I have been privileged, I think you can call it that, to have a front-row seat, or at least a behind-the-scenes look, at the inner workings of many Reformed denominations, including the founding of two Presbyterian denominations.
Thank you for making these necessary points, Michael.
It's just my observation-based opinion, but I believe the root of all these issues—the nitpicking, the piling on of rules, the general lack of focus, the detours from our Great Commission, etc., etc., etc.—is a body of fallen image-bearers who believe that the simplicity of the gospel is too simple to be fully trusted.
I think a lot of these issues were on Paul's mind when he wrote to the church in Corinth:
"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1-5 ESV)
This is like the PCA being quite liberal and obviously going around the clear meaning of the Bible and BCO along with our Standards to allow women to serve as quasi-elders and deacons, while instantly attacking Garris when he voices an unpopular opinion about slavery. The rules seem to have all of these loopholes when they concur with modern liberal thought…
Thank you for the well-reasoned article. Your account is far more temperate than mine, alas, would be, were I to detail similar experiences.
So here goes!
I served a term as senior warden in an Episcopal Church. That lasted until being woke became suddenly fashionable. (An exciting new gay bishop and a divorced, Subaru-driving priestess who explained to us that the miracle of feeding the 5,000 was in fact a meal catered by The People who, of course, had brought food with them and were only too willingly to share).
I then became an Anglican — the more authentic, old-gansta, Oxford Movement, T.S. Eliot flavor of Episcopalianism. (I was an English major. That all mattered to me in my 30s and 40s.)
So I soon ended up again as senior warden in an ACNA Church. That lasted until the bishop insisted on replacing our fabulous pastor, when he left, with a retired funeral director-turned-priest whose previous two churches had closed.
I soon found myself senior warden at an AMIA Anglican Church — same church, different church association. That lasted until our bright and sure-of-himself new young priest told us it was time we started to interpret the Bible from the standpoint of our sophisticated modern ways of thinking men and women and worshipping (less and less liturgy, more and more praise music).
I tried an evangelical Vineyard Church for two years after that. Lots of Holy Spirit, great coffee, great sermons, lots rock-and-roll praise music — and precious little theology and formation. What you got in an hour on Sunday was good stuff, but that was all you got.
Then came the day the pastor told me our church had no doctrine or dogma. He picked up his Bible and gestured with it. “We have the Bible. That’s all we need.” I had to ask: “So do we believe in the Trinity?” “Of course.” “But isn’t that doctrine? There’s nothing in the Bible about the Trinity.” Blank stare.
It was then that I began to understand on a visceral level why there are something like 40,000 Protestant denominations. It’s as you say above: We’re all referees bickering among ourselves exactly what the rules are. Don’t like this Presbyterian church? Find a slightly different flavor of Presbyterian church. Or rent a store front, recruit a dozen like-minded friends, and start your own church!
The finale:
I became a Catholic last Easter. Is the Church Jesus founded perfect? No. Is it a whole lot more stable, rational and — perhaps surprisingly to Protestants — Scripture based? Yes! (And no, Catholics do not worship statues of Mary. What my parents told me turns out to be wrong)
Brief coda: No doubt the Reformation made perfect sense at the time. The Catholic Church, run by humans, had its issues. As did some of the early cheerleaders for the Protestant church(es). Think: Henry VIII. But what the reformers threw out the window was 1,500 years of prayerful and deeply reasoned theology and tradition. Think: Trinity. Who came up with that? Think: Bible. Who put that together?
The Catholic Church is not perfect, but Catholics don’t spend a lot of time arguing about whether it is permissible for a gay pastor to have a polyamorous marriage with two other people of his/her sex. Seriously. Think about that.
My now father-in-law required my wife to continue going to Mass after her conversion to Protestantism, and while she was dating me, I attended Mass with her on Sunday evenings for about a year and a half. I never participated in the Eucharist, of course. I also went through a “Becoming Catholic” course on his invitation, read through the Catechism, and met with a Roman Catholic priest several times to address my questions. And, of course, I read Scott Hahn’s books. I listened to EWTN for years and still do, though not as often.
The thing that drives people to Rome just does not live in me. That unrest is not there. I could write a whole article, perhaps I will, on the pathology I see at work in people who end up there. But I think being steeped in Scripture and the Church Fathers from day one protected me from the things I hear so many people find appealing.
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I had to say and to comment.
Thanks for sharing your very complicated theological journey. The faith as we know it was delivered once for all and the roots are definitely Roman, not all good not all bad. There would be no reform Christianity if there was no Catholic Church from Rome. Blessings brother on the road. It’s hard to imagine one day we will all be at Peace and Jesus will be our King even as He is now.
Good article. I see myself in there somewhere, and not in a flattering way.
I do wish you had included some specific examples. Care to share any in the comments?
It seems to me that this is related to the fact that many, if not most, reformed churches are what C. John Miller would call ingrown. I would like to see more how discussions about evangelism verses discussions of the content of the gospel or the theories. We need living examples from our preachers of how evangelism is done and fewer classes on the theory.
As a member of one of these reformed denominations myself, this puts solid words to my experience as of late. At some point the BCO work, amendments, overtures, and position papers detract from the work of the church. Opportunity cost is a real thing. Let the players play.
Based on this, are you leaning toward staying independent now? In a past article you mentioned believing institutions matter and you would like to be a part of a denomination again
Straining out gnats and drinking camels comes to mind. This applies to much within Christianity, eschatology comes to mind, these are important but we elevate the peripheral issues far above their station and neglect the weightier matters.
I was a PCA minister for a decade, and it was about as good an experience as one could hope to enjoy. Although there is much to commend, I could never shake the feeling that Presbyterian polity is a bug — not the feature they want it to be.
On the one hand, it’s “high-level congregationalism” (Dr. R. Pratt). On the other, the parity of office of elder (RE & TE) as played out in real life is often more like the ‘parody’ of office. How so? TEs are required and expected to do all sorts of things to become and continue as pastors that REs are not. And yet, somehow, they have the same authority(?!) in the church.
Worse still, TEs must submit to the brethren in ways that REs do not. Why? Because REs usually outnumber the TEs in a Session and in Presbytery.
Nothing quite like having your pastoral mission, vision, and direction voted down by a group of (well-meaning) REs who haven’t given ten minutes — much less months or years of their heart and soul — to weighing the things you’re proposing for the glory of God and the good of his church.
As more than one Presbyterian pastor has told me, the polity feels like a consolidation of power to keep TEs in check.
Many referees, fewer players indeed.
That might have become a villain origin story, but I moved on before it had a real chance of happening to me.
I often have a hard time trusting people who can't make fun of, or criticize their own position. I'm a proud Presbyterian, and you're spot on with the referee population comment.
Though, your church has denomination hopped much like many church goers change churches nowadays. So while i agree with your statement that Reformed folks tend to be soft on the actual playing field, your church seems to be unwilling to play with other players while simultaneously trying to tell us how to play the game.
This is a great article, but i hope you see the irony here in the “unwillingness to taste some blood” comment.
We haven’t denomination hop. We were in one denomination. CREC. They changed her constitution to require something that we that’s not allowed by our confession or conscience. So we had to decide whether or not vows mean anything. They mean something. We’re not gonna break them. We followed everything laid out for us to mediate the situation and as allowed by the book of procedures, we eventually decided that we could not remain. And resigned our membership. That was barely 2 years ago. We’re a brand new church. We’ve had to totally rewrite our constitution and bylaws to deal with the fact that we’re not a denomination and they are still getting confirmed by our congregation here in just a couple months. Critics like you act like I have unilateral authority to force my congregation to join another denomination. I doubt. There’s a process that we have to go through as a session and then as a congregation. And we’ve been going through that. So there’s no irony. Not one bit.
Hmm, it seems I misunderstood y'all's situation then. I had thought you were in the PCA, then hopped to the CREC, and then tried to get back into the PCA but then were thwarted.
Makes me reevaluate my life Denominationally. Full blown Pagan, Heathen conversion, began my Faith journey with the Christian Missionary Alliance founded by AB Simpson. A. W. Tozer was a big name back in the day, even back then early I sensed that game, street ball was more my drive, skateboarding, freestyle skiing and all. I new the mission proclaim the good news. So I joined a Ship called the Doulos, Operation Mobilization with George Verwer. I thought 7 years in seminary training was unnecessary, well at least for me. I’m not a referee, I’m a player. The game was still on for two years at sea, some on board were more orthodox some were more Pentecostal but we managed to keep the mission moving. I’ve been a member of churches before, I’m not now. To be honest I feel a little bit like an outsider as I’m not part of the inner circle. I guess technically stuff is important especially when it comes to Heresy but the real question is how do we do Christianity as a family? Breaking bread loving one another, it seemed so simple forty years ago. Can’t wait to go home some days. But, we have good work to do even if it is messy and people don’t get along or get the game.
You give them too much credit. It wouldn't be quite so bad if the guys who spend too much time on procedure and the BCO in general were good at it.
They aren't. For the most part, they're embarrassingly bad at it. Doesn't stop them though. The problem isn't their background either. Most TEs have never been anything but TEs, and REs, while important, generally don't run the show.
The problem is that they're Boomers. Either actually or spiritually. They're unconsciously but adamantly committed to proceduralism and utterly naive regarding their own responsibility to be the ones that implement and enforce the rules. They are, for the most part, unwilling to take any action or make any ruling that they cannot see as being completely required by the rules. They are almost incapable of taking actions or making rulings based on their judgment as ordained officers empowered to do just that.
And they're not lawyers, mostly. The few lawyers who have risen to any positions of prominence have, for the most part, been a credit to the profession. They put substance over form. The new Stated Clerk was a lawyer, and he moderated one of the best run and most efficient GAs in the last few decades. One member of the SJC is a Justice on a state Supreme Court. He recently wrote a lone dissent, arguing that the majority was content to resolve the case on procedural grounds rather than wrestle with the theological issue presented.
Thank you for making these necessary points, Michael.
It's just my observation-based opinion, but I believe the root of all these issues—the nitpicking, the piling on of rules, the general lack of focus, the detours from our Great Commission, etc., etc., etc.—is a body of fallen image-bearers who believe that the simplicity of the gospel is too simple to be fully trusted.
I think a lot of these issues were on Paul's mind when he wrote to the church in Corinth:
"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1-5 ESV)
Thanks brother, that’s a great passage and a great reminder.
And then Paul wrote Romans. Just to muddy up the waters 😆
I have been thinking about this a lot lately
This is like the PCA being quite liberal and obviously going around the clear meaning of the Bible and BCO along with our Standards to allow women to serve as quasi-elders and deacons, while instantly attacking Garris when he voices an unpopular opinion about slavery. The rules seem to have all of these loopholes when they concur with modern liberal thought…
This is a far too accurate assessment, indeed heartbreakingly so! I guess thanks for writing, the truth is sometimes hard to accept. Well done!
Thank you for the well-reasoned article. Your account is far more temperate than mine, alas, would be, were I to detail similar experiences.
So here goes!
I served a term as senior warden in an Episcopal Church. That lasted until being woke became suddenly fashionable. (An exciting new gay bishop and a divorced, Subaru-driving priestess who explained to us that the miracle of feeding the 5,000 was in fact a meal catered by The People who, of course, had brought food with them and were only too willingly to share).
I then became an Anglican — the more authentic, old-gansta, Oxford Movement, T.S. Eliot flavor of Episcopalianism. (I was an English major. That all mattered to me in my 30s and 40s.)
So I soon ended up again as senior warden in an ACNA Church. That lasted until the bishop insisted on replacing our fabulous pastor, when he left, with a retired funeral director-turned-priest whose previous two churches had closed.
I soon found myself senior warden at an AMIA Anglican Church — same church, different church association. That lasted until our bright and sure-of-himself new young priest told us it was time we started to interpret the Bible from the standpoint of our sophisticated modern ways of thinking men and women and worshipping (less and less liturgy, more and more praise music).
I tried an evangelical Vineyard Church for two years after that. Lots of Holy Spirit, great coffee, great sermons, lots rock-and-roll praise music — and precious little theology and formation. What you got in an hour on Sunday was good stuff, but that was all you got.
Then came the day the pastor told me our church had no doctrine or dogma. He picked up his Bible and gestured with it. “We have the Bible. That’s all we need.” I had to ask: “So do we believe in the Trinity?” “Of course.” “But isn’t that doctrine? There’s nothing in the Bible about the Trinity.” Blank stare.
It was then that I began to understand on a visceral level why there are something like 40,000 Protestant denominations. It’s as you say above: We’re all referees bickering among ourselves exactly what the rules are. Don’t like this Presbyterian church? Find a slightly different flavor of Presbyterian church. Or rent a store front, recruit a dozen like-minded friends, and start your own church!
The finale:
I became a Catholic last Easter. Is the Church Jesus founded perfect? No. Is it a whole lot more stable, rational and — perhaps surprisingly to Protestants — Scripture based? Yes! (And no, Catholics do not worship statues of Mary. What my parents told me turns out to be wrong)
Brief coda: No doubt the Reformation made perfect sense at the time. The Catholic Church, run by humans, had its issues. As did some of the early cheerleaders for the Protestant church(es). Think: Henry VIII. But what the reformers threw out the window was 1,500 years of prayerful and deeply reasoned theology and tradition. Think: Trinity. Who came up with that? Think: Bible. Who put that together?
The Catholic Church is not perfect, but Catholics don’t spend a lot of time arguing about whether it is permissible for a gay pastor to have a polyamorous marriage with two other people of his/her sex. Seriously. Think about that.
My now father-in-law required my wife to continue going to Mass after her conversion to Protestantism, and while she was dating me, I attended Mass with her on Sunday evenings for about a year and a half. I never participated in the Eucharist, of course. I also went through a “Becoming Catholic” course on his invitation, read through the Catechism, and met with a Roman Catholic priest several times to address my questions. And, of course, I read Scott Hahn’s books. I listened to EWTN for years and still do, though not as often.
The thing that drives people to Rome just does not live in me. That unrest is not there. I could write a whole article, perhaps I will, on the pathology I see at work in people who end up there. But I think being steeped in Scripture and the Church Fathers from day one protected me from the things I hear so many people find appealing.
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I had to say and to comment.
Michael Romkey 40,000 ? Typical trope to cross the Tiber with. Read Dr Roger Olsons reference book. There are 200 .
Thanks for sharing your very complicated theological journey. The faith as we know it was delivered once for all and the roots are definitely Roman, not all good not all bad. There would be no reform Christianity if there was no Catholic Church from Rome. Blessings brother on the road. It’s hard to imagine one day we will all be at Peace and Jesus will be our King even as He is now.
Oh man you didn’t just figure it out, your story proves the point so well. Congrats.
Good article. I see myself in there somewhere, and not in a flattering way.
I do wish you had included some specific examples. Care to share any in the comments?
It seems to me that this is related to the fact that many, if not most, reformed churches are what C. John Miller would call ingrown. I would like to see more how discussions about evangelism verses discussions of the content of the gospel or the theories. We need living examples from our preachers of how evangelism is done and fewer classes on the theory.
Where’s D. James Kennedy when you need him.
As a member of one of these reformed denominations myself, this puts solid words to my experience as of late. At some point the BCO work, amendments, overtures, and position papers detract from the work of the church. Opportunity cost is a real thing. Let the players play.
I could not agree more 😂
Based on this, are you leaning toward staying independent now? In a past article you mentioned believing institutions matter and you would like to be a part of a denomination again
Straining out gnats and drinking camels comes to mind. This applies to much within Christianity, eschatology comes to mind, these are important but we elevate the peripheral issues far above their station and neglect the weightier matters.
Not a bad analogy.
I was a PCA minister for a decade, and it was about as good an experience as one could hope to enjoy. Although there is much to commend, I could never shake the feeling that Presbyterian polity is a bug — not the feature they want it to be.
On the one hand, it’s “high-level congregationalism” (Dr. R. Pratt). On the other, the parity of office of elder (RE & TE) as played out in real life is often more like the ‘parody’ of office. How so? TEs are required and expected to do all sorts of things to become and continue as pastors that REs are not. And yet, somehow, they have the same authority(?!) in the church.
Worse still, TEs must submit to the brethren in ways that REs do not. Why? Because REs usually outnumber the TEs in a Session and in Presbytery.
Nothing quite like having your pastoral mission, vision, and direction voted down by a group of (well-meaning) REs who haven’t given ten minutes — much less months or years of their heart and soul — to weighing the things you’re proposing for the glory of God and the good of his church.
As more than one Presbyterian pastor has told me, the polity feels like a consolidation of power to keep TEs in check.
Many referees, fewer players indeed.
That might have become a villain origin story, but I moved on before it had a real chance of happening to me.
I often have a hard time trusting people who can't make fun of, or criticize their own position. I'm a proud Presbyterian, and you're spot on with the referee population comment.
Though, your church has denomination hopped much like many church goers change churches nowadays. So while i agree with your statement that Reformed folks tend to be soft on the actual playing field, your church seems to be unwilling to play with other players while simultaneously trying to tell us how to play the game.
This is a great article, but i hope you see the irony here in the “unwillingness to taste some blood” comment.
We haven’t denomination hop. We were in one denomination. CREC. They changed her constitution to require something that we that’s not allowed by our confession or conscience. So we had to decide whether or not vows mean anything. They mean something. We’re not gonna break them. We followed everything laid out for us to mediate the situation and as allowed by the book of procedures, we eventually decided that we could not remain. And resigned our membership. That was barely 2 years ago. We’re a brand new church. We’ve had to totally rewrite our constitution and bylaws to deal with the fact that we’re not a denomination and they are still getting confirmed by our congregation here in just a couple months. Critics like you act like I have unilateral authority to force my congregation to join another denomination. I doubt. There’s a process that we have to go through as a session and then as a congregation. And we’ve been going through that. So there’s no irony. Not one bit.
Hmm, it seems I misunderstood y'all's situation then. I had thought you were in the PCA, then hopped to the CREC, and then tried to get back into the PCA but then were thwarted.
My apologies.
Makes me reevaluate my life Denominationally. Full blown Pagan, Heathen conversion, began my Faith journey with the Christian Missionary Alliance founded by AB Simpson. A. W. Tozer was a big name back in the day, even back then early I sensed that game, street ball was more my drive, skateboarding, freestyle skiing and all. I new the mission proclaim the good news. So I joined a Ship called the Doulos, Operation Mobilization with George Verwer. I thought 7 years in seminary training was unnecessary, well at least for me. I’m not a referee, I’m a player. The game was still on for two years at sea, some on board were more orthodox some were more Pentecostal but we managed to keep the mission moving. I’ve been a member of churches before, I’m not now. To be honest I feel a little bit like an outsider as I’m not part of the inner circle. I guess technically stuff is important especially when it comes to Heresy but the real question is how do we do Christianity as a family? Breaking bread loving one another, it seemed so simple forty years ago. Can’t wait to go home some days. But, we have good work to do even if it is messy and people don’t get along or get the game.
“having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
2 Timothy 3:5 KJV
And
“Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
Luke 18:8 KJV
You give them too much credit. It wouldn't be quite so bad if the guys who spend too much time on procedure and the BCO in general were good at it.
They aren't. For the most part, they're embarrassingly bad at it. Doesn't stop them though. The problem isn't their background either. Most TEs have never been anything but TEs, and REs, while important, generally don't run the show.
The problem is that they're Boomers. Either actually or spiritually. They're unconsciously but adamantly committed to proceduralism and utterly naive regarding their own responsibility to be the ones that implement and enforce the rules. They are, for the most part, unwilling to take any action or make any ruling that they cannot see as being completely required by the rules. They are almost incapable of taking actions or making rulings based on their judgment as ordained officers empowered to do just that.
And they're not lawyers, mostly. The few lawyers who have risen to any positions of prominence have, for the most part, been a credit to the profession. They put substance over form. The new Stated Clerk was a lawyer, and he moderated one of the best run and most efficient GAs in the last few decades. One member of the SJC is a Justice on a state Supreme Court. He recently wrote a lone dissent, arguing that the majority was content to resolve the case on procedural grounds rather than wrestle with the theological issue presented.