Tag Archives: history

Abraham Clark Was Also There – Some Thoughts On July 4th

Leave a reply

As Presbyterians, one of our major understandings is that we make decisions better in a group, usually in a deliberative body. All of the members of that body have equal voice and vote and need to be listened to.

While the Continental Congress of 1776 was not an ecclesiastical body, it is interesting to think of it as a similar deliberative body. There were 56 individuals that signed the Declaration of Independence. I know I can’t name more than a handful.

For American Presbyterians, the patron saint of the Declaration is John Witherspoon, the only active clergy member to sign the document. A few other Presbyterians of note might come to mind as well, like Benjamin Rush, Philip Livingston, and Richard Stockton. But by most lists, there were eight other Presbyterians that signed the Declaration of Independence at some point. (For example, George Taylor – another interesting figure – was a new appointment from Pennsylvania and had not taken his seat by July 4th but signed later.) In reading through many of the biographies it is clear that the signers were typically distinguished and public-minded individuals. In the years since a handful gained greater historical prominence.

Abraham Clark (image from the NPS website)

And so, I want to take a moment on this Independence Day weekend to mention Abraham Clark. His is not a name that readily comes to mind when thinking about the signers – at least not to me – but he was also in the room for the process. He was in that same delegation from New Jersey as Witherspoon and Stockton but does not have their historical prominence.

Abraham, and his wife Sarah, were members of the Presbyterian Church in Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Sarah’s father was a ruling elder in the church and the pastor was the Rev James Caldwell, a notable figure in advocating for Independence and supporting the colonial army. It is certain that Clark when to Philadelphia as an advocate for independence in part from Caldwell’s preaching.

Professionally, Abraham began as a surveyor as he had an aptitude for math. Along the way, he taught himself law so he could help with property disputes. He was noted as the “poor man’s counselor” for his willingness to give free legal advice to those that could not afford it and generally helping out with such cases. He became active in civic affairs serving as the as high sheriff of Essex County as well as the clerk in the colonial legislature. Additional legislative positions followed including election to the Continental Congress.

During the war, Abraham remained in the Congress but two of his sons were officers in the Continental Army and were captured with at least one held on a British prison ship. While Clark did not call attention to their connection to him, it was found out by the British and one son received particularly harsh treatment until diplomatic connections protested the treatment.

He was almost constantly active in the Continental Congress up to his death in 1794, including his participation in starting to construct the new Constitution.

While a faithful Presbyterian, he had limited involvement in church governance and only in the last few years of his life did he serve as a trustee of his church.

Such is the nature of deliberative bodies. Many are there, many contribute, but while many may be prominent at the time, in the years following only a few of the individuals are really remembered. In the most famous painting of the event, John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence in the US Capitol Rotunda, Abraham Clark is there, but barely. He is almost squeezed out by Paine and Hooper.

So on this day that we Americans remember the “Presbyterian Rebellion,” it is also worth remembering that a good deliberative body is made up of individuals, each with their own perspectives, knowledge and skills, each with voice and vote, and each one just as important and of equal worth to the others in the body.

Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day!

Footnote: Material from William B. Miller, 1958, Presbyterian Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, v 36, n 3, p 139-179.

Exceptional Comments By The 2018 Lord High Commissioner

Leave a reply

I am working to make time to catch up on a bunch of blog posts related to my visit to Scotland in May for three General Assemblies. Here is a post on what may have been one of the most interesting points in the GA’s for me. Stick with me through the whole post.

For every Church of Scotland General Assembly the monarch is invited to be a part of the proceedings. Needless to say, she usually does not attend in person but appoints someone to be her personal representative and carry all authority of the monarchy for the week. This is the Lord High Commissioner (LHC) and sometimes the LHC is a member of the royal family, like last year when HRH The Princess Royal represented her mother. This year a family member was not expected due to a prior commitment, and so a distant cousin of the Queen, His Grace Richard Walter John Montagu Douglas Scott, The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, KBE, DL, FSA, FRSE, was appointed as the LHC.

The Duke is well known as Scotland’s largest landholder and his appointment was not without some controversy. In his appointment and in comments during the week he was recognized for his dedication to conservation and sustainability in his land management. And a 2017 profile in the Financial Times [maybe subscription] highlights his conservation efforts. But his landholdings have come under scrutiny as the breakup of estates has been discussed, as well as for improper handling of toxic waste at abandoned mining sites. There is also concern over how access to the land is managed with tenant farmers and local communities.

Over the course of the week I had the opportunity to hear the Duke speak on three occasions. The first and last were at the opening and closing of the Church of Scotland General Assembly. The opening address can be read or viewed, and the closing address can be viewed [starting about 45:00] as part of the closing worship. But it is traditional for the LHC to pay a visit to the Free Church of Scotland General Assembly, and while he is warmly received with the honor and formality due the position, the LHC does not carry the same ecclesiastical relationship he does across the street at the Church of Scotland. The video of his comments to the Free Church is available on their website.

His first comment to both bodies was the formal greeting and assurance of the church/state relationship defined in the 1707 Acts of Union. As he said to the Kirk, and repeated something very similar to the Free Church:

Her Majesty The Queen has commanded me to assure you of Her great sense of your steady
and firm zeal for her service and to assure you of Her resolution to maintain Presbyterian
Church Government in Scotland.

In his closing comments to the Kirk he included many elements common to most LHC’s closing address. There was the commendation of the Moderator for the good job they did that week. There was also a review of some of the highlights of the week, which included not just the Church of Scotland events and visits, but he also mentioned the visit to the Free Church GA the previous day. In his additional comments there was significant overlap between the two speeches as he highlighted his participation on the Scottish Government’s Advisory Panel on the Commemoration of the Centenary of the First World War. And he talked about how “Armistice Sunday is not the end of it” and how the tragedy continued, noting especially the sinking of the Iolaire on 1 January 1919, a Royal Navy vessel returning almost 300 service men to the Isle of Lewis after the war. Over 200 lives were lost just short of the safety of Stornoway Harbour. And appropriate to the Kirk’s theme of “Peace be with you!”, he spoke of a planned march on Armistice Sunday to remember the war and it’s casualties, and to work to not let something like this happen again.

Lord High Commissioner addressing the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (photo from the Free Church)

But the Duke included a remarkable set of comments to the Free Church General Assembly that were not part of any of his comments to the Kirk. I found them an admirable insight in to Scottish history and a significant step in reconciliation. I will close with his words that opened his address, very slightly condensed, and with a couple of links added to help with historical references. The opening comments of The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry to the Free Church of Scotland:

Moderator, Fathers and Brethren

It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to address the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. And it is a great honour to have been appointed by her majesty The Queen as Lord High Commissioner.

My presence here is to confirm the determination of her majesty to uphold Presbyterian church government in Scotland.

Moderator may I congratulate you most warmly upon your appointment and may I wish you an extremely successful and fulfilling period in office.

Moderator, Fathers and Brethren – please be seated

Looking back at the Lord High Commissioners who have visited you I realize with some anxiety that many had happy links with the church from their own family pasts which they could easily share with you. That is not the case with my ancestors.

I am doubtful about apologies on behalf of those long dead, but I believe it is important to recognize and learn from historical events. I think particularly of my Queensberry forebearers in The Killing Times in the southwest. The first Duke was brother-in-law to the infamous Grierson of Lag, and government colleague of Claverhouse. Their hands may not have been stained with blood, but guilt by association was undeniable. And to read about those times – the summary shootings of Covenanters in remote lands. Or perhaps even worse, on their own doorsteps in front of their families is still truly chilling.

And then coming closer to the 19th century, there was a different kind of harassment for more than a decade after The Disruption in 1843, my forebear refused land for those who wanted to build new churches, leaving your folk forced to worship in the open air.

I am sad and sorry that those from whom I am descended showed such intolerance and such discrimination to fellow Christians.

Today we are hugely fortunate to live in a free society…

A Presbyterian Influence On The American Experiment

Leave a reply

On this Fourth of July much of American Presbyterianism recalls the 12 Presbyterians who eventually signed the document remembered on this day, and particularly the Rev. John Witherspoon, the only ordained clergy to sign.

While Witherspoon was ordained in the Church of Scotland, that alone was not his ticket into the Continental Congress. In 1768 he had been induced to leave Scotland and become the President and head professor at a small Presbyterian college, the College of New Jersey. In 1896 it changed its name to Princeton University. Witherspoon did much to raise the status and visibility of the institution to what was expected of an top-tier institution of higher learning. William Bennett wrote in a book chapter:

Princeton built on this foundation with solid bricks. The school’s leaders intended to produce students able to think for themselves, and those leaders had strong ideas about the curriculum best suited to the task. First-year studies… were classical: “reading the Greek and Latin languages, especially Horace, Cicero’s Orations, the Greek Testament, Lucian’s Dialogues, and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.” Second-year students continued with Greek and Latin, especially Homer and Longinus, and started upon the modern “sciences, geography, rhetoric, logic, and mathematics.” The junior year centered about ethics, metaphysics, and history, as well as mathematics and science. Seniors found themselves “entirely employed in reviews and composition, improving parts of the Latin and Greek classics, parts of the Hebrew Bible, and all the arts and sciences.” This final undergraduate year became its own school of public discussion; students appeared on stage before their peers, giving speeches and participating in debates over the best of past and contemporary thought.

But beyond the book learning there was moral thought. Bennett continues:

Princeton’s curriculum was not unusual; its rigor was the rule rather than the exception for the colleges of colonial America. But the school’s administration understood that education does not end with a student’s reading list. They realized that an institution committed to the importance of ideas cannot long afford to neglect the moral difference between good ideas and bad ones. And since free institutions of learning draw their life’s blood from a distinct and precious set of good ideas-democratic ideas-Princeton’s leaders refused to stand neutral before the principles of liberty and justice at a time when contemporary politics decided the future of those principles as a part of our heritage. The school’s pedagogy was not “value-free.” Princeton did its best to instill in its charges a love for ideas, and in particular a love for the ideas that would soon buttress the modern world’s first republican government.

It was into this environment that James Madison entered in 1769, having advanced to the second year by examination on the first year topics. Madison would fulfill the undergraduate curriculum in three years and stick around as a tutor and graduate student under Witherspoon an additional two years.

As noted above, Witherspoon’s curriculum, and make no mistake about it but he controlled the school’s instruction, not only had the grounding in the classics but was not neutral on moral thought. As James Commiff writes in his paper “The Enlightenment and American Political Thought: A Study of the Origins of Madison’s Federalist Number 10“:

Witherspoon’s central philosophical concern was to reconcile revelation with the knowledge discoverable by human reason. This he accomplished by maintaining that revelation stands above reason but not in contradiction to it; therefore, the central doctrines of Calvinism do not violate reason but rather supplement it. There is, then, nothing in worldly wisdom that constitutes a danger to true belief, and one may study secular topics without fear of being misled into religious error. This blending of faith and reason allowed Witherspoon to both defend religion against its rationalistic and deistic critics and to admit whatever seemed of value in Enlightenment philosophy into the course of study at Princeton.

Much more is written about Witherspoon’s methods, and the citizens those methods produced, but one indication is the makeup of the Constitutional Convention. In his paper “Common sense deliberative practice: John Witherspoon, James Madison, and the U.S. constitution,” Terence S. Morrow writes:

James Madison was not the only Witherspoon-trained participant in the Constitution’s creation. The Constitutional Convention “must have looked like a reunion of Princetonians” from Witherspoon’s classes (Wills 19). Nine Princeton graduates, six of whom studied under Witherspoon, were among the fifty-five delegates. Their training in Scottish Common Sense-Ciceronian humanism is evident. ‘Trained in law and religion, these are some of the men who would identify with and protect the values of society as they saw them, who would take it upon themselves as a right and a duty to adjudicate social and moral issues. They would speak of literature, politics, society, and man with a common-sense clarity derived in large part from the Scots they had studied” (Martin 7). But it is James Madison, whose greatest public accomplishments occurred during the Constitutional formulation and ratification, who takes pride of place among these Witherspoon graduates.

It is helpful to know that Madison was raised in an active Anglican home. The Anglican Church was the established church of Virginia and a young James Madison had experienced the state, with the backing of the church, persecuting and driving out groups of Baptists that gathered in his county. As a youth he was tutored by a Presbyterian minister and many consider this a strong influence on his decision to go to the College of New Jersey.

While my purpose here is not to dissect Madison’s religious beliefs, but to suggest the Presbyterian influence on his body of work as a whole, interesting comments are made by two writers. First, Morrow makes these observations about different viewpoints during the ratification process. [Any analysis about how this played out in American politics is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Whereas John Witherspoon and James Madison promoted a federalist model of representation and deliberation in which delegates exercised prudential rationality independent of their constituents’ control, Patrick Henry argued for the antifederalist vision of a more democratic, local-minded mode of representation. For Henry, as for Madison and the federalists, human nature was innately corrupt. The latter, however, believed that the Constitutional plan’s qualification requirements for office and the electoral process would issue forth sufficient numbers of representatives who would exhibit the hallmarks of Common Sense-Ciceronian deliberation. The antifederalists shared little of this federalist faith. Henry articulated this pessimism during Virginia’s ratification convention in June, 1788 as he argued that the national representatives would be prone to pursue “their personal interests, their ambition and avarice.” Members of Congress would not be “superiour to the frailties of human nature. However cautious you may be in the selection of your Representatives, it will be dangerous to trust them with such unbounded powers.” Henry thus pointedly rejected Madison’s reliance upon the “possible virtue” of the representatives, for prudence, reason, and experience revealed the federalists’ contention to be chimerical.

In essence, Patrick Henry countered Madison’s invocation of rationality born of education and extensive knowledge with a pastoral version of communal sense. According to Henry, for Madison to hope that representatives’ “genius, intelligence, and integrity” would ensure the passage of laws that protect individual rights, states’ interests, and the country’s security, violated the prevailing presumption of man’s proclivity towards vice. Early in Virginia’s ratification convention, Henry chastised Madison and the other federalists for supposing that elected officials would be honest. The Constitution, by transmitting unlimited powers to Congress, exacerbated the dangers attendant upon Madison’s “hope.” Henry continued that it would be “distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad,” for in every instance in which such faith was rested in the representatives, liberty was lost. “Did we not know of the fallibility of human nature, we might rely on the present structure of this Government.—We might depend that the rules of propriety, and the general interest of the Union would be observed. But the depraved nature of man is well known. He has a natural biass (sic) towards his own interest, which will prevail over every consideration, unless it is checked.”

Maybe what is most striking to our modern ear in this extended passage is the comment at the beginning that both sides considered human nature to be “innately corrupt.” The disagreement is over how best to construct a political system that brought out the best in people and allowed for checks and balances to allow for the nation to be best governed under these circumstances.

As a side note, reflections on the Presbyterian form of government can be seen in this debate as well.

Two articles I read take a close look at James Madison’s religious views – Ralph Ketcham’s “James Madison and Religion – A New Hypothesis,” and  Joseph Loconte’s “Faith and the Founding: The Influence of Religion on the Politics of James Madison.” From this we can probably sum everything up succinctly, including this post, with the line from Garry Will’s biography of Madison:

“Madison’s views on religious freedom are the inspiration for all that was best in his later political though.”

Reformation Day: How To Distract A Holy Roman Emperor

3 Replies

So it’s been 499 years since a crazy German monk allegedly nailed a debating document of 95 theses to the door of a castle church and started a movement that continues today.

There is no question that Dr. Luther’s efforts bore tremendous fruit, including in ways he did not imagine. But in many aspects he was, you could argue providentially, aided by a significant set of circumstances present at the time of his attempts to reform the Roman system. Where others had suffered for their attempts to challenge doctrine – like Jan Hus before Luther, or his contemporaries William Tyndale, Heinrich Moller, and Patrick Hamilton – Luther found safer ground for his thoughts. The prince ruling his region, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, got him safe passage and provided him protection from those who sought to arrest and punish him. And it should be noted that the invention of the printing press with moveable type significantly help Luther get his message distributed quickly and widely to be read by a broader audience, thus making it harder for authorities to silence him. And certainly Luther’s force of personality in writing and speaking was a considerable advantage as well. (You can check out the Lutheran Insulter web site if you want a taste of that.)

But today I want to take a moment to look a little bit higher and consider the top political power in that part of the world at that time – the Holy Roman Emperor.

peter_paul_rubens_-_charles_v_in_armour_-_wga20378

Charles V (from Wikimedia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Charles_V_in_Armour_-_WGA20378.jpg)

That would be Charles V. He was a native of Spain, He was a native of Flanders from the house of Hapsburg and assumed the leadership of the house of Burgundy upon his father’s death in 1506. He ascended to the Spanish throne through his mother’s line in 1516 and was elected the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 upon the death of his grandfather. So he was not a ruler over the German states when this whole thing with Martin started, but as it progressed he became involved. He was present at the Diet of Worms and hearing Luther’s defense and possibly the famous “Here I stand” speech, rendered the verdict. He issued the formal verdict on May 8, 1521.

[Correction: Thanks for the email pointing out I got his early life wrong in my interest in focusing on 1517 and following. I think I have it corrected now and regret the error.]

But in an interesting historical coincidence it was on that same date that an offensive alliance against France was signed by representatives of Charles and the pope. This protracted conflict became the major concern for the emperor and certainly diverted his attention away from that monk in Saxony. His edict was never enforced.

The online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that Charles considered the matter more of an ecclesiastical one and settled by the papal bull of 1520. In addition, in spite of the alliance against France, the Encyclopedia also tells us that Charles was not particularly fond of the pope and had his eyes on consolidating some of his holdings in Italy. In light of that, it is not surprising that France and the pope were the major parties objecting to him becoming the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. Both the French conflict and the Italian/papal conflict were settled by treaties in the summer of 1529 on terms generally favorable to Charles. So now the coast is clear to return to the German states? Not quite…

On the eastern and southern sides of the empire the Turks were advancing and having conquered much of Hungary they reached as far as Vienna in 1529. While trying to juggle the Lutherans in Germany, Pope Clement VII in Italy and the Turks in the eastern corner, Charles made some preliminary attempts to reunify the Germans around religion at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Little progress was made and soon Charles was occupied with a new advance by the Turks the next year.

At this point I will not try to narrate a play-by-play of shifting European political alliances – have a look at the Encyclopedia entry if you are interested – but the bottom line is that between these shifting powers and the threats from the Turks religious unity in Germany was not a pressing concern for him. He finally had the opportunity in 1546 and 1547 to return to Germany with military power, but while taking back some measure of political control the religious situation had progressed to a point where Charles let the status quo remain and Lutheranism had established it’s foundation.

Charles died in 1558, having placed other family members to administer the parts of the empire. The shifting political alliances continued throughout his life and beyond making political solutions impossible without strong military backing. And the hoped for reforms from the Council of Trent were slow in coming and received throughout the western churches with a variety of reactions.

I readily admit that this is a cursory treatment of the wider political situation at the time, but the bottom line is that in a complex world the need to contain this particular religious rebellion was not perceived as a top priority for the emperor. He was distracted with other conquests and maybe a bit ambivalent about getting political power involved in an ecclesiastical dispute. The catch on the latter point is that in a world of established churches the ecclesiastical is political. (Consider Calvin and Geneva for more on that.)

But it gave Dr. Luther and his followers the space they needed and, unlike other reformers who were not as fortunate to have that slight buffer around them, in Saxony the Reformation had the elements it needed to establish itself and spread from there to large sections of Western Europe.

So on this Reformation Day, we remember not just the hard work of Martin Luther and the risk he took to challenge the established church’s doctrine, but also the favorable ground his thoughts landed on to be able to take root. And if distracting the Holy Roman Emperor is part of that, so be it.

Happy Reformation Day. And I am not sure whether to encourage you to enjoy, or possibly cringe, at the build-up in the coming year to the 500th.

luther_kleine

 

The Long View Of Presbyterianism

4 Replies

ContinuingChurchSo this book was officially released yesterday. Through the efficiency of a shipper I received my copy a few days early and so far I have only had time to skim through it. It looks good, from what I have seen, and I hope to carve out a bit of time later in the month to more carefully read it.

But what I have found interesting in the lead up to this has been a certain amount of push-back I have gotten from several different quarters as I have unapologetically indicated my interest in, and anticipation of the book before its release. My overall interest in Presbyterianism and Presbyterian history is enough to justify my anticipation of this book. But it was further heightened earlier in the year when the author, Sean Michael Lucas, was featured in a documentary produced by Union Presbyterian Seminary called Division and Reunion.

The push-back I have received, both in general over my years of blogging and specifically regarding this book, usually can be boiled down to the statement of either “But they ordain (fill in the blank)” or “But they do not ordain (fill in the blank).”

So here is a response and why this book matters in either case.

First, it is easy to just view this as an academic exercise. I am interested in global Presbyterianism, history and polity. That alone is enough for me to be interested in this book.

But let me dig in a little deeper. Please note the subtitle of the book, “The roots of the Presbyterian Church in America.” (emphasis added) What are those roots? It is predominantly the PCUS, one of the predecessor denominations of the current PC(USA). Hate to break it to some of the mainline folks but this is a book that is mostly about your roots too. The book has 12 chapters and is about 328 pages of narrative text. Of those, only two chapters and about 48 pages deal specifically with the actual formation and subsequent development of the PCA. Yes, most of the book deals with our shared heritage.

I am aware that a few objections can be raised about considering our shared heritage through this one book, one that it is written from a PCA perspective. Fair enough, and if I find it too heavily biased I will report that back to you when I write my final review. But based on the contributions by Professor Lucas to the documentary mentioned above I expect an academically honest and nuanced, if not neutral approach.

Another objection is that the PCUS was only part of the reunion and the PC(USA) has a lot of history from the northern side as well. (The PCUSA + UPCNA => UPCUSA line.) Again, a valid argument and again, I will find out more when I read it. But some of the more complex characters in the PC(USA) family tree, such as Robert Lewis Dabney and James Henry Thornwell, were part of the southern branch and it can be argued that their influence continues to the present day in both current branches. But to be fair, the book appears to start near the beginning of the twentieth century and neither Dabney’s nor Thornwell’s name appears in the index.

Finally, there is that doctrine and polity question about ordinations and a number of other differences. On this count let me remind you that the PCUSA began ordaining women as teaching elders in 1956, making that not quite six decades out of a history that spans over three centuries. Furthermore, ordination is evolving in other branches as well with women’s ordination becoming much more widely accepted in the EPC and questions being raised about deaconesses in the PCA. In the long view of American Presbyterianism there are a number of issues like this which have changed over the years with varying speed in different branches.

It will also be interesting to see what parallels and differences there might be between the PCA exodus from the PCUS and the current ECO exodus from the PC(USA). The Forward talks about the interest of the founders of the PCA to have a mainline denomination that was “characterized by biblical authority, doctrinal orthodoxy, experiential piety, and missionary zeal.” That sounds a lot like some of the core values of ECO.

I will acknowledge that there is another reason for some of the push-back. There is still concern and skepticism on the part of a few people I have spoken with about the way that the PCA/PCUS split played out that was very hurtful to them. In a few cases this is not just a continuing sore point but is still an open wound. I am curious to see how the book deals with that aspect of the formation of the PCA.

There is a final reason for taking an interest in this book and it gets down to something that is being talked about a lot in the PC(USA) right at the moment – Presbyterian Identity. The Epilogue to this book is titled Presbyterian Identity and the Presbyterian Church in America: 1973-2013. Again, the PCA identity and the PC(USA) identity developed out of some shared roots if not exactly the same roots. In his Forward, Ligon Duncan talks about the vision and legacy of the PCA concluding “Unwittingly, [the founders of the PCA] forged a body that has played a significant role in the resurgence of Calvinism at the end of the twentieth century and in the beginning of the twenty-first.” But his next line is “Yes from the onset of its history, the PCA has struggled with its identity.”

In some regards the PC(USA) and the PCA may be more alike than they want to admit. One of the manifestations of their shared roots is the fact that both are currently struggling to come to terms with their past regarding racial ethnic ministries and social justice work and figure out how to move beyond that to become a more inclusive and diverse churches for the future.

I found it interesting in the Twitter chat on PC(USA) Identity a couple days ago that one person commented “while history is important we need to forget ‘the way things used to be.'” If I correctly understand what he had in mind I might rather say that we need to move beyond the “seven last words of the church” – we’ve never done it that way before – but we need to realize how much of our present identity is shaped by our roots and how much we need to understand those to move beyond them in the future.

That is to say, I think we really do need the long view of American Presbyterianism because if we focus only on the last couple decades we miss a lot of the struggles, the high points and low points that shape our identity as American Presbyterians today. Looking forward to seeing if this book will help inform our knowledge of that history.

Note: Thanks to the reader who pointed out that I was not as precise as I had intended. The PCUSA began ordaining women at teaching elders in 1956 but it was a progressive move with ordination as deacons and ruling elders in the 1930’s. The above text has been modified to be more precise.

Division and Reunion: a Reflection on American Presbyterianism – A New Documentary

7 Replies

Union Presbyterian Seminary has produced and released a new documentary, Division and Reunion: a Reflection on American Presbyterianism. It can be viewed online or a DVD ordered through that page.

The brief description on the page talks about the documentary like this:

We are pleased to present Division and Reunion: a Reflection on American Presbyterianism, a documentary narrated by lifelong Presbyterian Dr. Condoleezza Rice. We at Union Presbyterian Seminary hope this film will be a learning tool and a way to build faith, showing how God works through reconciliation. Special thanks to the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and the Anne Carter Robins and Walter R. Robins, Jr. Foundation for their support.

There are a couple of points in this description that struck me as I watched the video. The first is the use of the term reflection in the title. This is not a comprehensive documentary on American Presbyterianism, far from it. But it is a reflection on history of division and reunion in the mainstream branch. And since that is the focus you can understand why another word in that description – reconciliation – is emphasized throughout the piece.

An additional important point to be aware of at the onset is that between filming and the final title and description a bit of the focus seems to have shifted. While the title refers to American Presbyterianism, In their concluding comments both Dr. Rice and Dr. Brian Blount, President of Union Presbyterian Seminary, refer to this as a look at the Southern Presbyterian Church. Watching the documentary again, it clearly is that with an emphasis on events and groups related to the old southern church. For example, when the Second Great Awakening and the Restoration Movement is discussed the focus is on Barton Stone and the Cane Ridge movement in Kentucky but no mention is made of the Campbells of Pennsylvania. Similarly, of the groups that split off from the mainstream in the 20th Century only the split in the southern church forming the PCA is mentioned, and northern divisions forming the OPC, BPC and EPC are not mentioned and the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy is only alluded to.

But with that context and recognizing the focus I will say that I very much enjoyed watching this almost 45 minute reflection. For much of the first half it struck me as an enlightening history lesson by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas with thoughtful commentary by a variety of informed and diverse voices adding their historical perspective to the narrative. But, as I said above, it was not a history lesson per se but a collection of reflections around a few important moments. The second half picks up with the formation of the PCUS, or more precisely the PCCSA which would become the PCUS, and that branch remains the primary focus for the rest of the video. In that half we see much less of Dr. Lucas and the story is told more through the collective individual remembrances and the commentary. It is a story that is cast in such a way that the arc of the narrative necessarily brings you to the PCUS/UPCUSA reunion in Atlanta in 1983.

Within the tight focus I have already mentioned, I will say that I appreciated how Barton Stone and the Cane Ridge Revival was included. The origins of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) from the Presbyterians is frequently overlooked in these historical pieces and charts. On the other hand, mention is also made of the split of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in that same era, it is held on the running branch diagram for a bit and then disappears. Since this is about division and reunion I am surprised that the reunion with the CPC in 1906 was not included. Was it because it was a reunion with the northern church or because there was a minority who still have a continuing Cumberland church? Maybe even more intriguing is the history of the Cumberland Church and the closely associated African American branch, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America, with the two branches currently on track for their own reunion shortly.

Finally, if this is about Southern Presbyterianism, it is worth noting that the Covenanter and Secession branch is not mentioned at all in the video. While its American expression began in the northern states this branch now finds it’s main concentration in the southern states with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church headquartered in South Carolina.

In conclusion, let me confirm what many of you probably suspect and that is the fact that throughout the video there are subtle, and some not so subtle, references to where the PC(USA) finds itself today. If anything, this is a piece that looks at where the church has been and the fact that in many ways the present does not look too different from the past.

If you are looking for a comprehensive history of American Presbyterianism, this is not the video you are looking for. If you are interested in a thoughtful, interesting and at some points very honest reflection on a few pivotal points in the history of southern Presbyterians, you will probably find this time well spent.

Reformation Day Thoughts On A Reforming Pope

Leave a reply

On this Reformation Day I would like to spend a few minutes talking about a pope that is not of the traditional nationality for popes, is an outsider to the Holy See and upon taking office sets his sights on reforming the church starting at the top with the Curia and the administration in Rome and thereby raising resistance and concern from the traditional insiders. Current history? Hardly.

Some of the Reformation era popes are fairly well known. Leo X is remembered as the pope that authorized selling indulgences to finance St. Peter’s and then excommunicated Martin Luther when he complained about it (and some other stuff). Clement VII, who happened to be a cousin of Leo’s, is known for his disagreements with Henry VIII and getting Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgement on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But until I started doing the research for this post I am not sure I was ever aware of Adrian VI whose short papacy lies between those two.

Adriaan Floriszoon Boeyens was a native of Utrecht, now in the Netherlands, and was the last pontefice barbaro, that being a non-Italian pope, until – wait for it – John Paul II. He is also one of only two modern popes to keep his given name upon becoming pope. While highly regarded for his loyalty, intellect and administrative abilities much of his higher church duties were in Spain, which is where he was in January 1522 when the other cardinals elected him. They had reached the conclusion that no one in the room in Rome would receive enough votes and upon considering others Adrian was overwhelmingly elected. When he arrived in Rome to be installed it was the first time he had ever been in Italy.

Adrian had no illusions about the state of the church and immediately set about trying to reform it. One biography describes his efforts and the response like this:

History presents no more pathetic figure than that of this noble pontiff, struggling single-handed against insurmountable difficulties. Through the reckless extravagances of his predecessor, the papal finances were in a sad tangle. Adrian’s efforts to retrench expenses only gained for him from his needy courtiers the epithet of miser.

Another says:

Adrian VI. lost no time in adopting measures designed to put an end to the religious troubles agitating Europe. He rightly began with the Roman Curia, but made slow progress, because the evils which he sought to eradicate were deep seated and of long standing.

One of his immediate challenges was the Diet in Nuremberg where the German princes were gathering and the duty of trying to keep them loyal to Rome fell to the pope’s legate Francesco
Chieregati, Bishop of Teramo. Adrian prepared for him Instructions to be read to the Diet which one source says is a document “unique in the history of the Papacy” and “is of exceptional importance to an understanding of Adrian’s plans of reform, and his opinion of the state of things.” Here is the Instruction delivered to the Diet on 3 January 1523 quoted in an essay written for the 400th anniversary of the Reformation:

“You are also to say,” wrote Adrian to Chieregati, “that we frankly acknowledge that God permits this persecution of His Church on account of the sins of men, and especially of prelates and clergy: of a surety the Lord’s arm is not shortened that He cannot save us, but our sins separate us from Him, so that He does not hear. Holy Scripture declares aloud that the sins of the people are the outcome of the sins of the priesthood; therefore, as Chrysostom declares, when our Saviour wished to cleanse the city of Jerusalem of its sickness, He went first to the Temple to punish the sins of the priests before those of others, like a good physician who heals a disease at its roots. We know well that for many years things deserving of abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See; sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse. Thus it is not surprising that the malady has crept down from the head to the members, from the Popes to the hierarchy.

“We all, prelates and clergy, have gone astray from the right way, and for long there is none that has done good; no, not one. To God, therefore, we must give all the glory and humble ourselves before Him; each one of us must consider how he has fallen and be more ready to judge himself than to be judged by God in the day of His wrath. Therefore, in our name, give promises that we shall use all diligence to reform before all things the Roman Curia, whence, perhaps, all these evils have had their origin; thus healing will begin at the source of the sickness. We deem this to be all the more our duty, as the whole world is longing for such reform. The papal dignity was not the object of our ambition, and we would rather have closed our days in the solitude of private life; willingly would we have put aside the tiara; the fear of God alone, the validity of our election. and the dread of schism, decided us to assume the position of Chief Shepherd. We desire to wield our power not as seeking dominion or means for enriching our kindred, but in order to restore to Christ’s bride, the Church, her former beauty, to give help to the oppressed, to uplift men of virtue and learning; above all, to do all that beseems a good shepherd and a successor of blessed Peter.

“Yet let no man wonder if we do not remove all abuses at one blow, for the malady is deeply rooted and takes many forms. We must advance, therefore, step to step, first applying the proper remedies to the most difficult and dangerous evils, so as not by a hurried reform to throw all things into greater confusion than before. Aristotle well says: ‘All sudden changes are dangerous to states.”’

Amazingly frank words about the state of the church coming from the very top. And apparently an admission resulting from the pressure generated by Martin Luther’s calls for change.

A few historical points should be noted about all this. First, the Instruction acknowledges the corruption in the system but the church stood by the doctrinal standards that were also at issue with Martin Luther. In fact, part of the message of the legate to the Diet was for them to stand by and enforce the decision of the Diet of Worms against Luther.

Second, the Instruction was an acknowledgement that Luther and other reformers were correct on certain points and it should come as no surprise that Adrian’s acknowledgement of the need for reform of the system was seized upon by them as validation of those claims that reform was needed.

Third, the work and stress of reforming the church took a heavy and rapid toll on Adrian and from his installation on 31 August 1522 he served barely a year until his death on 14 September 1523. The essay says of his successor, Clement VII, “Although he had given evidence of efficiency and was free from extravagance, yet he lacked decision.”

Yet the need for reform was acknowledged and while the path was not straight and the wheels turned slowly, Adrian’s naming the problems helped pave the way for Clement’s successor, Paul III, to convene the Council of Trent.

Finally, an editorial note: Lest you think that I was being selective in my sources to prove my argument and show the medieval church in a particularly bad light, I would point out that every quote, source and link in this post is from a document from the Roman church. In particular, I was excited to find that collection of essays titled The Reformation: A Series of Articles Published in The Tidings which collected in one volume 24 articles published by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in their weekly The Tidings from November 1916 to May 1917 in their  recognition of the 400th anniversary of The Reformation. I may not agree with their doctrinal interpretation of the Reformation, but I have found it a rich source of historical information from the Roman perspective. [And for my friends on Twitter and Facebook – this was the unnamed “rabbit hole” that excited me last weekend when I found it and discovered a rich source of information for my Reformation Day post.]

And so with that I wish all my Protestant and Reformed friends a very good Reformation Day. May you always be reforming according to the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit.