Neo-Fundamentalism Must Not Prevail in the PCA

A friend and colleague in ministry is moving from the Presbyterian Church in America to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a move not all that uncommon in the relationship between these two vibrant denominations. Allow me to quote him, “And what was the first reaction to my announcement that I was excited to join the EPC (with no reference at all to the PCA)? A message from a PCA guy who I do not know saying he was excited that I was leaving the PCA. Lovely.”

The message wasn’t “Thank you for all your years of faithful labors; I am so excited about your next chapter, praying for your fruitfulness.” No, it was more like, “Just writing to let you know how excited I am that you’re finally taking your impure self out of of my pristine pasture. Don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out.”

I’m confident that the message began with the word “Brother.”

We’ve got a problem in the PCA. It’s relational toxicity masquerading as spirituality, and we have to address it. This problem is far more cultural than it is theological; at its root, it is spiritual, not ecclesiastical. If we want to forge a new unity, we have to find ways to help one another work together across a variety of differences for the greater good of the Kingdom.

Blessing and Building

You can bless any believer, but you can’t build with every believer. Building together takes 1) confessional commitment - deep agreement on particular dogmatic formulations; and 2) cultural commitment - ways of living out that shared faith in relationships and mission. While every church has key doctrinal positions it confesses, it also has a unique culture that is very visible and tangible. A church’s culture can be seen in how it conducts worship, the tone of its communication, how members relate to one another, and the church’s relationship to the rest of society. More than doctrine, culture often defines a church.

We can see the difference in something as simple as the Lord’s Supper. All Christians believe in the Lord’s Supper, but the variety of practices churches use to celebrate that feast is as varied as the whole scope of the denominational spectrum. All Christians believe in congregational singing in worship, but the style of music plays a vital role in distinguishing one church from the other. It isn’t just unity in belief, but unity in ways of doing things that foster a strongly built community and helps to define a church culture.

We must have Confessional & Dogmatic affirmations because these are (largely) settled and therefore capable of providing a foundation in truth that transcends generations and nations. We also need ways and means of living those truths we confess, and these invariably differ across people and times. Because these ‘ways’ are flexible, they can embrace very different people with the unchanging truth of the One Savior.

The Wrong Boundaries

When people make the confessional commitments of their church the only basis of shared mission & friendship with other Christians, they draw the circle too small. There are broad dogmatic commitments (The Apostles & Nicene Creed, for instance) and more narrow ones as well (Westminster). While narrow confessional commitments define church relationships that are built together in denominations & single congregations, broader confessional agreements allow for building partnerships together in the mission that transcend denominational or congregational boundaries. 

Both narrow and broad approaches allow for building but in different kinds of structures. The narrow-circle approach draws boundaries for a church, and the broad-circle approach might draw boundaries for an adoption agency, city-wide prayer gathering, or similar effort.

However, defining the culture is critical because asking confessional standards to explain the whole of life is asking them to do something they were not designed to do. The composer writes the music for the band, but other artists must play it, sing, and dance. Composers and musicians both need one another, and both are artists, despite the differences in their work. Long-term building together depends on culture, the way the music is played, as well as the original score. There has to be unified culture as well as a unified confession. Conflict in either will mean the eventual demise of the relationship or structure.

What is Culture?

Culture has to do with the tone that dominates relationships, ways of handling conflict, posture towards non-members, the relationship between the theological commitments arising from the Scriptures, and the relational virtues that are the fruit of the Spirit's work in the soul.

When people make a shared culture the only basis of their fellowship and mission, they forget that culture arises from theological roots and principles, that doctrine really does have consequence, here and now, as well as hereafter and forever. When this occurs, a drift into doctrinal infidelity will soon come into view on the horizon, arriving so quietly and comfortably that community members will not realize that it is already too late to save the ship from the wave that’s about to swallow it.

When people make a shared confession the only basis of their fellowship and mission, they close their eyes to how much culture they are creating or sustaining to live out the truths they confess. Often they can’t see how that culture is so determinative for how people may enter that fellowship and how they are treated within it. Ignoring these apparent matters, they confuse their culture with the Confession and make keeping the tradition more important than the truth they claim to be preserving. When that occurs, the community cannot help but grow small and exclusive, inevitably declining and dying.

Both dogma and culture are why we have to face the primary enemy looking to undo the fellowship enjoyed by the members, ministers, and churches in the Presbyterian Church in America. That enemy is Fundamentalism. 

Fundamentalism as Culture

Fundamentalism claims to be about dogma. Its proponents assert that they are for the truth, and those who disagree are compromised. Yet, fundamentalism is more about culture and practice than dogmatic position.

While fundamentalism is never about some broad theological agreement, neither is it about narrow theological fidelity. In fact, it is about an internal culture of hostility, fear, aggression, and domination. To be sure, fundamentalism draws narrow dogmatic circles and makes those the boundaries of all fellowship, work, and, often, shared mission. But it is also characterized by a posture of aggression, superiority, and exclusion rather than humility, service, & embrace. 

As such, fundamentalism can be Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic. While they might all exclude one another in their fundamentalist forms, they share a common culture of hateful exclusion, self-righteous suspicion of those in their ranks who demonstrate a lack of loyalty, and some form of relationship with the wider society that is either threatening (Holy War) or threatened (Separatism).

Historically, US Fundamentalism was as separatist as it was absolutist. Since the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980s, however, fundamentalism has developed a Dominionist variety that seeks to establish a “Christian Nation” politically rather than simply check out & wait for the end. That development is crucial.

This is a new variety of fundamentalism, replete with all of the old anger and sense of aggrieved disenfranchisement, but now motivated by a desire to walk the corridors of power and reimpose a way of life that the prevailing secularist society has cast aside. This is neo-fundamentalism, and it is eating Evangelicalism for breakfast.

There are further characteristics of the neo-fundamentalist culture. These include its refusal to recognize second-level theological truths (all aspects of doctrine are first-level, and all must agree on all points or be excluded & silenced);  a sense of superiority towards other Christian groups (especially those in close proximity but not rigid conformity to their positions); and constant internal conflict arising from its leaders always working to find the next enemy to fight, the next danger to oppose, and the next infection to drive out so the group can maintain cohesion. Fundamentalism eats its own and inevitably falls under the weight of its own culture of conflict. 

Of course, fundamentalist culture should have no place in what was once known as an “Evangelical” denomination or church. Indeed, Evangelicalism arose as a response to the fundamentalist mindset, opposing its distinctive approach. However, the fundamentalist impulse has always sought to poison & undermine the pursuits of Evangelicals building together. The two cannot coexist. 

This is precisely why neo-fundamentalism is creating havoc in the PCA. It was surely there from the very outset, and from time to time sought to redefine the denomination. It seeks to narrow, silence, and exclude, all in the name of fidelity (and who can argue against fidelity). Its posture is exclusive, angry, hostile, and suspicious, and always looking for the next fight, the next danger to warn about, all in an endless war for truth, marching under the banner of asking for the ancient paths. I stand at the same intersection and believe in those paths too, but surely those ways are as much about the kindness of God as they are the truth of God.

While culture warriorism exists in the PCA and is certainly problematic as well, the biggest battle is the one for the culture within the PCA itself. I believe that the various tribes in the PCA must each recover a culture marked more by the Spirit's fruit than their own displeasure with their nearest neighbors or they will all soon discover that their shared theological commitments were unable to sustain their mission and the cohesion of what they sought to build together.

Building Together

Again, you can bless all but only build with some. To build together takes shared truth and shared culture. The PCA must embrace both. The culture of the PCA must not be marked by neo-fundamentalism's angry condescension and exclusionary impulse. We must have a culture marked by the fruit of the Spirit, by a new generosity of heart, concern for the world rather than hostility towards it, and a renewed commitment to the hard work needed for unity instead of surrendering to pettiness and division.

Our problem isn't about dogmatic agreement; it’s about culture. The PCA enjoys shared theological commitments that are narrow enough to define us as a church and broad enough in application to permit wide partnerships in the Gospel wherever we serve. But our culture is broken and the agent of this shattering is a Presbyterian form of neo-fundamentalism. The issue at hand is whether this spirit will triumph in our approach to one another and our Confession or whether a more gracious spirit will prevail. It is about whether we will honor one another or seek to fight with one another constantly.

Some fights are good fights and they’re needed for the sake of the Gospel. Indeed, unity in conflict is vital for the health of the church at times. Yet the Gospel doesn't hinge on every issue, and those who live as though it does will live in constant battle with their brothers and sisters. I believe we can yet find the ways to work together in humble service and recover a culture that honors our theological commitments while seeking a community that is strong in faith, hope, and love. 

It's time for a "swords into plowshares" day to dawn in the PCA. I  don't know that those who hold to strict subscription - or its defacto form of forbidding the teaching of allowable exceptions - can stay in community with good faith subscription brothers and build together. Perhaps not. But I hope so.  After all, both love the Lord Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, and his Church. Both are committed to the Great Commission. Both need one another. But neither can be animated by the condescending spirit of neo-fundamentalism. Fundamentalism has no place in our fellowship and will surely displace many. Indeed, that has already begun.

Previous
Previous

Churches and the Architecture of Hope

Next
Next

Why Some Churches are in Trouble (And the Remedy)