Skip to main content

Presbyterian divisiveness

One thing that bugs me about us Presbyterians. We seem able to split over the most trivial things - like whether we sing hymns & songs in church, or only metric psalms. It's the dark side of our doctrinal robustness & willingness to speak up.
John Frame has written an excellent article on the divisions in the Presbyterian churches in the USA. He catalogues twenty-two - twenty-two...! - sources of conflict from 1936 to 2003. He argues that many of them stem from different perspectives. The sad result is that instead of rejoicing in what they agree on, people end up end up acrimoniously arguing about what they disagree over - even if it's a relatively minor matter. Ironically, the matter of different "perspectives" on the truth is itself the twenty-second item of contention (*sigh*...).
I'm all for loving the truth. But let's have some truth in love.
"Machen's Warrior Children". http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Machen.htm

Comments

John McClean said…
Kamal,
glad you like the article. It's a good (if scary) analysis isn't it.

John
Puritan Lad said…
Good Article. Some of these are extremely important (such as the ordination of women, which the Bible clearly forbids). Others not so much. They all should be discussed, but we should be able to keep these less important issues from dividing us.

Interesting that he didn't mention Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul. Dare I say 23?

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...