Tim Keller: What’s So Great About The PCA
I thought this was a very interesting analysis over at a PCA website of the internal divisions within the PCA. While I appreciate the PCA denomination very much, and respect their work, it’s not a place that I’d like to go, and for various reasons I think Dr. Keller may be a bit too optimistic about its long-term chances of growth. But ... I could be wrong about that.
Regardless, what I liked about his analysis is that he articulates how a church that is not divided over Gospel issues [in theory, leaders of the PCA church largely believe the Gospel], yet is divided over other less significant matters, might be able to remain unified. I thought this applied very nicely to traditional Anglicans who also believe the Gospel yet have significant divisions. Keller provides some practical advice towards the end of this essay.
I also appreciated his helpful overview of the development of the different groups within the PCA and his assessment of the weaknesses and strengths of each of them.
I’m starting off with some of the initial historic overview, but the entire piece is well worth the read.
My first General Assembly was the PCA’s third, held in Jackson, Mississippi just under thirty‐five years ago. Ever since then, I’ve seen a lot of conflict in our communion. My friends in other denominations ask, ‘isn’t there something inherently wrong with a denomination that is filled with such tensions?’ Now church fights are always fueled in part by ego and spiritual immaturity, and we must all share responsibility for that. But I propose that these struggles are also a sign of something good, even uniquely good, about our denomination. I believe our conflicts lie in that we are one of the few Presbyterian denominations that hasn’t pruned off one or more of its historic branches.
Within the Reformed churches, there has always been a tension between what George Marsden calls ‘the Reformed branches’‐‐the doctrinalist, pietistic and culturalist impulses.1 (Please read this footnote.) To understand the PCA today, we must trace out the history of these branches in American Presbyterianism.
Spiritual revival and the ‘sides’ of Presbyterianism
Reformed Christianity puts a high value on the objective—on theological soundness and creedal subscription. But it has also historically given a lot of attention to the subjective. Reformed soteriology holds that salvation is not a human product—it is God’s work. This emphasis has drawn attention to the topic of spiritual experience. 2 If regeneration is strictly God’s work, it is only natural to ask how we can distinguish true, God‐ generated spiritual experience from the spurious.The Puritans attended to this subject in massive detail. A great deal of energy was given to distinguishing false professors of Christianity from those with true experience. Thomas Shepherd’s The Parable of the Ten Virgins and John Flavel’s The Touchstone of Sincerity were examples of such works, and both were quoted extensively by Jonathan Edwards in his Religious Affections.3 Many of the interests of 17th century Puritans led on directly to the emphases of 18th century revivalism. In America the European state church‐establishment and parish system was not adopted. In that older system the great majority of people in a society were literally born into their churches and grew up in them. In the more democratic ethos of America, churches had to reach out to individuals and call them to conversion through a personal decision. Reformed theology, especially of the Puritan variety, gave revivalist American preachers resources to help listeners examine their hearts, become convicted of sin, and seek true conversion.
During the 18th century in the U.S., the doctrinalist and pietist (or revivalist) impulses within the Reformed church split the church . The doctrinalists were called ‘Old Side’ and they took a dim view of revivals. They stressed the creeds and the ‘great objectivities’ of salvation, rather than a conscious conversion experience. Their ministries were based on the long, communal process of admission to sealing ordinances and catechesis. The pietists were called the ‘New Side’ and they emphasized the importance of ‘experimental acquaintance’ of the gospel. Their ministries were based more on crises, turning points, and voluntary societies. The revivalists emphasized innovative ways to evangelize individuals through measures like field preaching, outdoor meetings, and societies meeting in homes for ‘follow up’ of converts. For doctrinalists, one became a Christian by identifying with and entering the church. For them, the moment of conversion was the moment one became a Christian.
Each side developed long‐standing critiques of the other side that still resonate today. Doctrinalists felt that the pietists were too individualistic and subjective in their emphases. They felt revivalism led people to trust in their often ephemeral and passing feelings, and they felt many of the ‘conversions’ of the revivals were merely emotional experiences that would pass away. The revivals also weakened people’s connection to the institutional church. New Siders, however, felt Old Side churches contained many nominal believers who still needed to be converted. They were afraid of dead orthodoxy and a lack of evangelistic fervor. Old Siders felt many New Siders were pragmatists, and New Siders saw many Old Siders were legalists. History provides much evidence that both critiques were largely right.
Something of a compromise between these two branches happened in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. From 1741 to 1758 the Presbyterian Church existed as two denominations—the traditional and the revivalist. The Reunion of 1758 brought the two branches back together. The Old Side insisted on confessional subscription and church authority, and they got what they wanted. But, as part of the compromise, the piety of the revivals was largely embraced. The new Presbyterianism required that ministers demonstrate ‘experimental piety’ and that members be people who give evidence of a conversion experience. Leaders such as Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary articulated this Old Side/New Side synthesis in their writing and ministry.
Both of these approaches, the doctrinalist and the pietist, have chafed against one other over the years. Nevertheless, they both grow out of commonly held Reformed theology. That is why, whenever there has been a church split over such issues, and the doctrinalists have run off the pietists or vica versa, the pruned off branch often grows back within the new, more ‘pure’ denomination. Why? Both impulses come from the theology itself.
1 I am going to use George Marsden’s terminology to describe the Reformed Branches, even though they are rather bland, and each on is bit negative. Doctrinalists prefer to call themselves ‘confessionalists’ and pietists would rather talk about ‘renewal’ and the reformists or culturalists would perhaps prefer to call themselves ‘kingdom’ people. But in each case the other parties can rightly object that they believe in the confession or in spiritual renewal or in the kingdom as well, and they dislike the implication that they do not. Often the names we choose for ourselves are self‐aggrandizing while insinuating negative things about any who differ with us. My roots are in what here is called the ‘pietist’ or ‘revivalist’ wing. I wince at those terms, and would prefer a more noble name, but for the sake of fairness and utility I will use Marsden’s phraseology which is mildly insulting to everyone(!) See his essay,” Introduction: Reformed and American,ʺ in Reformed Theology in America [ed. David F. Wells; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997]2 As long as you believe (as Reformed Christians do) that regeneration and saving faith is wholly the work of God, it is inevitable that the revivalist question will keep coming up: “Many in Israel were circumcised in flesh but not circumcised in heart! Even though Nicodemus was in the covenant community, Jesus asked him if he was born again. So yes, you are in the church and you take the sacraments, but do you know that God has done a saving work in your heart?” That’s the revivalist question. Reformed theology will always produce people who keep posing this question in their preaching.
3 See Peter J. Thuesen, ed. Catalogues of Books, volume 26 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Yale, 2008) pp. 442, 460.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Not just the election, not just the “liberals”
- Aurora response shows addictive personality of liberal protestantism
- A Mother and Widow Mourns Her Slain Family
- Court Determines Church Must Shut Down
- Wild Goose: The Chase is on
- Racism that Goes Clean to the Bone
- Roman Catholic University Sued By Muslim Students For Discrimination
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
14 comments
The premise of this article is that traditional Anglicans are “not divided over Gospel issues”, which is to say, as per Keller, they all believe that “regeneration and saving faith is wholly the work of God.” She thinks this “applies very nicely to traditional Anglicans” apparently because the fruit of this I’m-OK-You’re-OK etiquette prevents, again as per Keller, traditional Anglicanism from “pruning off one or more of its historic branches.” Interesting.
[1] Posted by Aaytch on 9-20-2012 at 03:04 PM · [top]
RE: “The premise of this article is that traditional Anglicans are “not divided over Gospel issues” . . . “
Nope.
I said “I thought this applied very nicely to traditional Anglicans who also believe the Gospel yet have significant divisions.”
It does *not* apply very nicely to traditional Anglicans who do not believe the Gospel and also have significant divisions.
Note the key word “also.”
The article is useful for “traditional Anglicans who also believe the Gospel yet have significant divisions.”
So just to outline the clause:
—traditional
—Anglicans
—who also believe the Gospel
—yet have significant divisions.
RE: “Interesting.”
Certainly more so than a clueless, poor reader who toddles over to another blog periodically to behave like a buffoon, yes.
But that’s a low bar.
[2] Posted by Sarah on 9-20-2012 at 03:30 PM · [top]
Again, your summary of Keller, which you think is comparable to the situation with “traditional Anglicans”, is that Presbyterians in the PCA are “not divided over Gospel issues” but rather over “less significant matters”, and therefore they “might be able to remain unified.” If Keller is right about the usefulness of the PCA’s I’m-OK-You’re-OK etiquette, and also about its faithfulness to Gospel essentials, then perhaps he might be right to track his observations to the PCA’s continued unity. That’s a stretch, but then you take it a step further by saying that the PCA situation “applies very nicely to traditional Anglicans”.
[3] Posted by Aaytch on 9-20-2012 at 04:08 PM · [top]
As for your personal remarks about “a clueless, poor reader who toddles over to another blog periodically”, clearly you are aware of my blog, but perhaps you are not aware of the fact that I commend articles on Standfirm at least as often as I condemn them. To be blunt, it’s just your articles that I find unhelpful.
[4] Posted by Aaytch on 9-20-2012 at 04:59 PM · [top]
RE: “but perhaps you are not aware of the fact that I commend articles on Standfirm at least as often as I condemn them. To be blunt, it’s just your articles that I find unhelpful.”
It would be difficult for me to be any more indifferent to either assertion, Aaytch.
RE: “Again . . . “
; > )
Nice—you’re saying something utterly different from your first comment, but using the word “again.”
RE: “That’s a stretch, but then you take it a step further by saying that the PCA situation “applies very nicely to traditional Anglicans”.
Well actually I said that his thoughts about “how a church that is not divided over Gospel issues . . . yet is divided over other less significant matters, might be able to remain unified” applied very nicely to those traditional Anglicans who also agree on the Gospel issues but disagree on other less significant issues.
So far, Aaytch, you’re continuing to demonstrate over the years, when angry and bitter, you don’t have good reading comprehension. You’ve received multiple warnings from multiple StandFirm bloggers, and even managed to get Matt to ban you, back in 2009:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/24957
It would have been nice to get some substantive analysis on where you think the ideas of Tim Keller about holding a church together that is divided on significant issues but not gospel issues are off. That would have been a significant disagreement since I think otherwise.
It would have been nice to get some substantive analysis on how you think the ideas Tim Keller offers to the PCA can’t be applied to traditional Anglicans who agree on Gospel issues but disagree on less substantive issues. That would have been a significant disagreement since I think otherwise.
It would have been nice to hear even some thoughts about where Keller’s analysis about the PCA differences is historically or theologically off-base as well. That would have been a significant disagreement since I think Tim Keller is pretty close, with some quibbles.
But, once again, you couldn’t supply any of those things. You could only troll, and try to bring up your age-old issues with most traditional Anglicans—of any stripe—in the US.
We all see that nothing’s changed. Maybe you’ll feel better with a few more years away.
[5] Posted by Sarah on 9-20-2012 at 05:48 PM · [top]
Thanks for this, Sarah. I won’t have time to read Tim (‘his’ for others) Keller’s article right now, but will do so hopefully sometime this weekend.
FWIW, I do believe that denominations in NAPARC need to do a little bit of pruning over the Theonomy thing. I don’t see it happening anytime soon, however, which will drive off the people who eat soup with a spoon. Of course, the other folks don’t have good answers to the salt and light questions that the former group brings up. So…
[6] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-21-2012 at 06:33 AM · [top]
Thanks Moot—you’re one of the people I thought of when I posted this.
I’m hoping that if some current or former PCAers read this they can offer some thoughts about whether Keller’s reading of their history and his analysis of their conflicts is fairly close or not. I’ve never been PCA, but I’ve listened to a lot of friends who are in that denomination and have always been interested in what they’re up to, since there seems to be good integrity in that denomination.
[7] Posted by Sarah on 9-21-2012 at 07:28 AM · [top]
Would that I lived in an Episcopal Diocese where my leadership was made up of traditional Anglicans who also believe the Gospel yet have significant divisions.
[8] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-21-2012 at 07:44 AM · [top]
One thing I’ll add as I’m reading this - the paper refers to Francis Shaeffer and Van Til independently. Van Til was Shaeffer’s teacher, and although the two have some apologetic differences (Shaeffer’s orange is half the size of Van Til’s), you can see the influence. In one of his better reads, Gary North points out this tie in the chapter, “The case of the missing footnotes,” in his critique of Westminster seminaries.
[9] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-21-2012 at 04:18 PM · [top]
Great line:
“Between seasons of controversy over a particular issue each branch seethes with quiet fear and anger about the others.”
[10] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-21-2012 at 04:22 PM · [top]
Another:
“I once heard Dick Gaffin of Westminster Seminary say that he had never seen a protracted theological controversy that wasn’t to a significant degree a personality clash as well as a theological clash.”
[11] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-21-2012 at 04:31 PM · [top]
RE: “I’ve listened to a lot of friends who are in that denomination and have always been interested in what they’re up to, since there seems to be good integrity in that denomination. “
N.T. Wright is a big chaffing point (i.e., Justification), as is Theonomy. Not sure where Keller would come in on these - maybe he’s still an accomodationist when it comes to these things. At any rate, I do believe that both areas are deliterious to Reformed Christians, and not just if they are Theonomists. Misty Irons is a case in point. Her rejection of Theonomy combined with a lack of a better cultural answer from the Westminster crowd, imho, led to her embracing libertarian precepts: Yes, let’s love them by leaving them to their devices while they go to Hell, the dears.
It’s a Gospel thing. Would someone struggling with homosexuality feel welcome at your church? It’s either yes or no, and quite often the answer is no. An open minded elder might be able to make waves over this, but then he’s apt to set off the Theonomists. And the mindset of many is to accomodate the Theonomists. After all, they believe in the creeds and the Reformed confessions.
Its the Peace in Their Time. It’s not going to last. It can’t.
[12] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-21-2012 at 04:49 PM · [top]
Sarah,
Thank you for bringing this insightful article to our attention. Although there are some points of divergence between the orthodox Anglican and Presbyterian experiences in this country, I think there are many parallels and much we can learn from each other along the way.
My parents attend an EPC congregation in the Charlotte NC area, and when I listen to their story which involved a brave stand for the Gospel, the departure from a mainline denomination, a new start and all the pain and opportunity that comes from all that… well, its hard not to see that as an ACNA priest, I share something in common with these brothers. (one could look to PCUSA and see those who are called to witness from within that denomination, and see parallels to the remnant within TEC as well)
Hopefully, the learning from one another will help each of our churches from repeating the mistakes of the other. That’s my hope, in any event
Bob
[13] Posted by Father Bob Hackendorf on 9-21-2012 at 08:11 PM · [top]
Spent some time thinking about this last night and this morning. I came back to a realization that I had when I first was dragged into Anglicanism. At it is this - Anglicans and the conservative Reformed have a lot to offer one another. My recent thought-exeriment was what it would be like to have Presbyterians and Anglicans extend their own tents to cover one another - what “Big-Tent Angliterianism,” if you will, might be like.
In many areas, the strengths of one, compliments the weakness of the other. Presbyterians take for-ev-er to handle anything. Bishops can get a lot done on the fly. Anglican laity tend to let things happen to them. Presbyterian laity stand up and are counted. Also, can I say it? Presbyterian sermons are better in sooooo many ways. Frankly, I don’t know how you guys stand it.
And there are some controversies in Presbyterianism, that might be moderated (though not completely put to rest) by the Anglicans. The Book of Common Prayer would do a lot to moderate the controversies over the Regulative Principal amongst the Reformed. Why? It has more scripture-based worship in it than the average Presby worship service. With that said, the Exclusive Psalmists would have to grit their teeth while the rest of the congregation sang something other than Psalmody; and the EP’s who reject musical instruments in worship well .. they would probably be s.o. luck altogether. Well .. probably a wee bit more than ‘probably,’ at that.
On cultural matters, it is true that Theonomy has made some inroads into Anglicanism; but from what I can tell, Anglicanism is a shallow and rocky ground for it. For lots of reasons I won’t go into right now.
Two things that might hold up a merger, though, and that would be paedocommunion and the verboten subject that starts with the letter immediately preceeding the letter ‘x’.
I would suggest that Presbyterian and Anglican parishes do exchanges. Form a joint bowling team or golf league. Have one family from each parish attend the other for a month, and then meet on a Sunday night and compare notes before a joint worship service.
[14] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-23-2012 at 06:46 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.