To Leave or Not to Leave: That Is the Question

The “organized church” of the twenty-first century is a far cry from the fledgling association evident a few decades after Christ’s Ascension. The Christian Church has seen the East/West split between Catholic and Orthodox in 1054, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, and the continued delineation of Christian tribes by theological emphasis since then. Does the existence of these denominations indicate that the Church of Jesus Christ has failed or that it exists in a perpetual less-than-God-glorifying state? This is an important point to ponder. If the answer is “Yes,” then any consideration of breaking from the PCUSA—with the possible exception of returning to the Catholic fold— falls under the category of disobedience.

But I think the answer is “No,” because there is a legitimate positive way of looking at the differentiation between denominations. I think Paul’s concept of spiritual gifts gives a framework for understanding the special gifts and callings of groups of Christians as much as it does for individual believers. While believing that no denomination is doctrinally perfect, pure, or complete, I also believe that the world-wide Church demonstrates a vast diversity of ministry emphasis, governing style, worship structures, and theological distinctives through its denominations. I also believe that there are orthodox (small ‘o’) Christians in every denominational group (and non-denoms, too); some may feel themselves to be a remnant, but they are there. Their association with a theologically errant body does not automatically mean they too are errant (they may be, but they are not so merely by association).

A person might shift from one denomination to another because one desires to be reinforced in one’s beliefs as they have evolved over time, like I did when I changed lanes from Catholicism to the Presbyterian Church in 1974. It might simply be a matter of preferring one method of governance over another, one theological emphasis over another, or one “personality type” over another (for instance, the more affective worship style over a cognitive style). I see these choices, for the most part, as morally neutral shifts so long as the believer making them is focused on obedience and service to Jesus Christ and not merely upon personal ease, demand for perfection, or avoidance of conflict.

Embedded in our Historic Principles of Church Order is the basic acknowledgment that the Presbyterian denomination is not the only legitimate face of Christ’s Body here on earth. If a person chooses to leave, the PCUSA does not condemn that person as leaving the Church Universal but gives a blessing to accompany transfer to a different tribe.

Here is the problem: many evangelicals I have talked to are disgusted by the doctrinal left-turn the denomination has recently taken. Some are heartsick by the adoption of worldly values by the church. Others are frustrated that a conservative-evangelical teaching framework is ridiculed, dismissed, or overruled. They really do not feel welcome, and feel the pressure to leave and “shake the dust off their feet” (Lk 9:5). I confess that I am very tempted by the line of thinking that says, “With these recent decisions, the denomination has departed from our biblical and Reformed heritage; with that rejection, we have no other choice but to turn them over to their own way and move on. We should find other like-minded Reformed people to fellowship with.” Personally, this feeling is completely understandable to me, though it grieves me to say so. And I may still get there some day, but not yet.

Another way of looking at the dilemma evangelical Presbyterians face is this: The PCUSA problem is not caused by us who hold to biblical and confessional standards; the problem is generated by those who are promoting a “progressive” theology (I put the word in quotes because I believe it actually to be regressive theology going back to the Garden: “Did God really say . . . ?”). Why should we orthodox people be the ones to leave? We have not departed from the historic faith; we have remained faithful to the clear teaching of Scripture and repentant when we have sinned. We are not relentlessly pushing the doctrinal envelope to see how much divergence we can get away with. We most closely identify with the historic Presbyterian Church. So why should we be the ones to leave? This was John Stott’s argument in the late 1960s contra Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the Anglican/Evangelical controversy. Stott never left the Anglican Church—and was soundly criticized by some evangelicals for not doing so— and yet is credited with fostering a robust evangelical movement that has given faithful witness to Jesus Christ for decades.

So the question: Should a theological conservative leave the liberal PCUSA? Following my reasoning from yesterday’s post and today’s addition, one could say, “No, not unless they throw you out. Stay and find your mission field where you are. There are plenty of people to be converted right here in the PCUSA. Preach the Word, demonstrate the Kingdom of God, stand for what is right, and practice church discipline in fulfillment of your ordination vows.” On the other hand, if one were sorely tempted to adopt a sinful lifestyle unacceptable to God by remaining in close proximity to those engaged in it, then one must flee to a safer pasture.

The sadness in all of this is that individual church members have reason to lose patience and seek a remedy they can live with. They may be told, “You can’t leave the PCUSA,” but more than one has replied, “The *#&* I can’t!” And out the door they go, either to another congregation they perceive to be “better” or to nowhere, in complete disillusionment. This dynamic is going to kill the PCUSA (and, frankly, other denominations as well) unless we can find a way to repent as a denomination and return to our biblical roots and our Reformed Heritage.

Tomorrow, I would like to pause and reflect on our situation from a global perspective, from an angle my readers might not expect.