship), animosity (enemies), cynicism and rancor (contempt), among other usages. The NT biblical word translated “bitterness” is pikrias, which points to envy or resentment, the sort of rancor that is held and fed and (as envy is a ‘deadly sin’) leads to other sins. We are admonished in Scripture to “get rid of all bitterness and anger” (Eph. 4:31). It is a poison that erodes one’s spirit, most certainly.

In an unsolicited dialogue with PCAers in the last year, I can attest that this sort of poison exists in the wider Body of Christ over some issues like the women’s question and über Calvinism. But disagreement within the family, in and of itself, does not have to be bitter, and separation from the PCUSA is not by its very nature bitter though bitterness is always a temptation. As Joe suggests, we must do what we must do without rancor and without bitterness. But this means honestly held convictions expressed with civility and processed respectfully must not be attacked but must be accepted as the expression of conscience. The Book of Order guarantees as much, and allows that conscience may in fact require an individual to leave the Presbyterian fold.

What is problematic, and the issue Joe is raising methinks, is when an entire congregation feels its conscience has been violated, not just individuals who are free to leave at any time.  The system makes it extraordinarily difficult for a congregation to act as a unit, giving all benefit to the denomination in times of division. The ensuing arguments pit a loyal PCUSA minority against a disenfranchised majority (in the case where the vote to leave is not unanimous), in many cases awarding to the minority all visible forms of church (property). An insistence upon this arrangement by presbyteries rubs salt in an open wound, cripples the ability of a majority to carry on in ministry, and gives evidence that the issue is money and power, not ministry.

Joe makes the assertion that “these divisions have resulted in the multiplication of weakened churches and the diminution of credible Reformed witness to the gospel in America.” I would simply ask if statistics are available to prove this. I do not doubt that within the PCUSA this is true. But is it really a loss to credible Reformed witness in America if PCA and EPC churches are more vital and growing than ever as a result? [I do not know this is true, but would welcome evidence one way or the other.] Only if one considers the PCUSA to be the only Reformed witness around! And finally, as to evidence, how does the decline of PCUSA churches compare with the status of other denominations and non-denominational churches? If our decline is steeper than others, or if it is consistent with other denominations, that tells us something about factors going way beyond schism to explain the weakening of churches.

But surely, churches are weakened and the Kingdom of God suffers a terrible loss when property issues bankrupt a thriving congregation, put a large property in the hands of a few remaining members and perhaps as a remedy is sold for other uses. The “narrower divide” Joe seeks would be much more attainable if we took competition for resources out of the equation.

Tomorrow: Identification of Essential Tenets of Reformed Faith