This will probably only be of interest to other Presbyterians--and maybe not even many of them!

While in seminary I wrote this paper (major portions removed here) about three major splits/splinters in the Presbyterian Church. In particular the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the 1920s has striking parallels to today's situation with the task force report, which passed today.

I've bolded some pertinent paragraphs and included a few italicized comments.

(After getting this put into format of the blog, I decided that anyone who would be interested in this history is probably already familiar with it... but I've already gone to the trouble, so here you go.)

By the way, I should probably name this post "rumors of the church's impending death are greatly exaggerated"--it's certainly possible that this could be the beginning of the end, but I doubt it, because the 1920s saw very similar events, and the church persevered.

“The necessity for the separation of the parties is urgent… They do not agree; they cannot agree. We can scarcely conceive of two parties more antagonistic in all the principles of their belief and practice; they receive not the same Gospel; they adopt not the same moral code…” (Moorhead 19)

Presbyterians who are aware of our history may give this quote a knowing nod. We certainly have had our share of factions, controversies and splits. One schism persisted for more than 100 years (between North and South); other more recent ones persist even to this day (the split with the Presbyterian Church in America). It happens that the above quote was written in the Philadelphia-based Presbyterian in 1836 about the Old and New Schools, but could have been descriptive of any of a number of intense conflicts in the church—including, perhaps, the current struggle over ordination standards. Is there something inherent in Presbyterianism that provides an environment ripe for schism? And if so, how has the church survived as well as it has over the years?

This paper will analyze three controversies that have plagued the Presbyterian Church in this country—the Old School/New School division in the 1830s, the split between North and South during the Civil War, and the Fundamentalist/Modernist struggle, which threatened to divide the church in the 1920s. We shall set the stage for each of the controversies by identifying the major social and political movements which influenced the activities of the church. Next we will summarize the major historical events of each time period, and the primary arguments on each side of the issue. To conclude our discussion, we will analyze ways in which each of the controversies reflects themes which pervade our history as Presbyterians.

Old School/New School

The Old School/New School split occurred in 1837 following a period of optimistic U.S. nationalism, a period which gave way in the face of “general political and social unrest in the Jacksonian era” (Armstrong 158). Sweeping changes had unsettled American culture, changes such as a market revolution following the war with Britain in 1815, scarcity of land which led people westward, and a growing middle class which brought the means of production away from the home, which led to a rethinking of traditional roles between men and women.

In terms of religious culture, the Second Great Awakening was well underway, a revival movement in the church which centered on conversion experiences, dramatic religious fervor, and a more Arminian sense of sin and salvation. This revivalist movement, as well as the expansion of U.S. territory and other societal shifts, fostered a sense of excitement and urgency toward evangelizing the new frontier.

A growing, proverbial “rugged individualism” of the American experience led to a diminished sense of common social interest; the second party system was establishing itself, and with this political development came a “democratization of mind—a new outlook in which ordinary people vaunted their right to take charge of their own lives without the help of traditional authority” (Moorhead 26-7). This general shifting throughout the country—shifting of populations, shifting of attitudes towards authority, shifting of theology—created a situation ripe for a clash between the old way of understanding church and something radically new...

The Old School/New School schism can be traced to at least two events in Presbyterian history and polity. First, the subscription controversy, inherited from “mother churches” in Britain, was an attempt to counteract the effects of rationalism on theology. In an effort to protect traditional doctrine of the church, a subscription policy was proposed, requiring that ministers subscribe to the entire Westminster Confession of Faith as reflective of their own theological beliefs. Many reacted that this strict subscription to the totality of Westminster was excessive, and a compromise was reached in 1729 with the Adopting Act (Clarke). Under this policy, every incoming minister was required to affirm Westminster as “in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine” (Loetscher 64). The Adopting Act, and by extension the role of Westminster to the modern church, would remain significant not only in the Old School/New School conversation, but also future conflicts in the church over orthodoxy and freedom of theological belief.
And it's become hot again this year with the PUP report!

The second major event which precipitated the Old School/New School split was the Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists in 1801. This plan allowed congregations to be connected with both denominations... This plan was intended to provide a solution when Presbyterian missionaries bumped up against Congregational ones in the mission field; rather than creating two competing churches, there could be official cooperation between the two Calvinist denominational streams, and the churches would work closely under non-denominational mission boards, such as the American Bible Society (Moorhead 21)...

Thus the Adopting Act and Plan of Union set the stage for a controversy within the Presbyterian Church. As we will see in other potentially schismatic moments in the church, the controversy took shape in issues of both polity and doctrine.

In terms of polity, Old School Presbyterians disagreed with the Plan of Union because it made discipline and oversight of the “unified” churches extremely difficult. Were they accountable to the Presbyterian principles of church order and discipline, or to the Congregational system?...

In terms of doctrine, whereas New Schoolers sought to bring their Calvinist and Reformed roots into line with the ethos of the Enlightenment, they did so in ways the Old School found unacceptable...
Interesting that today's debate on PUP also hit upon both elements. Polity, in that so-called "local option" was debated; theology, in that issues of biblical authority, inclusiveness, and the nature of ordination and leadership were lifted up by various folks.

The clash came to a head prior to the 1837 General Assembly, when Old Schoolers issued a “Testimony and Memorial” containing a list of offenses, both doctrinal and polity-based, on the part of the New Schoolers... Old Schoolers allowed that while the New School may have subscribed to elements of Westminster, they had totally neglected the most “essential and necessary articles.” General Assembly followed quickly on the heels of this document, during which Old Schoolers, with a majority, voted to abrogate the Plan of Union. Synods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee ceased to be a part of the Presbyterian Church. New Schoolers countered with a point-by-point response to the General Assembly, written at a strategy meeting in Auburn, New York, and this document would prove pivotal in the formation of New School orthodoxy (Armstrong 166). The following year, members of these excised synods were denied entry into the General Assembly; they retreated to a nearby building and formed their own denomination, joined by sympathizers from outside the four renegade synods (Loetscher 98).
Many have expressed disgust and weariness at all our "fighting"--obviously strong disagreement has been with us for a long time!

The Split between North and South

As important as the Adopting Act and Plan of Union were in precipitating the Old School/New School split, the issue of slavery was just as critical and had pervaded the nineteenth century in both church and culture. As early as 1787 the Presbyterian Church had affirmed the moderate position of gradual emancipation of slaves, a position that was reiterated by five subsequent General Assemblies (Loetscher 94). The General Assembly of 1818 later labeled slavery “a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature… [it is] utterly inconsistent with the law of God” (Moorhead 27). The issue became so heated that the 1836 GA, just one year before the Old School/New School split, tabled the discussion of slavery indefinitely (Moorhead 94)...

The Old School and New School denominations, with members in both the North and South, would ultimately become four as the country divided during the Civil War.
I took out most of this section since it doesn't have as many direct parallels to the current situation.

Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy

Like the other controversies we have studied, the fundamentalist/modernist struggle was borne directly out of the shifting social and cultural circumstances of the day. Darwinism was gaining prominence in the decades prior, and the Scopes trial took place in 1925 during the height of the battle in the Presbyterian Church. (The trial would prove a public-relations nightmare for the fundamentalists, who were perceived by the public at large as close-minded and hopelessly obsolete in their perspective.)

In addition to evolution, new understandings of psychology and sociology troubled those in the church who were in the business of preaching absolute truth, and comparative religions also emerged as an important discipline. The immense changes in academic disciplines prompted Henry Adams to remark that, concerning virtually all disciplines except mathematics, the average student in 1854 was closer in knowledge to the year 1 than the year 1900. (Contemporary readers can surely identify with the seeming breakneck pace of new information and academic shifts.)...

The rise of the Social Gospel in the late 19th century also set the stage for the impending conflict. Purveyors of the Social Gospel held that the Kingdom of God on earth depended not on converting individual souls, but on the church’s pursuit of social justice issues. So called New Theology, also called liberalism or modernism, was borne out of movements of transcendentalism and Unitarianism and emphasized the “immanence of God, the goodness of humanity, a moral interpretation of the atonement, the importance of ethics in religion… an optimistic view of history, and … the advent of the Kingdom of God on earth” (Longfield, “Church” 36).

The advent of World War I had an indelible effect on many of these developments. The pre-war idealism which was exemplified in the Social Gospel gave way to an “isolationism, intolerance, and a ‘quest for normalcy,’” and the National Origins Act of 1924 was passed as “an effort to ensure white hegemony by limiting immigration” (Longfield, “Church” 37). In light of this isolationism and pessimism, the “Roaring Twenties” gave rise to a great moral upheaval. Rates of divorce and crime rose as observance of the Sabbath declined. Churches found themselves increasingly marginalized, bereft of the privileged voice they had enjoyed even fifty years prior, when they were so instrumental in shaping public morale and helping make secession possible during the Civil War (Ahlstrom 673).

Antecedents to the fundamentalist/modernist struggle in the 1920s included the most famous heresy in the Presbyterian Church, against Charles Briggs in 1890. Briggs acknowledged errors in scripture that could not be explained, and denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Briggs, who taught at Union Seminary in New York, was ultimately forced out of the church, as the General Assembly came down on the side of biblical inerrancy (Clarke).

During the early years of the 20th century, the Fundamentalist camp was solidifying, with Princeton as its primary center. In 1909, a series of pamphlets were published to raise public support of the conservative/fundamentalist cause, and in 1910, the General Assembly mandated that candidates for the ministry be examined for their ability to support the “five fundamentals”: virgin birth, inerrancy of scripture, substitutionary atonement, the ability to work miracles, and the physical resurrection of Christ. This statement was reiterated at the 1916 GA, but it was not until after World War I that a controversy truly erupted, with a series of sermons, articles and documents volleyed back and forth by the two camps (Longfield, Controversy 25).

The initial “spark” to the conflict is traditionally understood to be Henry Emerson Fosdick’s famous 1922 sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”, challenging conservatives in the church to tolerate more liberal points of view. The sermon was followed soon after by a counter-sermon entitled “Shall Unbelief Win?”, then a conservative treatise written by J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Seminary, then an overture to the 1923 General Assembly calling for Fosdick to be disciplined, and finally the liberal “Auburn Affirmation” which defended liberty of religious thought. GA responded by re-affirming the five fundamentals and referring the situation back to New York Presbytery, which, as expected, exonerated Fosdick. When the issue came before General Assembly once again, the Assembly skirted the theological issue, and argued instead on grounds of polity—Fosdick, as a Baptist, had never entered into an official relationship with the church in which he was preaching. On one level, it was a victory—Fosdick was not kicked out of the church; on the contrary, he was invited in—but Fosdick’s conscience would not allow him to stay in a denomination with which he was at odds theologically (Longfield, “Church” 41).

The controversy moved along over the next few years, through a series of General Assembly actions. In 1924, conservative Clarence Macartney narrowly defeated conservative but tolerant Charles Erdman for moderator, by 18 votes. Even then we were divided! Despite Macartney’s conservative leanings, no action was taken against the signers of the Auburn Affirmation—perhaps due to fears that strong action would hurt the conservative cause politically.

The following year, Erdman ran for moderator on a platform of greater theological inclusiveness for the sake of evangelism, and won easily on the second ballot. That year, the Permanent Judicial Commission referred to the Assembly a case involving two ministers from New York Presbytery who did not affirm the virgin birth of Christ. While the threat of schism loomed, Erdman surrendered his position as moderator, and a commission was appointed to look into the matter (Longfield, “Church” 43). The commission of fifteen, driven by a hope for unity in the church, delivered a unanimous report to the 1926 General Assembly, attributing the clash to such causes as intellectual movements, varied approaches to polity, and misunderstanding. That same year, the five fundamentals were declared non-binding, which virtually guaranteed a tolerance for more liberal wings of the church (Longfield, “Church” 45).
This action on the part of the Assembly occurred with the support of the moderate middle of the church.

In the next few years, Machen was forced out of Princeton Seminary and founded the more conservative Westminster Theological Seminary. He later alienated allies and the General Assembly by creating a missions board to rival the denomination’s Board of Foreign Missions (Clarke). The GA declared Machen’s board unconstitutional, and he formed his own rival denomination (Longfield, “Church” 48). Thus while the struggle between fundamentalists and modernists rocked the church for a period of years, and arch-conservatives like Machen did leave the church, the conflict did not end in a full-fledged split.

Emerging Themes

In examining common threads among these three events, a number of themes and trends emerge. First, it seems that for churches who trace their roots to Calvin, there will always be a tension between a “quest for freedom” which takes into account new scientific and cultural understandings, and a “scholasticism which tries to order competing impulses” (Clarke). That is, each of the three conflicts was borne out of the intense shifts evident in the culture, and each had a group battling to maintain a tight hold on the theology and practice in the church, and an opposing group struggling to infuse the church with a sense of relevance in the midst of the changing culture. At the core, however, both parties seemed driven by the same thing—a sense of fear and confusion over the increasing disestablishment of the church in North America, fear that the traditional bastions of authority were under attack. Where they differed was in their reactions to this dilemma.

...Besides the struggle over how to engage/react to the cultural and scholastic shifting of the day, each of these conflicts is characterized by a significant group of moderates, who held the “middle way” between the two extremes. In the case of the Old School/New School, the Adopting Act of 1729 represented a moderating position on the church’s relation to Westminster—both the Act itself, which was a compromise, but also the fact that “essential and necessary articles” were never defined, thus allowing for some liberty within constraint.

In the decades leading up to 1837, when the controversy was heating over what was then called the “New Divinity,” an investigating committee both commended the “zeal” of the synod but also “regretted that ardor ‘on this subject should be manifested in such a manner as to be offensive to other denominations, and especially to introduce a spirit of jealousy and suspicion against ministers in good standing’” (Moorhead 23). Clearly the church is struggling with how to mediate between the two extreme factions in the church, and again and again chooses the middle way as the proper place for the church to stand. This theme will emerge in the North/South as apologists for slavery will insist upon finding ways for the institution to be humane, and in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, as conservatives like Charles Erdman favored tolerance and unity; “it was this ‘mediating group’ that ‘held the balance of power and eventually decided the issue’” (Longfield, “Church” 39).

It seems, further, that the presence of a “larger goal” helped keep the peace; in both the Old/New School and Fundamentalist/Modernist situations, the desire to be a united church for the purposes of evangelism ultimately drove the moderates. The presence of this mediating group, however, did not mean that the results were always overwhelmingly in favor of one side or the other—when the Old School expelled the New School, the New School denomination was about four-ninths the size of the Old (Loetscher 98). And we remember the 1924 General Assembly moderatorial race, in which Clarence Macartney edged out Charles Erdman by 18 votes (Longfield, “Church” 40).

It is impossible to examine these three historical struggles without comparing and contrasting them with the current conflict facing the Presbyterian Church over the ordination of homosexuals. Now, as then, two diametrically opposed factions are battling with one another for the center of the church over the protection of orthodoxy in one hand and an awareness of the need to minister to a changing, increasingly diverse world on the other.

On one side, the so-called “Confessing Church” movement (this was written in 2001) is calling upon churches to sign a covenant affirming biblical infallibility, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, and marriage between a man and a woman. On the other side, a new Auburn Affirmation has been drafted, which affirms the General Assembly's declaration that “the church protects its own minority point of view as if it were protecting the future, recognizing that the dissenter may well represent the will of God” (PCUSA 8). There are those who say "the church has spoken on the ordination issue; why do gay advocates stick around?" The words of the Auburn Affirmation provide some explanation.

In the center, of course, is the sizable but relatively silent “middle way,” seeking peace and unity in the church. The votes on this issue are extremely close. Whether the controversy will result in a full-fledged split, as in the Old/New School, or whether a small radical faction of the church will split off, leaving the church battle-scarred but relatively intact, remains to be seen.

To me, the passage of the PUP report continues in the tradition of the middle way which seeks to reconcile the tension between liberty and essentials. Will it work? Who knows?

In terms of the future of the church, I think with the passing of the PUP report we will see some folks leave a la Machen in the 1920s, but I predict more of a splinter than an all-out split. Again, who knows?

Works Cited

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale Press, 1972.

Armstrong, Maurice, et al, eds. The Presbyterian Enterprise: Sources of American Presbyterian History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Clarke, Erskine. Lectures for Presbyterian History and Polity Class, Spring 2001.

-----------. Our Southern Zion: A History of Calvinism in the South Carolina Low Country, 1690-1990. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996.

Loetscher, Lefferts A. A Brief History of the Presbyterians. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Longfield, Bradley J. “For Church and Country: The Fundamentalist-Modernist Conflict in the Presbyterian Church.” Journal of Presbyterian History 78:1 (Spring 2000): 35-50.

-----------. The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists and Moderates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Moorhead, James H. “The ‘Restless Spirit of Radicalism’: Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837.” Journal of Presbyterian History 78:1 (Spring 2000): 19-33.

Presbyterian Church (USA). Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government. Adopted by 195th General Assembly.



Works Consulted
Pope, Earl A. New England Calvinism and the Disruption of the Presbyterian Church. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987.

Smylie, James H. “American Presbyterians: A Pictorial History.” Journal of Presbyterian History 63:1-2 (Spring/Summer 1995).

-----------. A Brief History of the Presbyterians. Louisville: Geneva Press, 1996.