Is classical Presbyterianism compatible with American Protestant fundamentalism?
It appears that fundamentalism has exerted a strong influence in the Presbyterian realm outside of the usually mentioned Bible Presbyterian Church. Issues of drinking, the conversion experience, and dispensationalism have penetrated Presbyterian denominations like the PCA. So, can fundamentalism and Presbyterianism coexist? As somewhat of an ex-fundy, I would like to see more done to put boundaries between the two, but I'm not sure how to proceed.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Year 1906- Union or Disunion for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church?
This will be the first of two posts regarding the 1906 Cumberland union (or failed union depending on how you think). In this post, I will give some background; the second will be an examination of a rare booklet opposing the union.
For Presbyterian/Reformed historians, 1906 was a very interesting year; two church unions happened, but both were not total unions. The dissenting groups continued on as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Church in the United States. The majority groups joined what is now the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Ecumenism may have been at a high point, but it failed to completely unite two denominations. For this post, I wanted to briefly look at the controversy surrounding the 1906 union between the Cumberland Presbyterians (CPC) and the PCUSA (Northern Presbyterians).
Founded in 1810 amid the ongoing revivals, the CPC sought to provide a Presbyterian denomination that was rooted in the revivalism of the frontier. Notably the CPC opposed parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith, particularly pertaining to the doctrine of election; the group was also more flexible in their educational standards for ministers. The denomination's strength was (and remains) in the upper South.
With ecumenical tides rising high, the PCUSA proposed a reunion with the CPC. The PCUSA, in 1903, had supposedly revised the Westminster Confession to better harmonize with the Cumberland view regarding election and infants who die. The statement is the PCUSA made is rather strange; it is a declatory statement only- the WCF officially was left untouched. It was as if the PCUSA Assembly merely wanted to correct false impressions. Reformed conservatives (Warfield) in the PCUSA strenuously opposed the measure. This was understandable, yet the irony is, that much of the Cumberland Church and the conservatives in the PCUSA both registered their disgust and saw the statement for what it was- a bridge to union, a liberty to believe virtually anything in the united PCUSA.
Leaders of the CPC and PCUSA met in St. Louis and submitted reports to their denominations in 1904. Both assemblies passed the measure and submitted it to their presbyteries. The measure easily passed the PCUSA presbyteries who were eager to work in new fields (the South was dominated by the PCUS and the CPC) and expand their denominational numbers. The Cumberland response, however, was hotly contested.
CPC opponents noted several problems: first, the doctrinal division had merely been glossed over; second, all CPC property and assets would be given to the PCUSA (complete takeover); third, the ever vexing question about blacks and their place in the church. The CPC had a separate black demonination (the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America) since 1874 appearing to fall in line with other Southern based denominations that split based on race after the Civil War. The PCUSA, however, included African-American churches and ministers in its ranks, even if it did discriminate against them as was common for the day.
When the CPC assembly met, it voted to send the matter to the presbyteries for a vote. The denominational bureaucracy was largely in favor of the union, but the presbyteries were uncertain At this point, the polity of the CPC failed. For some unknown reason, the union issue needed only a simple majority of presbyteries. Some presbyteries only had a few congregations in them while others had thousands of members. The disparity was evident, but each presbytery vote counted the same. The measure passed by a majority of six; publications claim that the actual vote (counting all commissioners to presbyteries) was 137 against union. Nevertheless, the CPC was now officially in the PCUSA, setting off a major schism.
In my next post, I will analyze a CPC publication opposing the eventual 1906 union and discuss the ramifications of the partial union.
For Presbyterian/Reformed historians, 1906 was a very interesting year; two church unions happened, but both were not total unions. The dissenting groups continued on as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Church in the United States. The majority groups joined what is now the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Ecumenism may have been at a high point, but it failed to completely unite two denominations. For this post, I wanted to briefly look at the controversy surrounding the 1906 union between the Cumberland Presbyterians (CPC) and the PCUSA (Northern Presbyterians).
Founded in 1810 amid the ongoing revivals, the CPC sought to provide a Presbyterian denomination that was rooted in the revivalism of the frontier. Notably the CPC opposed parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith, particularly pertaining to the doctrine of election; the group was also more flexible in their educational standards for ministers. The denomination's strength was (and remains) in the upper South.
With ecumenical tides rising high, the PCUSA proposed a reunion with the CPC. The PCUSA, in 1903, had supposedly revised the Westminster Confession to better harmonize with the Cumberland view regarding election and infants who die. The statement is the PCUSA made is rather strange; it is a declatory statement only- the WCF officially was left untouched. It was as if the PCUSA Assembly merely wanted to correct false impressions. Reformed conservatives (Warfield) in the PCUSA strenuously opposed the measure. This was understandable, yet the irony is, that much of the Cumberland Church and the conservatives in the PCUSA both registered their disgust and saw the statement for what it was- a bridge to union, a liberty to believe virtually anything in the united PCUSA.
Leaders of the CPC and PCUSA met in St. Louis and submitted reports to their denominations in 1904. Both assemblies passed the measure and submitted it to their presbyteries. The measure easily passed the PCUSA presbyteries who were eager to work in new fields (the South was dominated by the PCUS and the CPC) and expand their denominational numbers. The Cumberland response, however, was hotly contested.
CPC opponents noted several problems: first, the doctrinal division had merely been glossed over; second, all CPC property and assets would be given to the PCUSA (complete takeover); third, the ever vexing question about blacks and their place in the church. The CPC had a separate black demonination (the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America) since 1874 appearing to fall in line with other Southern based denominations that split based on race after the Civil War. The PCUSA, however, included African-American churches and ministers in its ranks, even if it did discriminate against them as was common for the day.
When the CPC assembly met, it voted to send the matter to the presbyteries for a vote. The denominational bureaucracy was largely in favor of the union, but the presbyteries were uncertain At this point, the polity of the CPC failed. For some unknown reason, the union issue needed only a simple majority of presbyteries. Some presbyteries only had a few congregations in them while others had thousands of members. The disparity was evident, but each presbytery vote counted the same. The measure passed by a majority of six; publications claim that the actual vote (counting all commissioners to presbyteries) was 137 against union. Nevertheless, the CPC was now officially in the PCUSA, setting off a major schism.
In my next post, I will analyze a CPC publication opposing the eventual 1906 union and discuss the ramifications of the partial union.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Greetings
Greetings Everyone!
I hope to have this blog started very soon. After finishing my MA in history (with a thesis on Southern Presbyterians), I am glad to have the opportunity to muse about some interesting facets of Presbyterianism. I will try and post at least once a week here. Feel free to comment and discuss the topics.
I hope to have this blog started very soon. After finishing my MA in history (with a thesis on Southern Presbyterians), I am glad to have the opportunity to muse about some interesting facets of Presbyterianism. I will try and post at least once a week here. Feel free to comment and discuss the topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)