The Divided Church: Moving Liberals and
Reviewed by Robert P. Mills, April 4, 2000
It is refreshing to read a book that in Chapter 1 has one author identifying himself as an evangelical, the other identifying herself as a liberal, and both briefly articulating the theological beliefs that give meaning to those terms.
It is noteworthy that the evangelical requires only five pages to uphold the essential tenets of historic Christianity while the liberal takes nearly twice as many to explain why she does not.
And it is not necessary to read beyond this chapter to understand why no amount of dialogue will ever bridge the divisions within the Presbyterian Church (USA).
That is not to say that The Divided Church is not worth reading. On the contrary, it is a candid snapshot of the diverging theologies now warring within mainline American denominations.
To be sure, the authors, both PCUSA members, clearly state that their book is a sociological, not theological, analysis. (After the self-introductions, only one of the remaining 13 chapters is devoted to theology.) Still, the picture that emerges as their work progresses is of two peoples divided by a common theological language. Words like God, Jesus, Spirit, faith, love, Scripture, tradition, authority, church, evangelism and justice are used by both evangelicals and liberals, but their respective definitions of such terms are often mutually exclusive.
One example
To cite just one example, sprinkled throughout this book is the phrase “the authority of Scripture.” Evangelicals consider Scripture to be God’s self-revelation. Liberals view Scripture as a record of human attempts to reach out and touch the divine. Dialogue won’t bridge that gap. Either one side capitulates or denominational divisions widen as incompatible beliefs are put into simultaneous practice.
The more problematic part of this phrase is “the authority,” the trouble lying less with noun than the article. Evangelicals stand firmly with the consensus of the Church and insist that Scripture is the authority in matters of Christian faith and practice. Liberals bend the knee to relativism and opine that Scripture is an authority, on a par with other religious writings, ranking beneath the authority of individual experience. Again, no compromise is possible.
Each word listed above is similarly freighted with similarly disjunct definitions. Such dichotomies highlight the greatest failing of The Divided Church – its premise. Both authors insist that those who uphold the authority of Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church and those who find them to be unnecessary need each other.
But there are no Biblical or theological grounds for arguing that evangelicals who remain within what some have called classical Christianity (see book review column), need those who have departed from it. Similarly, while liberals may find evangelicals useful for maintaining church-like façades, staffing patterns in denominational headquarters show that liberals see little need for evangelicals within their institutions. The argument that the PCUSA needs both those who accept and those who reject historic Christian faith and practice is pure (and arguably poor) sociology.
Admirable clarity
Hutcheson and Schriver have interviewed articulate representatives from the evangelical and liberal wings of the PCUSA. They have produced a logically arranged, carefully balanced compilation of their findings, complete with illuminating case studies. And, despite their avowedly sociological intent, they have deftly documented that what separates liberals from evangelicals is theology.