Jeff Stivason joins us to speak about his article, “Benjamin B. Warfield and True Church Unity,” published in the Westminster Theological Journal 79 (2017): 327–43. He argues that Warfield developed a theology that requires the existence of denominations. Jeff is pastor of Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA) in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania and has joined us previously to speak about Warfield on the mode of inspiration.

Abstract

This article examines Benjamin B. Warfield’s view of church unity. Though the research explores the entire corpus of Warfield’s body of work, the primary exploration encompasses the exegesis of two articles that are almost identical and yet separated by fourteen years, “True Church Unity: What It Is,” and “Christian Unity and Church Union; Some Primary Principles.” The teaching of these writings substantiate the following claim: the progressive and constructive nature of Warfield’s understanding of theology requires the existence of denominations. The article proceeds in the following manner. First, the research focuses on Warfield’s understanding of what church unity was not according to the apostolic church. Second, having understood the unity in the negative, the article moves on to observe the ground and nature of ecclesiastical unity in the apostolic church as understood by Warfield. The third point explores the progressive and constructive nature of systematic theology and how it applies to Warfield’s understanding of ecclesiastical unity. In this point, the idea of unity and the legitimacy of denominational separation is explored and substantiated from Warfield’s perspective. The fourth and final point gives attention to the minimalism that has the power to eclipse the church’s visible unity. In particular, the failure to engage in theological inquiry grounded upon the Scriptures will hinder and even destroy the unity of the church.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Stivason, Jeff Waddington

The PCA was founded in 1973 after many conservatives left the progressive Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), which is often called the “Southern Presbyterian church.” The OPC was founded in 1936 out of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the mainline Presbyterian body of the north. The PCA and OPC share the same doctrinal standards, but other factors give rise to denominational differences. The PCA is roughly ten times larger than the OPC, and perhaps because of the size, demonstrates a greater diversity in several theological matters and worship style. I haven’t seen any empirical studies to substantiate this claim, but some contend that the OPC is generally more uniform among its congregations.

The two bodies also have slightly different ways of organizing and governing their work. The OPC, being founded immediately as a result of a controversy over foreign missions, has taken a specific approach to the foreign mission field. Whereas other missions organization focus more broadly on social justice and humanitarian efforts, the OPC is particularly focused upon planting and raising up indigenous churches. The OPC has sent many ministers along with elders and deacons to the field to support the work of the Great Commission. The OPC calls these ordained men to the work and funds them entirely and directly. Like most other missions organizations, the PCA’s Mission to the World often requires its missionaries to raise financial support. Many argue that this is more effective and leads to a greater number of missionaries being sent to the field. Others view the practice critically, believing it effectively makes “fundraiser” one of the qualifications for ministry. Regardless, the PCA and OPC partner with one another in several mission fields, encouraging one another and recognizing each other as co-laborers in the harvest.

There are other slight differences. For example, all ministers are invited to attend and participate in the PCA’s General Assembly. In the OPC, each presbytery is given a specific number of seats depending on its size, and a minister must be elected and sent by his presbytery to become a commissioner. As you’d expect, this changes the dynamics of the assembly and its related activities.

But are these matters really substantive, at least to the point that they should be a barrier to ecclesiastical union? It’s an important question that was asked and answered over forty years ago. Why didn’t the conservatives who left the PCUS join with the OPC or other churches of like faith and practice? I believe Sean Michael Lucas identifies the reason:

While many in the Machen cohort that led the OPC in its early days sought to maintain a confessional Presbyterianism for its own sake, the majority of those who helped to develop the PCA were less interested in arguing over secondary theological issues that would distract from the larger goal of evangelizing and renewing American culture. In fact, it appeared that conservatives within the PCUS were influenced more strongly by the rising “New Evangelicalism” and its luminaries, particularly Billy Graham, than by leaders or emphases from the OPC. . . . Thus, rather than link arms with smaller, separatist northern Presbyterian bodies, the founders of the PCA forged a body that would emphasize conservative doctrine for the purpose of renewing American culture (Lucas, For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America, pp. 3–4).

Lucas continues:

The PCA has sought to be evangelical Presbyterians and Presbyterian evangelicals, which has given the church a voice to the broader culture. Holding the church together has not been easy. For some, frustrations have arisen from the church’s tendency to opt for an identity that is more comprehensive than pure. Others are disappointed that the church often spends a great deal of time on relatively fine points of Reformed doctrine instead of focusing on mission, cultural engagement, or evangelism (Lucas, For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 11).

I’m sure many in the PCA would agree with Lucas’s assessment while others would cast the issue differently. Answering the question of identity with relatively diverse groups of people must be reductionistic to a degree. Lucas, however, has identified an important feature of the PCA. In comparison, a prevailing view of the OPC is that it espouses a pilgrim—rather than an evangelical—mentality. Charlie Dennison, one-time historian for the OPC, reflects on this issue:

While everyone in the OPC understands our opposition to liberalism, some have had trouble understanding the aversion that others have to evangelicalism. They have been unable to accept the conclusion of Cornelius Van Til and others that evangelicalism, as a system, is Arminian. They have been unable to accept the criticism that modern evangelicalism’s view of regeneration is subjective, incapable of rising above a personal experience of sin and grace to the level of the covenant and the federal headship of Adam and Christ. Further, they have been unable to accept the growing historical and social evidence that contemporary evangelicalism is worldly, individualistic, and adolescent, craving acceptance and desperately wanting to make an impact (Charlie Dennison, “Some Thoughts about Our Identity” in History for a Pilgrim People, p. 204).

Dennison continues:

Modern practical theology, however, has moved in a man-centered direction, having adopted a worldly agenda for remedial goals and perceivable gains. Growth and year-end statistics have become gods. Christian maturity is confused with the mastery of methods, managerial skills, and the ability to cope. Modern practical theology trivializes the biblical vision by exalting incidental matters to the level of greatest concern. This is usually done, sometimes unwittingly, through a blend of social sciences, religious technology, and commercialism. In its more tragic expressions, it is ridiculous. (Charlie Dennison, “Some Thoughts about Our Identity” in History for a Pilgrim People, pp. 205–206).

I suppose your reaction to these statements would disclose whether you’re more of the PCA or OPC persuasion. If you’re offended by Dennison’s remarks and feel that this is a pessimist and short-sighted view of ministry, you may be more of an evangelical. If you feel that Dennison is speaking to some deep part of your soul, giving voice to latent eschatological purpose, you may be a pilgrim. It’s a matter of heritage, disposition, philosophy of ministry, and eschatology. I believe Danny Olinger captured it well when he spoke of John P. Galbraith in our recent “documentary” on his life and ministry. Galbraith understood his ecumenical work within the context of a separatist church that nevertheless was not isolationist. He was an engaged pilgrim.

There are meaningful differences between the PCA and OPC, but we shouldn’t overemphasize them. The two ecclesiastical bodies are united ecumenically as closely as our polity allows. We often share pulpits among our sister churches, and many of us have been members in both denominations. We join together in substantial unity wherever and whenever we can, even while we continue to labor as two distinct ecclesiastical bodies under the same head, Jesus Christ.

I recently received the latest issue of Marquette’s journal Philosophy & Theology. In coordination with the Karl Rahner Theological Society, every other issue features a series of Rahner papers. This issue, the papers focus upon ecumenical relations and church unity. Many revisit Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility, a book co-authored by Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries and originally published just before Rahner’s death in 1984. There are several significant contributions in this volume, the first of which was written by Catherine E. Clifford, who teaches systematic and historical theology at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. She writes:

The Rahner-Fries proposal was not aimed principally at [Pentecostals and Evangelicals], but focused more on the Catholic and classical Reformation churches—Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed. Rahner and Fries were pitching to the “still separated mainline churches” (Fries and Rahner 1983, II.v,36). If their proposal were to be received today—and I believe there may be good reasons to do so—it might potentially bring about a more radical unity of the classical creedal and liturgical churches of Christianity, revealing more sharply the contrasting cultures of Orthodox-Catholic and classical Protestant Christianity versus the expanding third wave. In my view, the future shape of Christianity will be determined by a confrontation—one hopes in the context of a respectful dialogical encounter—between these broad movements. Indeed, the tensions inherent in the encounter of these ecclesial cultures are increasingly experienced within the mainline churches themselves today. Consider the rendering of the Anglican Communion, or the growing influence of evangelizing movements within Catholicism. What is at stake is the continuing claim of the churches to an uninterrupted embodiment of the apostolic witness and adherence to the fundamental truths at the heart of the early creeds. Any temptation to embark upon a polarization between those movements which would juxtapose orthodoxy and orthopraxy would risk causing a serious fragmentation of the ecumenical movement. The Rahner-Fries proposal, together with Rahner’s many writings on ecumenical theology, far from accepting such tension as inevitable, still has the potential to serve as a resource for considering how to hold together in right balance the churches’ responsibility to give common witness in a divided world, while at the same time attending to the serious work of giving an account of their common hope in theological, doctrinal, liturgical, and socio-structural form. Neither a comprehensive doctrinal unity nor a full expression of common witness has yet fully been achieved. Future progress on either count depends upon the churches’ willingness to move forward boldly in faith along the path to full communion. Qui n’avance pas recule! (Who does not advance, retreats).

— Catherine E. Clifford, “Christian Unity: A Real Possibility in the 21st Century?” Philosophy & Theology Volume 27 Number 2 (2015): 472–473

As mainline churches such as the Presbyterian Church (USA) continue to hemorrhage members, I wonder what their response will be. Large churches such as these often seek social influence as a way to deliver their message and make an impact. When the numbers continue to slide, some may seek an ecumenical means of remaining significant. It seems they would be much more motivated to unite than they were thirty years ago.

Something along the lines of what Clifford proposes might be a solution for many in the mainline Presbyterian Church. No doubt there are deep conflicts between Catholic social thought and the trends accelerating their numeric slip in mainline churches, but such a union is at least orbiting within the realm of possibility. If Clifford’s anticipated conflict occurs, ecclesial life on the other side may look vastly different. Previously insurmountable obstacles may one day be resolved through an appeal to principles such as the sensus fidei/fidelium—leading to what would indeed be a “more radical unity.”