When the 222nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – called “GA” – meets in Portland, Ore., it will consider literally hundreds of items of business. The high profile items (typically related to morals or politics) will be reported by the national media and on this web site. Included in the GA’s packed agenda are several events recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Confession of 1967. These are unlikely to get much attention by the national media, but will be celebrated often by the 594 commissioners and the 198 advisory delegates to the assembly who report their experiences in their home presbyteries and local churches. The advance synopses of these events suggest they will treat C-67, as the Confession of 1967 is often called, quite favorably. Nonetheless, history shows there is little reason to celebrate.
C-67 was written in response to an action begun in 1958 to produce a statement of faith that would update the Westminster Shorter Catechism into contemporary language. The committee instead wrote a totally new statement that varied from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Their report was first presented to GA in 1965 but took its name from the year in which it was adopted.
Adopted by both of the pre-reunion branches of the PCUSA, C-67 was billed as a “modern statement of faith” and was eventually adopted by an overwhelming majority of the presbyteries. Even so, it was not without controversy then and it ushered in an extended unbroken period of membership losses that have now seen the departure of about 63 percent of PCUSA membership.
Most notable among the controversies in C-67 was a statement that reflected a broad departure of the Presbyterian understanding of the authority of Scripture. A key was this statement from C-67:
“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.” [Book of Confessions 9.29, emphasis added]
That statement stands in stark contrast with the words throughout the Bible attesting to a much higher authority of scripture. These statements may be found throughout Scripture – one theologian listed forty-seven such references – but consider these two key statements about what the Bible says about the authority of Holy Scripture:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV]
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” [2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV]
By saying Scripture was “the words of men,” C-67 opened the door for other people to redefine Scripture – even when its meaning was crystal clear – to other meanings that better fit their agenda.
“C-67 was the first step of many in a departure from the historical standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, said Matthew A. Johnson, chair of the board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee (PLC). “It took the denomination from relying on Scripture as its source of authority to everyone doing what was right in his own eyes.
In fact, the PLC was begun over this controversy. We said then that this statement in C-67 was not consistent with Holy Scripture and was blasphemous. We said then that this outright disobedience to God’s teachings would bring punishment upon our denomination and we called for repentance and reform. We have not ceased our prayers that reform would come and we urge all Presbyterians to pray that the upcoming GA will truly mark the beginning of that new reformation.
It is an historical fact that the pre-reunion denominations of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which experienced numerical growth each year from 1960 to 1965, have never seen a year of positive growth since! The total membership of the pre-reunion PCUSA, which stood at 4,158,127 in 1965 is now 1,572,660 and the rate of loss has accelerated since 2012 when the ordination standards and the definition of marriage were changed. Projections indicate that in about 2024, the PCUSA membership will drop below 1-million members.
Obviously it cannot be proven that the continuing five decades of membership losses can be attributed solely to C-67. PCUSA officials, including most local pastors, cite a myriad of other reasons that range from the local economy and a general malaise in society about religion. The early church, however, viewed numerical growth as a sign of God’s approval of their work. (See Acts 11:21).
A well-known Presbyterian theologian once remarked that a dying organization will say yes to anything in a futile attempt to save itself. That’s how we, at the Presbyterian Lay Committee view many of the controversial actions of recent GA’s and we caution that the upcoming GA may be no exception.
We need to pray for the commissioners to the 222nd GA and for our denomination and its leaders at all levels. We need to be concerned, as we may have a rough road ahead.
________________
Suggested further references:
Read John 10:22-42, esp. 34-39. “Scripture cannot be set aside,” (v.35)
Check this web site for regular updates from the General Assembly
For a current example of efforts to further “amend” Scripture, look up http://tinyurl.com/zovxtuv or http://tinyurl.com/p28dsg5
Robert B. Fish has served as a board member of the Presbyterian Lay Committee since 1994. He served as clerk of session, a member of his presbytery’s General Council and its Permanent Judicial Commission and he was a commissioner to the 202nd General Assembly (1990).
13 Comments. Leave new
In contrast to the statement written into the Confession of 1967 §9.29, John Calvin wrote, “This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” (Commentary on II Tim. 3.16)
This article makes weak arguments and fails to make crucial distinctions.
(1) Yes, it is an obvious fact that many in the PCUSA have distorted the implications of the C-67 statement on Scripture to justify doing whatever they want with Scripture, including ignoring it altogether.
(2) But the statement itself is accurate and faithful to Scripture. 2 Tim. 3 claims that all Scripture is God-breathed, not that all Scripture is the plenary expression of God’s divine thoughts in ahistorical acultural heavenly language (and what resources would we have for translating such a language?!). The choice of that very expression “God-breathed” implies that God breathes into something, namely “the words of men.”
And pay attention to the emphatic sentence end-placement of the word “men” (anthropoi) in the Greek of 2 Peter 1 – “carried along by the Holy Spirit human beings spoke from God.” The emphasis expresses a kind of awe and wonder that it is human beings (“the words of men”!) that are capable of serving as a conduit for expressing the thoughts of God.
It does deserve awe. And, though some people may not like it, it deserves the work of scholars of language, history, literature and culture. Unfortunately, we must endure countless abuses by those who sophistically distort such scholarship toward their own agendas; but that fact does not deny that the Bible requires interpretation, translation and theological application from ancient contexts into our own.
Jesus Christ, who is the living Word of God, was (and is) at the same time 100% fully human and 100% fully divine, without contradiction or separation or confusion. Why would it surprise or confuse us that Scripture, the Written Word, might be 100% fully human words and yet 100% fully inspired divine words – without contradiction, separation, or confusion? The humanness of Scripture in no way cancels the divine inspiration of Scripture.
It is true that many pastors and theologians have distorted the “human side” of Scripture in order to write off what they don’t like or disagree with. But that was certainly not what Dr. Ed Dowey, the principle author of C67 meant or believed. He was a humble and deeply devout follower of Christ, with a high regard for Scripture. At the beginning of every seminar on Calvin he taught, he would read the nature and attributes of God in either the Institutes or the Westminster Confession…and never failed to get choked up and teary-eyed at the majesty and sovereignty of God.
But then, 2 Peter 3.15-16 would remind us that some people, if they are so-inclined, will even distort the very words of Scripture to say what they want – “twist to their own destruction” the text warns.
Anyway, C67 doesn’t deserve the calumny that gets heaped upon it, nor is it the cause for PSUSA membership losses. I would wish for a more balanced appraisal.
“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (I Thess. 2.13; emphasis added)
Whatever efficacy, affect, or value the C67 has on the body is mitigated by its two fatal flaws. It is but one chapter in a book, Book of Confessions, that is ignored, abused, forgotten by the councils of the entities charged with its safe keeping, or only brought out of the dusty shelf when it seek to serve their own narrow selfish self interests. Also it is the possession, or captive if you will, of an organization that is in systemic collapse. When the PCUSA is absorbed into another organization, fades away, drops off the ledge, gives up the ghost, the C67 goes the same way. Will it have the legs of Westminster, Scotts, or even Barmen, ahh the answer is no. Will it even have the staying power of the works of C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity” or “Miracles” Ahh, no again.
Celebrate all one wishes, it is whistling past the grave yard. And like TV dinners, bell bottom pants, mood rings (sorry 1970s) it is an artifact of a certain era and time. And that it remains. Much like the forgotten, dusty works of a Tillich, sort of dated and not of real value.
The Confession of 1967 statement on Scripture is deeply problematic. It opens the door to placing scholarship on a truth plane above the core truths of Christianity. Hence, it’s easy to understand why some lifelong PCUSA members continue to confess the Apostle’s Creed, despite doubting or disbelieving the Virgin Birth. Scholarship should always reinforce fundamental Christian beliefs, never undermine them.
So, why are PCUSA congregations joining the ECO, with the same Book of Confessions as the denomination they are leaving?
The EPC would have been a better option, because they have only the Westminster Standards (though in modified and weakened form) as their confession.
I remember Dr. George E. Sweazey (UPCUSA Moderator in 1969, and homiletics professor at Princeton Seminary) say in a PTS chapel service in 1971, “The UPCUSA is no longer a confession church, having adopted the Confession of 1967 and included it in a Book of Confessions.”
Can anyone tell us what are “the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions” “sincerely received and adopted” by all PCUSA officers?
Without a clear theological standard that is understood, honestly subscribed to and enforced, a denomination lacks discipline, one of the essential marks of a true church.
Congregations now leaving the denomination should have seen the handwriting on the wall in 1967 or before.
Yes, but now you have to interpret the Scripture:
(a) You seem to want 1 Thess. 2:13 to mean that Paul and his companions made no conscious choices in vocabulary, rhetoric, metaphor, etc. to communicate the Word of God. They entered a kind of trance, perhaps, in which God spoke directly through them, like the Greeks believed about the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. God Himself, without mediation, chose every word, sentence structure, image, etc. Paul just listened as the words flowed out of his mouth. Or am I misinterpreting your intent?
(b) I, however, understand Paul to be saying that the message (the logos) was not something they just made up as an interesting theory or emotionally compelling myth; they were proclaiming something that came from God Himself. Look again, and you’ll see that he is in fact marveling at the same paradox that Peter marvels at in 2 Pet. 1. You heard a word “from us” he says, but it was “really” –simultaneously, beneath the surface of a human being consciously formulating words — the word of God to those believers.
Well put, sir. Well put.
Near as I can tell, the ECO is the PCUSA minus gay pastors. Other than that, they don’t seem to have wandered far from the mother ship. I’m EPC.
Mr. Hawthorne,
“As for you, you meant (Heb. chashab) evil against me, but God meant (Heb. chashab; same word) it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” (Gen. 50.20)
If Joseph’s brothers intended evil toward him by conspiring against him, attacking him, stripping him of his garments, throwing him into a pit, contemplating murdering him, selling him into slavery, and telling their father the lie that he had been killed by a wild animal (Gen. 37.18-35), all out of spite, envy, and selfish ambition, while at the same time God intended—not merely used as convenient to His purposes, but actually intended—these same actions for good; and if Christ was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23), and yet Judas Iscariot, the Sanhedrin, and Pontius Pilate are all still morally culpable in His betrayal, false accusation, torture, and crucifixion (Mt. 26.24, 27.25, Jn. 19.11); and if it is true that “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov. 21.1); then do you not suppose that the Lord, who formed the human mind, knows how to communicate to it infallibly to ensure that what the Prophets and Apostles wrote in the canonical Scriptures exactly conformed to His intended message to humankind, down to the tense of the verb and the case and number of the noun (Gal. 3.16), without putting them into “a kind of trance” or taking dictation?
It is written, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” (Heb. 1.1) These “many ways” included making Himself known to the prophets in visions and dreams and to Moses “speaking mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles.” (Num. 12.6-8) But that does not mean that when the words were written down that they did not say exactly what God intended to say to His people then or now. If God said something to the Prophets or the Apostles, but they misconstrued it in writing it down into the Scriptures, would He then be bound to it? But of the Old Testament the Lord Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot (i.e., not the smallest letter or the smallest stroke of a letter), will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5.17-19) And of the New He said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (i.e., the rock of Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16.16-19) And again, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” (Jn. 20.22-23)
Yes, Scripture must be interpreted. As we confess, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. …
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I §§7,9-10).
There is certainly a place for “literary and historical understanding” to play a role in the interpretation of Scripture, but not at the expense of relying primarily on the Scriptures, as the inerrant Word of God, as the most basic principle by which to interpret the Scriptures. The Confession of 1967 declares that the Scriptures, despite having been “given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current.” By making this declaration, the Confession of 1967 undermines the authority of the words written in Scripture as the words spoken by God by His servants the Prophets and Apostles. It fundamentally negates every time the Prophets of the Old Testament declared, “Thus says the Lord”, by implying, “No, He did not.” And on this basis that the Scriptures are “nevertheless the words of men”, the Confession of 1967 declares, “The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding.” Make no mistake: The Confession of 1967 is saying that the Church of Jesus Christ is obligated to submit the Scriptures, which are purportedly to be “received and obeyed as the word of God written” (§9.27), to the authority of literary and historical criticism, which is infamous for saying that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (despite attestation by the Lord Jesus Himself that Moses did, in fact, write the first five books of the Bible), that the Book of Isaiah was written by two or three different authors, and not just by the Prophet Isaiah (assuming he was one of the authors), that Paul did not write half the epistles attributed to him, and II Peter was written by a second century disciple of the Apostle, and not by Peter himself. But if we cannot trust the Scriptures’ self-attestation as to their human authors, then how can we trust anything else that they say? And if we cannot trust what the Scriptures say, then in what meaningful sense can they be said to be “the word of God written” that must be “received and obeyed”? They might be the “unique and authoritative witness” and “the witness without parallel” to “Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate”, but if literary and historical criticism has the authority to rule that the books of the Bible cannot be trusted in regard to matters pertaining to the veracity of the human authorship, then how can we trust their testimony to Jesus Christ? And if we cannot trust their testimony that He was raised from the dead, then what’s the point of Christianity and the Church?
But if we can trust the Scriptures’ testimony as to the bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, why should we not believe and obey everything else they say “as the Word of God written”? And if we believe what the Word of God says, on the basis that it is the Word of God and not the word of men (II Thess. 2.13), then on what basis should the Church submit its understanding of the Scriptures to the “interpretation” of those who would undermine its authority?
The Presbyterian Lay Committee was formed to oppose the C-67. It was a time in America when civil rights and the Viet Nam war were dominating the national debate in politics and in the church. The church was lagging in standing up for civil rights and the war challenged thinking about peace and justice. In the theological realm, scholars challenged traditional thought on the role of Scripture. C-67 was and is a response to conflict. To read it today is interesting. But clearly it was a challenge to traditional thought. For those in power it was a threat. It stands that it is a reflection of the times in the same way that Barmen, the Scot’s Confession and Heidelberg addressed issues of the time. It will endure.
Spent 17 years in ordained ministry in the EPC. They were wonderful folk, supportive of my ministry and family in a difficult time, committed to missions and evangelism. I grew in my understanding of Reformed theology while in the EPC; and am now in the OPC.
I’m glad the EPC is there for some who leave the PCUSA, who could not fit into the OPC or PCA. As I say above, there is an advantage to a consistent confessional standard, even with the diversity within the denomination. I suspect the primary reason many go ECO is the ambiguity in the EPC regarding women in ordained office.
Too many for too long have been dealing with blatant presenting issues that they have neglected or remained ignorant of serious theological and discipline issues plaguing mainline Presbyterians since the early 20th century.