Everything Old . . .

As I’ve said before, we Presbyterians are a literate lot . . . we proudly tout our educational levels (which are higher than average), we’ve been the genesis of more than one major University, and at least once in the past, the denomination has split over education. True—in 1810, a presbytery was formed that 19 years later would become the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The issue that fomented the split was the licensure and ordination of three men without formal theological education. This was an action deemed necessary for the evangelization of the frontier (at the time, Kentucky) where seminary-trained individuals were few and far between. Other issues were the use such non-traditional methods as circuit-riding and revivals, and the acceptance of the Confession of Faith by the ordained individuals with scruples. It’s interesting to note that the last question—revolving around scruples—was the only major, doctrinal issue in the dispute. All the rest are ecclesiological or methodological.

The upshot of the affair is that the powers-that-be in the church were not ready to allow licensure and ordination without theological education, no matter how urgent the ministry problems along the frontier, and were leery of the new-fangled evangelical methods. To this day, full ordination in the PCUSA is reserved only for those with an education from an approved theological seminary. Of course, due to some of the same issues as were facing the Cumberland Presbyterians, we’ve had to create “commissioned lay pastors” who can perform all the functions of a minister of Word and Sacrament. At the same time, the Cumberland Presbyterians have tightened the requirements for the highest ordained office, making a Seminary education a virtual necessity for the ordination to pastoral office. In fact, in the almost two centuries since the split, the denominations have converged so that there isn’t a lot of practical difference between the two, as they have adjusted—sometimes with bluster—to practical exigencies.

By now you’re probably asking “is there a point to all of this?” Well, I think there is . . . if you look at the reasons for the split [good places to start would be http://www.history.pcusa.org/pres_hist/briefhist.html (from a PCUSA slant) and http://members.aol.com/mleslie598/cphistory.html (from a CPC slant)] you’ll see some interesting things. First, and most obviously, they revolve around ordination, around who we trust to lead our churches. Sound familiar? Many of our troubles today revolve around who we shall ordain. Second, they are about power . . . the ordaining Cumberland Presbytery claimed that they had the latitude to ordain the individuals in question. The church at large—represented by the then-Synod of Kentucky—begged to differ, claiming that their interpretation of the rules of ordination held sway over the presbytery’s. This, again, should sound eerily familiar to anyone following our present troubles, where the adoption of the recent PUP report created concerns about “local option”—presbyteries creating their own ordination standards. Finally, the concerns of tradition—seen in the refusal to ordain non-educated ministers and the fear of revivalism and circuit riding—versus necessity in changing times should be recognizable to anyone who’s ever tried to institute contemporary worship (or anyone who’s ever even contemplated such a thing) in a traditional church. Everything old, it seems, is new again.