Thursday, September 11, 2008

UPCNA History


DIMINISHING DISTINCTIVES:
A STUDY OF THE INGESTION OF THE
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA
BY THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY
THE REV. ALBERT RHODES STUART
PASTOR, HIGHLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
SLIPPERY ROCK, PENNSYLVANIA
PRESBYTERY OF BEAVER-BUTLER



INTRODUCTION & THESIS:

WHO WERE THE United Presbyterians of North America (UPCNA)? Where did they come from? What did they believe and how did they practice this belief? What happened to them, why did they disappear and how did they disappear as quickly as they did?

How did a classically conservative Presbyterian church go from being one of the three most theologically, socially and politically orthodox denominations in the country to a standing (many would contend) of being Reformed "only on paper" in just 38 years?

The study of these questions and their possible answers yields much insight into the understandings of and attempts to achieve Christian Unity in the early and mid 20th Century. These answers also help to explain the latent theological assumptions and tendencies of nearly 10 percent of communicants of a contemporary 2.2 million member denomination (the PC[USA]) that traditionally has far greater impact on formation of public social policy than their small numbers would seem to warrant. Such background shows us how a powerful, yet often silent, minority of present-day mainline Presbyterians think about theology and praxis issues (Nationally, Old United Presbyterians, or their spiritual progeny, number just under 10 percent of the total membership of most Presbyterian Church [USA] (PC[USA]) presbyteries. In certain geographical areas the concentrations of old UPCNA churches and members is higher than that. In fact, in some presbyteries, former UPCNA congregations outnumber former Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) churches. Sometimes these UP percentages can reach as high as 60 percent.)1

A study of this disappearance of traditional UP "faith and order" distinctives from the mainline church may also help to inform our perspectives about the growth, theological and practical disposition of the northern segments of the Presbyterian Church in America. Many of the congregations that have joined her ranks in the last 15 to 20 years were formerly disaffected United Presbyterian congregations who debarked the Northern mainline's ship between 1975 and the present because of a firm belief that the Reformed essentials of the faith once held by the old UPCNA have been dispatched by the PC[USA].

For anyone truly interested in the history of the current Presbyterian Church [USA], these are issues and questions seldom raised and only infrequently answered. Yet the answers to these questions would go a long way to explaining the corporate schizophrenia of one of the larger contemporary mainline denominations in the United States of America. Within the course of this study, the author has discovered that many of these answers are given though they appear hidden because they appear piecemeal within the framework of the study of other issues.

We find the questions and their answers cropping up in studies of denominational distinctives, polity, social concerns and positions, theology and biblical studies. But almost nowhere are all of these concerns addressed coherently together.

Further hindering such a sustained study -- and yet making its undertaking all the more urgent -- is the fact that there are few living participants in the events leading up to the 1958 merger that created the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA). There are still some "second string" players alive, but most of them are now well into their 60s and 70s. The "first string" players like Theodolphus Mills Taylor and Addison Leitsch were all fairly well advanced in years in the mid- to late- 1950s and have long since gone to meet the Lord.

The working thesis of this exercise -- developed from the piecemeal sources mentioned above and some personal interviews and taped lectures -- holds that there were three principal factors at work in the disappearance of the distinctive practices and beliefs of the former UPCNA:

  • Due to the 10:1 ratio of communicant members, ministers and elders of the PCUSA v. the UPCNA the loss of corporate identity was inevitable. Despite the best of intentions by PCUSA leaders, figures as statistically skewed as these lead, inevitably, to wholesale ingestion of the antecedent body in all but name.
  • The two antecedent denominations had radically different institutional policies and methodologies for the study, discussion and outworking of theological issues and their attendant Christian praxis. The sheer size of the Northern mainline church vis-a-vis the UPNA ensured that the Northern methodology took the day.
  • The UPCNA had only one denominational seminary that trained roughly eight out of every nine denominational ministers. The PCUSA had 10 such seminaries. The mainline put forth far greater numbers of ministers trained in PCUSA "methods of operation" than did the UPCNA. This trend was further accentuated, and the stream of UPNA distinctives further diluted by the merger of Pittsburgh-Xenia [UPCNA] and Western [PCUSA] Theological Seminaries in 1958-1960.
  • The full dissipation of the seceder identity took about 10 to 15 years to accomplish, but by 1975 it was pretty much a fait accompli.

    This study attempts to trace a brief historical understanding of the UPCNA, its antecedents and essentials. It will then move to an equally brief study of the move toward, and accomplishment of, merger among these antecedents to form the UPCNA. From there, we will look to the first two decades of the 20th Century and the move toward the diminution of UPCNA distinctives that culminated in the 1925 Confessional Statement and Testimony. We will also look to the periodic move toward merger with other Reformed bodies (of both Scots-Irish and Dutch-Germanic strains) in the United States. We will pay particular attention to the proposed merger and Plan of Union with the Reformed Church in America in the 1940s and the participation of the General Assembly in merger discussions with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) and the PCUSA. Finally, we will look quite briefly at how these issues have, and may yet, work themselves out in the life of the PC[USA] today.


    SECTION I: ANTECEDENTS:

    THE HISTORY OF THE antecedents of the United Presbyterian Church of North America is the history of the Seceder movement from the 18th Century Church of Scotland. It is the history of men and women of strong Reformed theological conviction and principle who engaged in long and heated dispute with the Scots' General Assembly throughout almost the entire 43-year history of the re-established Scots Church from 1690 until 1733. The issues precipitating the rancor and eventual schism were theological, educational, practical and polity concerns that were seldom addressed and never settled.

    The Seceders were not made of the same stern stuff as the Covenanters. As a body most of them had failed to stand on the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 through the persecutions of Presbyterians by Charles II and James II. All of the Seceders, however, seriously held to strong Calvinist theology and attempted (as best they were able) to maintain a position akin to that held by low church puritan Anglicans. They persevered the general persecutions of Presbyterians and re-emerged following the 1689 "Glorious Revolution" of Prince William of Orange and Princess Mary (the last viable scion of the Stuart Household). They, and their cause, came to full light again in the 1690 Settlement that firmly recognized and established Episcopacy as the official norm for England and Presbyterianism for Scotland. The Covenanters, still Covenant subscribers, refused to join the General Assembly because of refusal by Crown and Parliament to re-subscribe the Solemn League and Covenant. The Seceders accepted the Settlement.

    What they found, however, when they joined with their state-church brethren was a dismal situation of low morality, poor preaching, muddled theology and lack of church discipline. They left behind the pain and suffering of "the Killing Times" to find that the re-franchising of Presbyterianism in Scotland left the General Assembly in desperate straits. The educational quality of the ministers serving pulpits were exceedingly low. So, too, were the general quality of preaching and the Christian character and praxis of many ministers and elders. There were still heavy traces of Anglican polity left over in the newly re-framed Presbyterian Church, particularly with regard to the lay-patronage system that went hand-in-hand with the way in which ministers were called as pastors. In this system, ministers gained the patronage of local barons or other important notables, thus ensuring that they were called to choice pulpits.

    John Gerstner correctly assessed this as the trigger issue which prompted the Secession movement, though as he notes it was not the root of the disruption.2 That lay in the theology of the General Assembly -- or more accurately, the lack thereof.

    The breach results largely from the labors of the Rev. Ebenezer Erskine, pastor at Portmoak village church. In 1723, Erskine and several of his contemporaries republished a 17th century English work of Reformed theology titled The Marrow of Modern Divinity as an effort to combat what they saw as a definitive slide away from the essential Calvinistic theology in the Scots' kirk. This slide was an accomplished fact noted throughout the universal church and commented upon by a Bishop Burnet who roundly trashed their theology, preaching, teachability and morality.3

    In their attempts to renew and reinvigorate a flagging orthodoxy, the "Marrowmen" (the name for Erskine and the others who republished and subscribed to the theses of the book) antagonized and alienated the theological moderates who held sway at the General Assembly. The moderates fixed on one carelessly written section of the book that sounded like a defense of Arminian and Antinomian theology. With this stuck in their quivers, the moderates officially declared the Marrow of Divinity as heretical and proscribed its use and dissemination by anyone. Certain censure and or suspension awaited those found teaching from it.

    The seceders loss of such a popular and well-understood pedagogical tool was a critical blow that all but silenced them for a decade until the lay-patronage issue emerged in 1732-33 as the proverbial straw.

    Erskine preached a sermon on Psalm 118:22 ("The stone which the builders rejected has become head of the corner") at the October 1732 meeting of the Synod of Perth and Stirling in which he lambasted the theological moderates as the "builders." He was addressing were both theological and lay-patronage issues in the church and was met with a stony response. The synod censured him for "conduct unbecoming,"because of the "uncharitable" tone of the sermon. He appealed the synod's sentence to the General Assembly of 1733. A total of 14 ministers sided with Erskine -- three actually appending their names to Erskine's appeal. Erskine lost the appeal however, and then found that he and the three named associates were effectively banned from their ministries.4

    They ignored the ban and were defrocked by the 1734 General Assembly. Upon this decision of the Assembly, the four handed to the moderator and clerk a declaration of their secession from it. They subsequently met and established the Associate Presbytery.

    The situation continued thus for 11 years until 1745 when the now-larger and self-styled Associate Synod was ripped apart over the issue of subscription to the Burgess Oath. Those willing and unwilling to take the oath formed themselves into the Burgher and Anti-Burgher Synods.

    The Burgher Synod sent its first missionaries to the American colonies in 1753 and they quickly took up their work among the Scots-Irish immigrants settled in the Susquehannah Valley of Pennsylvania. Anti-Burgher missionaries were also sent out in subsequent years and attempts were made to perpetuate the quarrel over the Burgess Oath on American Soil. Happily, these attempts were largely unsuccessful, mostly because there was no political reason for continuing it here. There were no Burgess Oaths in America and therefore no reason to do battle. The Burghers and anti-Burghers composed their differences and formed the Associate Church.

    In June 1782 a merger was effected between large segments of the Associate Church and the still-covenanting Reformed Presbyterian Church which had also settled in America. The members, elders and ministers of the uniting factions saw themselves as standing outside of the effective range and scope of both the Solemn League and Covenant and the Burgess Oath controversies. Their polity, confessional, and testimonial standards were virtually identical in that all were firmly and irrevocably bound to the Westminster Standards. The only real issues of contention among them were the testimonial clauses surrounding the Covenant and the Burgher oaths, which, as we have said, were found to be uncompelling. There was then nothing to prevent their merging into the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church of America.

    Small groups of Covenanters and of Anti-Burghers held themselves aloof from the merger and maintained the names, institutions and testimonies of the constituent denominations. The effect of this merger was to create two Seceder and one Covenanter denomination on American soil. The Covenanters who effected the merger were effectively transformed into Seceders and it is these two Seceder denominations that are of interest in the study of the United Presbyterian Church inasmuch as the surviving Covenanters remained separated if reasonably close "kissing cousins."

    We should now consider the testimonial positions of the Associate Presbyterian and Associate Reformed Presbyterian General Synods from 1782 until they merged in 1858 to form the UPNA because it is these standards that remained the norm from this time until 1925-26 and the adoption of the Confessional Statement of 1925. The essential testimonial issues (Burgher and Anti-Burgher issues aside) for the Seceders were seen in their acceptance of public covenanting, their strict maintenance of the Westminster Standards and exclusive uninstrumented psalmody and their disavowal of any and all secret societies. These, no less for the UPs than for the Covenanters, were the norm until the teens of the 20th Century.5


    SECTION II: FORMATION OF THE
    UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA:

    THE DISCUSSIONS THAT resulted in the merger between the Associate and the Reformed Presbyterian Synods were, as noted by W.E. McCulloch, designed to produce one Reformed and Presbyterian church composed of both Covenanter and Seceder communicants. Instead it produced three irritable and disaffected bodies leery of each other's motives and work.6

    The work of both Seceder denominations proceeded remarkably well. Both sent out home and foreign missionaries and pursued the wave of westward immigration and expansion domestically. From the merger and split of 1782 until the formation of the UPCNA in 1858, the Associate Church grew from one "seceded" Seceder presbytery into one synod with four constituent presbyteries. The ARP synod grew from an initial one synod with three constituent presbyteries into one General Synod with four subordinate synods and eight constituent presbyteries by 1802. It would have grown larger in all probability except for the withdrawal of one New England Presbytery and the Synod of the Carolinas in the mid 1830s* .

    During this time the Associate Presbyterians endeavored to establish a permanent mission to the island of Trinidad. The work was not tremendously successful, partly on account of native diffidence and/or indifference to the Scots theology and partly due to strained British-American political relations in the 1840s and 50s. The mission was transferred to the authority and supervision of the Free Church of Scotland. The far larger and more highly successful mission effort to the Sialkot region of India was inaugurated. This work fairly exploded with results and was a going concern of long duration within a few years (in fact, by the time of PCUSA-UPCNA merger in 1958 fully a third of the total membership of the UPCNA was located in the three UP synods in India. These synods were given self-determination and were never part of the three-way merger discussions between the UP General Assembly and the Northern and Southern mainline churches.).

    The Associates also held the honor of having begun the Service Seminary in Cannonsburg, Washington County, Pennsylvania in 1794 and Westminster College in New Wilmington, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania in 1852. Service Seminary was moved just prior to merger in 1858 to Xenia, Ohio to form the Xenia Theological Seminary.7

    The Associate Reformed Presbyterians can hardly be considered inactive during this 75 year period. Numerically larger than their smaller and poorer cousins, the ARPs conducted mission work among Native Americans in the Midwest and Great Plains, as well as in Syria, Egypt and Northern India. Various presbyteries and synods determined the need for more plentiful educational and theological institutions to provide opportunity and lessen the financial strain on sponsoring congregations which sent ministerial candidates. In the course of this great 50 year-long educational development push the ARPs founded four theological seminaries at New York City; Newburgh, New York; Oxford, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and then Monmouth College.

    Both antecedents were engaged heavily in the areas of abolition, temperance, human welfare and the Christianization of America.

    Attempts, studies of and plans for merger between the two denominations were being discussed as early as 1820, though to minimal effect. So strong was the general sense of denominational identity and the desire to stand by minute points and disputes of difference between their articles of testimony that the discussions took two full decades to produce the United Presbyterian Church after the establishment of the first official conference of the two churches for such discussions in Pittsburgh in 1838.

    The greatest impetus toward change and union seems to have come in Oregon and on the foreign mission fields of the Sialkot region of Northern India. The geographically and organically disassociated Associate and Associate Reformed synods in Oregon determined that they needed all of the internal support and communion they could muster and concluded that their geographical isolation from other seceders rendered thorny eastern testimonial issues a moot point. They merged in the 1840s and formed the United Presbyterian Church of Oregon.

    American Seceder missionaries of both communions had been cooperating on projects of mutual concern for several years. This was a necessity for them because their numbers and resources were small in the midst of a vast population. Further the Indians among whom they worked had no appreciation whatsoever for essential Scots' controversies from which they were wholly disassociated and which, so far as they could tell, had little validity even in an American context.

    The above-mentioned initial committee meeting of 1842 was actually the first of a long series of seven three-way merger meetings held among the ARP, AP and RP synods until 1848. The meetings yielded no real hope of organic healing between Covenanters and Seceders whose only real -- though substantial -- disagreements were over the nature, meaning and full extent of public covenanting. The RPCNA dropped out of the discussions in 1848 and dismissed their synod's committee. The AP and ARP synods, however had achieved a fair measure of success in hammering out differences during these discussions and continued to meet periodically thereafter.8

    Harper, in His Church Memorial, gives long details of the merger movement and of the subsequent AP and ARP merger conventions held at Xenia in March 1857 and at Allegheny (now Northside, Pittsburgh) in May of 1858. The upshot of these two long conventions was that they had managed to smooth the way for their respective synods to dissolve themselves when they each met on May 26, 1858 at Pittsburgh and then consolidate them to form a merged General Assembly of a United Presbyterian Church of North America.9

    Following the short meetings of the respective synods in Allegheny and Downtown Pittsburgh, the commissioners formed up in two processions at 10:00 A.M. on May 26th and marched to their designated meeting place at the corner of Seventh and Smithfield Streets (in what is now Mellon Square) they linked up and marched together in two-file line to the Old City Hall:

    The historic auditorium was literally filled to overflowing. Dr, Joseph T. Cooper led in prayer. Then Dr. D. C. McLaren announced the verses of the one hundredth Psalm. "These were by the vast assembly to the grand old tune of ~Old Hundred," and such a sublime volume of praise never before filled the walls of any building in this city." A number of addresses were delivered and a number of psalms were sung. . . . Then followed the formal ceremonies of union. Dr. James T. Pressley of Allegheny City was elected Moderator. Dr. Pressley said: "Suffer me to render thanks to God that my life has been spared to see the union consummated, for which I have labored for twenty-two years, and permit me to render thanks to you for the unexpected honor of presiding over the first meeting."
    It was moved "that the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church do now adjourn to meet in Xenia, Ohio, on the third Wednesday of May, 1859, at 7 o'clock P.M. Carried."
    "Dr. Pressley pronounced the benediction, and the Synod adjourned."10
    The now united United Presbyterian Church was finally joined on the basis of Scripture, the Westminster Standards and "Articles of Testimony" which numbered 18 articles dealing with:
      1. Plenary Inspiration of Scripture,
      2. The Eternal Sonship of Christ,
      3. The Covenant of Works,
      4. The Fall of Man and His Present Inability,
      5. The Nature and Extent of the Atonement,
      6. Imputed Righteousness,
      7. The Gospel Offer,
      8. Saving Faith,
      9. Evangelical Repentance,
      10. The Believer's Deliverance from the Law as a Covenant,
      11. The Work of the Holy Spirit,
      12. The Headship of Christ,
      13. The Supremacy of God's Law,
      14. Slave-holding,
      15. Secret Societies,
      16. Communion,
      17. Covenanting, and
      18. Psalmody.
    This testimony served for 70 years as the basis for United Presbyterian theology and practice, and its remnants could be found in the United Presbyterian Church even up to and following its 1958 merger with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. It was the law for the praxis of its communicant members and officers and led it to take part in many early ecumenical social and political endeavors. The church as it was now constituted became heavily engaged with the work of the National Reform Association (twice joining in on the sponsoring of petitions for a Christian Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) as well as the formation of and participation in the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Lord's Day Observance Society.11

    During this time church members were forbidden membership in any and all secret societies and organizations, or from membership and participation with any organization which -- even if not technically a secret society -- possessed any secret ceremonials. No member in good standing could belong to the Grand Army of the Republic or the Knights of Labor. Members were further enjoined from the public singing of any songs save the inspired psalms of the Bible during worship. Between 1880 and 1920 there were no fewer than six major judicial cases, major deliverances and discussions of exclusive psalmody to appear on the Assembly's annual docket. And no member in good standing could, or should even attempt, to observe communion ordinances with any other church body -- even the Northern and Southern mainline denominations -- because no one else save the Covenanters had a testimony that was so strict and well-spelled-out as the UPCNA. Without agreement to the Articles of Testimony -- fellowship of faith in Jesus Christ notwithstanding -- no true fellowship sufficient to warrant open communion was present.

    All of this said, however, we should note that during these intervening 67 years between the consummation of the Seceder union and the adoption of the new Confessional Statement in 1925, there were various committees and commissions of the General Assembly examining ways in which to foster and prosecute greater Christian Unity among themselves and other particular churches of the Reformed faith. In the course of this quest the Assembly either helped to establish or joined the Alliance of Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian System (herein after referred to as the Reformed Alliance), The Federation of Evangelical Churches, the Council of Churches of Christ in America, the Federal Council of Churches and eventually the World Council of Churches.12

    While such participation in federated and confederated organizations may set off alarm-bells among some on account of their reputations as being doctrinally lax, it should be noted that the Assembly did set strict guidelines for its commissioners to various fraternal organizations about what did and did not constitute good Reformed theology and/or Christian praxis. On at least two occasions the Assembly withdrew itself from further participation with these groups because of the declining state of their doctrine and on at least two other occasions it outright refused to consider membership in groups because it would have meant surrendering deeply held distinctive testimonial and confessional beliefs.

    The overriding concerns on every occasion in which such issues arose was whether or not a given organization would foster and promote evangelical conversion and belief, and whether it would promote or denigrate the distinctive Reformed beliefs of the United Presbyterian Church.

    Inevitably, the long move toward greater participation within the larger Christian Church did help to dilute the conviction of members regarding psalmody, the prohibition of secret societies and closed communion. Oddly enough, however, it seems that this came not so much from participation with non-Reformed Christians as it was from their increased participation with other Presbyterians and Reformed Christians. We will more closely examine the probable reason for this state of affairs in the next section.

    This moves us then to the next emphasis of our study. We will now look to the rapid changes of the teens and twenties of the 20th Century to see what may have been lost and or gained in the move to add a confessional document to the United Presbyterian subordinate standards.


    SECTION III: CONFESSIONAL CHANGES & MERGER DISCUSSIONS:

    THERE ARE essentially two ways to view the progressive change in the praxis and testimony of the UPCNA in the early 20th Century. The former of the two is to look at the change as gradual progress toward a more unified and less tendentious and cantankerous United Body of Christ. The latter is to view the process as the gradual unravelling of the very fabric of the denomination leading into ever greater depths of compromise and depravity.

    The former choice can honestly be asserted by the student of UP history as he or she sees the development in faith, life and witness at home and abroad that developed in the early years of the century among the traditionally orthodox and Reformed churches of America. Increased levels of cooperation and mutual assistance were seen in home and foreign missions among the United Presbyterian, Associate Reformed Presbyterian,* Reformed Church in America, PCUSA and PCUS. That the assertion can be made is due to the near unanimity of theological view among these participants. All of them subscribed to either the Westminster Standards or the Canons of Dordt, 2nd. Helvetic and Belgic Confessions and the Heidelberg Catechism. Without exception all of these ecclesiastical bodies subscribed to classical formulations of Reformed orthodoxy and hermeneutics.

    Others holding the latter opinion can support their position by looking to the traceable slide in testimonial adherence among members of the UPNA. This is well illustrated in a study conducted by Frank E. Hare. He tracked the decline in the practice of public social covenanting among United Presbyterian in the 1880-1926 period.13 Hare notes a clear decline in the practice despite its continued presence as Article XVII of the Articles of Testimony. Over a roughly 50-year-period, the practice of covenanting was used on fewer than a half-dozen occasions -- and even then the actual process was watered down from classic Presbyterian patterns of social covenanting. The last time the covenant was truly used was in a call by the 1918 General Assembly for prayer, fasting, repentance and thanksgiving to implore God for an Allied Victory over the German Empire in the First World War. This particular covenant was never truly implemented because the agreed upon date for a national day of prayer and abasement came approximately a week after the conclusion of the Armistice.14 Similar trends can be discerned with regard to the Articles on closed communion and the prohibition of secret societies.

    Gerstner, in his study, rightly chose to take the former rather than the latter view. As he does, however, it becomes clear that he was cautious in his approach and seems to have lamented the loss of UP distinctiveness even as he celebrated what he saw as the growth of Reformed Evangelical witness and potential for the church and nation.15 Gerstner could and did view the situation the way in which he did because he understood the intent of the Confessional Statement and correctly viewed the praxis issues in the Testimony as being adiaphora. The intent of the framers of the confession, and the mandate of the 1919 General Assembly which commissioned their efforts, was to translate the intent and meaning of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism into a clear, concise and contemporary rendering that could be picked up by even the least educated layman, read and understood.

    Gerstner says of the charges of theological drift and laxity,

    There have been considerable and serious claims that the adoption of the Confessional Statement in 1925 marked the abandonment of high Calvinism in favor of a considerably modified testimony. In this claim there is an ounce of truth and a pound of error. The ounce of truth is this: The Confessional Statement is less explicit than the Confession at some crucial points, is ambiguous at some others and downright inconsistent in at least one place, namely Article XIV. The pound of error is this: the Westminster Confession is still retained as our basic subordinate standard (though yielding to the Confessional Statement upon deviations) and our new statement is basically only an abbreviated and up-to-date declaration of that historic creed.16
    The lack of argument against the drift away from denominational distinctives is well explained by looking to the sister denominations with which the UPNA was allied in prayer, mission work, fraternal relations and social actions and programming. These denominations -- particularly the PCUSA and PCUS were allied in hermeneutics and doctrine. Both of the denominations were laboring under the strong and lasting influence of the Princeton Theology of the Hodges and Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield -- none of whom could be even remotely accused of theological liberalism. The relations among the denominations were fairly harmonious and there was no cause for alarm as it was only with these Reformed denominations that the UP General Assembly and membership were willing to deal at truly deep and sharing levels. And, if these obviously Christian brothers were Masons and Oddfellows, then surely these organizations couldn't be so bad after all, could they?

    The author's great-grandfather is a perfect example of what we are discussing here. William Morey Stuart was an orthodox PCUSA elder from Upstate - Southern Tier New York. Active in Canisteo Village, Steuben County and state Republican politics, Elder Stuart was a firm supporter of William Jennings Bryan's social and religious activism and was active in the Steuben-Elmira Presbytery, eventually becoming its moderator and a two-time commissioner to the General Assembly. Will Stuart was also Master of the local Lodge.

    Any United Presbyterian friend or serious acquaintance of Will Stuart's would see his faith, character and lifestyle and could honestly conclude that perhaps the Lodge did not mean here what it had in Scotland where its historic theological implications were clearly Deist.

    While this is only one situation, it is reflective of a far larger pattern and may be "blown-up" and viewed as being illustrative of a far larger situation present in the country and the denomination as a whole. This is particularly true when one considers the demographics of American Presbyterians in the Northern United States during the first two decades of this century. With the exceptions of Western Pennsylvania, Kansas and Iowa where United Presbyterianism was at its strongest, the ratio of UP to PCUSA communicants was roughly 1 in 10. Once the walls between them began to come down, these numbers helped to widen the breach and to reinforce the perception of mainline members as being solid God-fearing reformed Christians of an evangelical flavor.

    Particularly in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky -- the heartland of conservative American Presbyterianism -- trends toward theological liberalism within the PCUSA General Assembly were overshadowed by the great scholastic Westminster orthodoxy of Princeton. It was, then, quite understandable that the theological issues of contention could be seen as reasonably small. Alexander Hodge, Warfield and eventually J. Gresham Machen held powerful influence in the Assembly and the UPs were relatively unconcerned with tendencies toward theological drift. Such a slide didn't become entirely apparent until 1929 and the "great reversal" and the shake-up at Princeton.

    By this time, however, inter-Presbyterian cooperation was well entrenched as an established fact and most communicant members of the mainline still sounded quite orthodox.

    The primary accomplishment of the PCUSA's theological dust-ups for the UPCNA was to convince the 1919 General Assembly that the Westminster Standards must be translated into a contemporary language and style that would be readily apprehendable by contemporary people in a fully modern society. The 61st General Assembly appointed a permanent committee of nine well-known church leaders and educators who were given the mandate to accomplish the task. The panel's chairman and prime-mover was the highly regarded United Presbyterian "pope" Dr. John McNaugher, the long-time professor and president of Pittsburgh and then Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological and the United Presbyterian answer to Warfield. What the committee returned, and the 1925 Assembly fully ratified was a concise statement of essential Westminster Calvinism phrased in the contemporary language and style of the 20th Century. 17

    The statement officially dispatched the dying prohibitions against singing of hymns, secret society participation and membership and strictly closed communion -- though this now meant, essentially, that it was now possible to partake with other Presbyterian as well as Dutch and German Reformed communicants. Gone were the classic Seceder testimonial stands -- or almost. Even the new Statement made watered-down claims to past adherence. This can be seen in the preamble to the Confessional Statement which reads, in part:

    The United Presbyterian Church of North America declares afresh its adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, as setting forth the system of doctrine taught in the scriptures, which are the only infallible and final rule of faith and practice. Along with this it affirms the right and duty of a living church to restate its faith from time to time so as to display any additional attainments in truth it may have made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, by constitutional action consummated June 2, 1925, it adopted the following Confessional Statement . This Statement contains the substance of the Westminster symbols, together with certain present-day convictions of the United Presbyterian Church. It takes the place of the Testimony of 1858, and wherever it deviates from the Westminster Standards its declarations are to prevail. . . .18
    And it becomes clear from a perusal of the form for the licensure of candidates for ordained ministry, that the General Assembly and the Presbyteries took seriously their stand with regard to high Calvinism. Licentiates were forced to do obeisance to an understanding of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards. The vow for probationers to become licentiates remained firm until the merger in 1958. It says:
    (1) Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? (2) Do you believe and acknowledge the doctrines of the United Presbyterian Church, set forth in the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and the Confessional Statement, as agreeable to, and founded on, the Word of God, and do you promise to adhere to and maintain the same against all opposing errors?19
    Doubtless, as occurs in most denominations, there were probably some candidates who held mental qualifications or reservations with regard to their vows before their presbyteries during examination. However, if these folks did have such reservations, they kept their heads "low to the ground" and said nothing would have ever given them away. While the PCUSA may have decided in 1929 that it would no longer engage in heated theologizing, the same was decidedly not true of the UPCNA. Were a candidate for licensure, or even an ordained minister, to publicly disavow the confessional underpinnings of the church, he would have discovered himself before his presbytery of jurisdiction in short order for an official explanation, and more probably suspension or unfrocking.

    And, as indicated briefly above, there was still -- even if only grudging and watered down -- a profound respect for the spirit of the old Testimony of 1858 found in the Confessional Statement. We can see this with regard to its renewed stands on Sabbatarian observance, public covenanting, psalmody and secret society participation. Article XXIX (of Sabbath Observance) enjoins members from partaking of any "worldly enjoyments and recreations" on the Sabbath. With regard to public covenanting, Article XXXI (Of Lawful Oaths and Vows) recommends the voluntary assumption of warranted Scriptural obligations by individuals and groups within the church when the need arises. Even though Article XXVIII (Of Praise) permits the practice of the singing of "meritorious evangelical hymns in which are expressed the experiences, privileges, and duties of the Christian Life" in worship, it still strongly and permanently recommends the singing of the "Psalms of the Bible, by reason of their Divine inspiration, their excellence and their evident design." And, of Secret Societies, Article XXXV (Of Church Fellowship) commends to all members the forsaking of "all associations, whether secret or open, that they find prejudicial to their church allegiance and a hindrance to the fulfillment of their Christian duties."20

    In light of all of these enumerated factors, we can see that Gerstner's 1953 assessment of the theological climate of the denomination was essentially correct. The denomination had never abnegated its theological heritage and never intended to do so.

    It would do well here to examine what the effect of such a change in standards may have been for the praxis of the congregations and communicants in the denomination at that time. We will use the family of Rev. Dr. Robert Kelly from the Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church, Mt. Lebanon, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania as a case study of how the traditional distinctives worked themselves out in the context just described.

    Kelly, now emeritus professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary of the PC[USA] and a minister in the UPCNA, the UPCUSA and the PC[USA] for 45 years, remembers "covenant childhood" akin to what most contemporary life-time Covenanters would describe today. He says he vividly remembers daily Family Altar conducted by his father every morning without fail. The standard pattern for Family Worship in the Kelly home was the reading of, and explanation of a Bible chapter, prayer concerns and at least "twenty minutes of sustained knee drills, led by my father."21 Kelly's father was a life elder on the session of the Mt. Lebanon Church and also served as an elder on the first session of the Bower Hill Community United Presbyterian Church, Mt. Lebanon when it was begun as a mission of Mt. Lebanon Church.

    I was born in 1927. I grew up on Washington Road in Mt. Lebanon, and the story is told that my mother used to sit out in the sun in the front yard every day during the summer mornings doing her weeding when I was a baby. She would read whole bible chapters to me every morning -- I guess she just assumed that I would pick up and understand what she was reading by osmosis. As funny as that may sound, however, it goes to show that my family regraded me as a Covenant child.

    I remember growing up in Twin Towers (the community nickname for Mt. Lebanon's twin-steepled large stone UP Church) and attending Rally Day every year. It was completely normal in the '30s and 40's to see older men wearing the long rows of pins and bars for 37 or 40 years of perfect Sunday School Attendance. I remember that we always sang at least one full psalm every Sunday in worship and that the hymns we sang really couldn't get any more radical in their departure from scripture texts than John Newton.

    We got the United Presbyterian and the Christian Union Herald in the mail every week, and I remember growing up reading them faithfully every weekend.

    In worship and in Sunday School -- except it was called Sabbath School then -- we got broad Calvinism hammered into us by use of the Shorter Catechism -- We had to memorize it. But mostly what I remember is having conservative Evangelical Christian distinctives taught to us. We had Decision Day at least once a year, we had regular mission speakers, and the New Wilmington Missionary Conference and Sabbath night service and Mid-week prayer service.

    That's just the way it was.22


    The Rev. Dr. Harold Scott, the late executive presbyter for Pittsburgh Presbytery and former professor of homiletics and pastoral theology at Pittsburgh-Xenia and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, describes much the same sort of life as a son of the UP manse from Sterling, Kansas. Scott recalled that his father's, and later on his own, churches always followed "pretty well established UP practices in worship and congregational life."23

    The pages of the United Presbyterian for the years 1945 through 1957 are replete with examples of traditional orthodox Reformed instruction seen in article, feature, theological discussion of issues at General Assembly and the numerous synods and presbyteries. Every week there was a Sabbath School lesson contained as a regular feature of the magazine. The curriculum was written through various biblical books by quarter by senior ministers and leaders within the denomination. Nothing save the very occasional letter in the "Letters to the Editor" page ever hinted at any serious dissatisfaction with the UP Church's growing tendency toward discussion, cooperation and potential with other Reformed churches. If anything, the correspondent in such letters tended to support such policies by about seven-to-one.

    All of the above -- positive, negative and just plain contradictory -- set the stage in the late 1930s through 1941 for merger discussions with the ARPC, the RCA the PCUS and the PCUSA. Committees on fraternal and ecumenical relation were kept rather busy with constant rounds of discussions and debates with representatives of other fraternal delegations.

    Discussions with the ARPC were the first to begin in 1938 and -39. The committees set a fairly steady pace of about two to three meetings a year and were making good progress toward being able to actually draft a plan of union. Similar discussions were also engaged between the General Assembly and the General Synod of the RCA. All of these plans were set on hold by mutual agreement in the Winter and Spring of 1942 on account of the outbreak of America's entrance into World War II following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

    Formal and informal cooperation among these Reformed churches continued with respect to pan-Reformed examination and review boards for military chaplains, Red Cross and inter-church cooperative relief work and at the local church level on any number of day-to-day war relief programs. In a sense these activities made the further discussion of unions and mergers all the more likely on account of the exceptionally high degree of cooperation exhibited across the board. Added to these activities was the impetus provided by the news of the war's increasing levels of brutality and its culmination with the beginning of the Atomic Age. Fear was rampant. -- fear of war, fear of communism, fear of fascism, fear of atomic holocaust, and then later of nuclear holocaust. Discussions of strengthened Christian presence, once-again influential churches and a united Christian voice concerning world affairs were seen as good and sufficient reasons of themselves for re-invigorated merger talks in the post-war era.

    The first of the merger agreementsto be hammered out and voted upon was actually the one with the RCA. The Plan of Union for this proposed merger was submitted to the 91st General Assembly and the 1949 General Synod set to take place in June and July, respectively.

    The enabling rationale for the merger is well summed up in its preamble which describes the perceived situation thusly: Since the Reformed Church and the United Presbyterian Church . . . hold the Reformed faith in doctrine and adhere to the Presbyterian form of church government; since any differences of faith or in order that exist between these two churches lie within the bounds of historic Calvinism and are readily reconcilable; . . we believe a union of these churches will in no wise subtract from the power of either but promises to release greater spiritual power in their witness and ministry. . .".24

    The Basis for said Union producing the United Presbyterian Reformed Church would have been consummated on the basis of the Westminster Standards, the Confessional Statement, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg Catechism. The union held great promise for a truly pan-Reformed Church that would have been achievable, would have bridged the Scots-Dutch chasm and greatly expanded the work of two roughly equivalent churches. The Assembly and Synod approved the merger and set it down to their constituent presbyteries and classes. The UP presbyteries returned positive votes. The RCA classes' votes yielded a net negative. It seems that the RCA classes were not happy at the possibility of loosing their distinctive Dutch Reformed identity. The merger died.25

    The discussions with the ARP Synod likewise provided a solid plan of union that would have linked two geographically segregated presbyterian denominations of roughly equal size and almost identical theology. The Basis of Union was to be the Westminster Standards and the Confessional Statement. As with the RCA merger three years previous, the merger Plan of Union was approved by the Assembly and the General Synod and sent down to the presbyteries for their votes. Again, the UP presbyteries voted in the affirmative. Again, the prospective marriage partner queered the deal by effectively "jilting the bride at the altar," and moving on with its denominational life.26

    About this time (July-August 1950 - July-August 1951) the push toward a three-way merger among the UPCNA, PCUSA and PCUS kicked into hyper-drive. It appeared likely that the merger would be accomplished with relative ease. The end-result seemed so assured based on the harmonious discussions of the respective merger committees that the constituent Assemblies had three identical sterling silver Celtic crosses cast; the intent was that at the time of the merger, the three crosses would be riveted together and would become part of the official regalia of office for each moderator (In 1983 this became a reality).

    Rising tides of dissent on the part of the PCUS, and to a lesser extent the UPNA, began to make themselves heard and felt over the next three years. Finally the internal pressures within PCUS presbyteries killed their willingness to participate further so that its General Assembly eventually pulled out of the merger discussions entirely. Meanwhile the UPCNA and the PCUSA forged ahead.



    SECTION IV: CONSUMMATION OF THE UPCUSA MERGER
    & THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE UPCNA:

    DESPITE OCCASIONAL RUMBLES of dissent from varying quarters with the denomination,27 the process toward full union between the UPCNA and the PCUSA was progressing full tilt. The essential impetus for the move was largely the same as it had been for the preceding 10 to 15 years. The hope was that the Church Universal would be strengthened for witness and service by such a merger and that there would be far greater resources for redoubling the already considerable evangelism and mission resources in the field for both of the remaining merger partners.

    This sentiment is echoed in the comments of Scott who said he was fully in favor of the union when it was time to vote for it. He recalled that the elder commissioner from his congregation in Los Angeles who accompanied him to the 99th, and next-to-last, General Assembly of the UPNA in 1957 voted against the merger while he voted for it. "Essentially, from where I stood and what I could see at that time, we were joining into a really solid situation that had excellent potential to benefit ministry nationally and world-wide."28

    This was a position also subscribed to by Kelly who said he voted for the merger because he saw it "ultimately, as a phenomenal opportunity for the advancement of the Kingdom of God here on earth."29 And even the estimable Gerstner, who came in time to proclaim the merged church apostate, allowed in 1953 that the merger, were it to go through had good potential.30

    With such backing, then, how did the merged church turn out to be so much different from what its principal players foresaw?

    Jack Rogers may well have provided the missing clue on that score with regard to the issue of theological subscription and deliberation at the General Assembly level. In a March 1988 lecture series at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,31 Rogers noted that a chief feature of the theological disagreement within the merged church (now PC[USA]) results from the different ways in which we are accustomed to approaching and discussing it. The old UPCNA and the PCUS had no difficulties hammering out their disagreements at the Assembly level and did so quite successfully until each merged with the northern church. The same cannot be said for PCUSA. In response to the bloody verbal punching fests of the teens and 20's, the General Assembly declared a moratorium on theological discussion to gain a measure of respite and give all parties time to "lick their wounds and heal." That moratorium was never rescinded with the inevitable result that the northern church was forced to utilize polity solutions in key theological debates whenever they arose.

    "It was an absolutely understandable solution to an intolerably brutal situation within the life of that General Assembly. They were seeking unity and peace and the only way they saw to do it was to defer the theological discussions. Unfortunately, it was absolutely the wrong way to fix the situation."32

    It is Rogers' contention that it was this pattern for not doing theology that created the space for the serious reinterpretations, mis-interpretations and misrepresentations of the Westminster Standards that occurred throughout the mid- to late- 1960s by many within the UPCUSA. He argues, cogently, that the Northern Mainline's willingness to force a subscription to Westminster that it was never willing or able to discuss created an incredible backlash of theological confusion that exploded into the eventual call for the drafting of the Confession of 1967.

    Kelly agrees with this position and said he saw the tendency brewing at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and in the wider church for several years as "anti-Westminsterians" attempted to play off minute differences among Reformed confessions against each other. "When they -- I'll call them the `Young Turks' -- did this, they were preparing to call for the drafting of a new Confessional document that they hoped would supersede, rather than augment Westminster. In short, they highjacked Karl Barth's theology to do what they did to form C-67."33

    Rogers said much the same and said that the framers of the Brief Statement of Reformed Faith were roundly attacked by proponents of C-67 because they feared that their own tactic was being played against them by a bunch of "arch-conservatives" who came along and wrote a creedal statement based upon the Apostolic Benediction. He further argued that this is not a problem -- or at least not an insurmountable one -- for those who interpret the entire sweep of the present PC[USA] Book of Confessions through itself from beginning to end and then compare the whole against Scripture. "When one does that one, will find an amazing amount of unanimity among them all -- they were all Reformed after all."34

    This form of theologizing through polity came to infect the united denomination, Rogers argues and is part of the reason that the traditional UP and PCUS historic identity and epistemology have disappeared in the 38 and 13 years since those denominations merged with the old PCUSA to form the present PC[USA].
    The other factor principally responsible for the loss of traditional UP distinctiveness and emphases in theology and hermeneutics was the merger of its only denominational seminary with one of 10 seminaries belonging to the PCUSA.

    Kelly and Scott, in their interviews with the author, both noted that former Pittsburgh-Xenia President Addison Leitsch was firmly against the 1958 merger because he feared the loss of classic Reformed theology and exactly the type of seminary merger that eventually occurred with Western to form Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. "Dr. Leitsch said he was afraid of the loss for the church of our heritage because he was fairly certain that we'd [the Pittsburgh-Xenia faculty] get merged into Western. He said he feared two things -- the liberalism of Western and the dilution of UPs to the point of total ineffectiveness, Kelly recalled."35

    Leitsch would seem to have been a prophet of sorts. The Pittsburgh-Xenia and Western Theological Seminaries were merged in 1959 - 60 to form the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. From that time onward there were never more former UP faculty member than 50 percent. Statistically, this meant that the old UP influence in theological education had dropped from one in 10 to one-half in 10.



    SECTION V: CONCLUSIONS:

    THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH of North America disappeared, save in name, from the American scene because of three principle factors and one peripheral factor. The Church of the Seceders did not examine carefully enough the internal factors of the denomination into which it was merging itself. It failed to recognize the inherent dangers of merging into a denomination that statistically outnumbered it by a factor of 10 to 1. It allowed itself to lose its distinct theological contribution by merging its only seminary with one of ten PCUSA seminaries. And, finally the denomination was swallowed whole by a far larger denomination on the basis of its hope to achieve greater Reformed Christian unity and witness.

    Things would certainly have turned out far differently had the UPCNA been successful in its merger attempts with either the ARP or the RCA synods, but they seem to have been either more skittish or else more cautious about the mergers they undertook.

    Regardless, the result of the merger of the United Presbyterian Church of North America to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America resulted chiefly in its having virtually disappeared save in the names and corporate memories of some of its former congregations.

    Whether this disappearance will turn out to be permanent or not remains to be seen. Gerstner became convinced that it had become a permanent deal and that the PC[USA] had become apostate. Even so, he didn't come to this conclusion and make the jump to the PCA until six years ago in 1990. Many who share Gerstner's theological perspective have not been so convinced and still remain in the denomination.

    Groups like Presbyterians for Renewal and the Presbyterian Lay Committee continue to lobby for, and gain support for their efforts to renew our subscription to our confessional heritage. These organizations have gone a long way in 10 to 15 years to alert people to the continuing theological drift within the PC[USA] and to attempt to reverse that trend through education and honest and straightforward theological discussion of issues at the General Assembly level.

    If they truly achieve these goals, then we may be able to say that the witness of the Seceders has not disappeared entirely. In fact the PFR has reappropriated and employed the long neglected practice of public covenanting by insisting that its active members subscribe to its covenant of denominational renewal.






    ENDNOTES:

    1. The United Presbyterian Churchof North America (UPCNA) had only 220,000 communicant members residing in the United States in 1958 (the last year of its history) as compared to the 2.2 million members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).
    These numbers provide the 10 percent figure that will be used throughout this study. That said, however, in certain areas like Western Pennsylvania, Kansas and Iowa those numbers are far more highly concentrated than elsewhere in the country.
    Thus, in Pittsburgh Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church [USA] (PC[USA]), roughly 55 to 60 percent of the churches in the presbytery have old UPCNA antecedents. Allegheny County, PA (the borders of Pittsburgh Presbytery) formerly contained two UPCNA presbyteries and one PCUSA presbytery of roughly equal size which were merged into one presbytery subsequent to the 1958 merger of the two denomination. Similar statistical groupings appear in other presbyteries as well.

    2. Gerstner, John. "Origins and Later History of the United Presbyterian Church." unpublished paper (1953) 2.

    3. Harper, R.D. The Church Memorial. (Cleveland, Flemming & Crawford, 1858) 13-4

    4. Harper, 19-21.

    5. Harper. 88-131.

    6. McCulloch, W.E. The United Presbyterian Church and its work in America.
    (Pittsburgh, Board of Home Missions of the UPCNA, 1925) 27.

    7. Walther, James Arthur ed. Ever a Frontier: The Bicentennial History of the Pittsburgh
    Theological Seminary. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994) 108-09.

    8. McCulloch. 32-3.

    9. Harper. 80-7.

    10. Harper. 80-7.

    11. The Digest of the Principle Deliverances of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian
    Church of North America.
    (Pittsburgh, United Presbyterian Board of Publication and Bible School Work, 1942).

    12. Digest. 228-39.

    13. Hare, Frank E. An Historical Study of Social Covenanting in the United Presbyterian Church
    and Its Ancestors.
    (Pittsburgh, Th.M. Thesis at Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, 1958).

    14. Hare, 83-4.

    15. Gerstner. 7-8.

    *. The General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. This is the descendent of the
    ARP Synod of the Carolinas which separated itself from the ARP church in the early 1800s on account
    of its great geographical separation from the rest of the denomination in the Northern United States.
    That separation was accomplished amicably and without rancor on account of polity and geography --
    not, as is sometimes asserted, because of theological disagreement.

    16. Gerstner. 7.

    17. McCulloch. 54-6.

    18. Confessional Statement of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
    (Pittsburgh, Board of Christian Education of the United Presbyterian Church of North America, 1956). 7.

    19. "The Book of Government and Worship," Chapter VII: Section 130 (1)-(2). Digest. 44.

    20. Confessional Statement. 22-7.

    21. Kelly, Robert. Personal Interview conducted by Albert Rhodes Stuart via telephone
    22 April 1996 from 7:50 to 9:45 P.M.

    22. Kelly Interview.

    23. Scott, Harold. Personal Interview conducted by Albert Rhodes Stuart via telephone
    19 April 1996 from 1:35 until 2:20 P.M.

    24. Plan of Union: 1949. (Pittsburgh, Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, 1949) 7.

    25. "Reformed, UP Merger Fails." The United Presbyterian. Monday, 8 May 1950. 12.

    26. "ARP Church Turns Down Union Proposals" The United Presbyterian. Monday 18 June 1951. 12-3.

    27. Blackwood, Rev. Robert. "Church Union Without `Forbearance in Love' -- Is it Workable?"
    The United Presbyterian.
    Monday, 16 January 1950. 8
    (NOTE: Blackwood was Secretary General for the Sabbath School Association of Western
    Pennsylvania)

    Evans, Hetty Graham. "Why Church Union?" The United Presbyterian. Monday, 13 March 1950. 2.

    28. Scott Interview.

    29. Kelly Interview

    30. Gerstner. 17-8.

    31. Rogers, Jack Bartlett. "What Do Presbyterians Believe?"
    Taped Lecture Series at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. March 1988.

    32. Rogers. "What Do Presbyterians Believe?"

    33. Kelly Interview.

    34. Rogers. "What Do Presbyterians Believe?"

    35. Kelly Interview


    BIBLIOGRAPHY:

        The Book of Government and Worship of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Christian Education, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1943, 1947,
        1948, 1951 & 1956).

        The Confessional Statement of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Christian Education, 1956).

        The Digest of the Principle Deliverances of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Publication and Bible School Work, 1942).

        GERSTNER, John. "Origins and Later History of the United Presbyterian Church."
        unpublished paper (1953).

        GLASGOW, William Melanchthon, Cyclopedic Manual of the United Presbyterian Church.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Publications, 1903).

        HARE, Frank E. An Historical Study of Social Covenanting in the United Presbyterian Church
        and Its Ancestors.
        (Pittsburgh, Th.M. Thesis at Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary, 1958).

        HARPER, R. D. The Church Memorial. (Cleveland, Flemming & Crawford, 1858.).

        KELLY, Robert. Personal Interview conducted by Albert Rhodes Stuart via telephone
        22 April 1996 from 7:50 to 9:45 P.M.

        MCCULLOUCH, W. E. The United Presbyterian Church and its Work in America.
        (Pittsburgh, Board of Home Missions of the UPCNA, 1925).

        MCKIM, Donald. Foundations in Biblical Studies.
        Taped Lecture Series.
        (Dubuque, Iowa; University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, 1982).

        The Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
        Volumes I & II, 1858 - 68.
        Volume XIV, 1916 - 19.

        ROGERS, Jack Bartlett.

          What Do Presbyterians Believe?
          Taped Lecture series at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. March 1988.
          Evangelism: Its Forms and Functions.
          Taped Lecture Series at Union Theological Seminary (Richmond, Va.) March 1973.
        SCOTT, Harold. Personal Interview conducted by Albert Rhodes Stuart via telephone
        19 April 1996 from 1:35 to 2:20 P.M.

        SCOULLER, James Brown. A Manual of the United Presbyterian Church of North America:
        1751-1887. 2nd. Ed.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Publications, 1887).

        STUART, William Morey. Beckoning Clouds: A Half-Century in the Service of the People.
        (Canisteo, N.Y., Unpublished Memoirs, 1952).

        The Subordinate Standards of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
        (Pittsburgh, UPCNA Board of Publications, 1887, 1914).

        WALTHER, James Arthur, ed. Ever a Frontier: The Bicentennial History of the Pittsburgh
        Theological Seminary.
        (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994).

        The United Presbyterian. Volumes for the years 1945-58.


        Copyright © April 2000 by The Rev. Albert Rhodes Stuart
        Self-Published

        The Rev. Albert Rhodes Stuart
        Pastor
        Rock Stream Presbyterian Church &
        Lakemont Congregational Christian Church
        Yates County, New York


    God the Father or She the Fellow-Traveller


    GOD THE FATHER OR SHE THE FELLOW-TRAVELLER:
    A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ORTHODOX & PROCESS VIEWS
    OF GOD THE CREATOR

    BY
    THE REV. ALBERT RHODES STUART
    PASTOR, ROCK STREAM PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
    ROCK STREAM, NEW YORK
    PRESBYTERY OF GENEVA



    NOTE: This paper was originally written in 1994 in the wake of the WCC-sponsored "Re-imagining God Conference". Subsequently, I updated and web-published the paper in 2000 in answer to a second such conference that was being held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. That said, this paper is as relevant today to our theological problems and considerations as it was then. The issues then -- as now -- revolve around heterodox or heretical understandings of the Doctrine of God. These issues are very much the subject that must be considered as we in the PC(USA) read, study and evaluate the Trinisty Study paper.
    Grace & Peace to you. Soli Deo Gloria.
    +Rusty Stuart

    the Rev. Albert Rhodes Stuart (Rusty) is now the pastor of Highland Presbyterian Church in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania. He is a minister-member of Beaver Butler Presbytery in the Synod of the Trinity.



    INTRODUCTION & THESIS:

    SEVEN YEARS AGO THE ramparts and battlements of traditional Christian Orthodoxy came under the first serious, renewed and sustained attack from the Process Theology juggernaut that it had received in the last quarter-century.

    The attack began in full in the Spring of 1993 when a group composed primarily of disaffected feminist, womanist and mujerista theologians held the World Council of Churches sponsored Re-Imagining God theological conference, whose stated purpose was to examine new models for visioning the existence, attributes and work of God.

    Now, in 2000, it is likely that we shall hear more of the same within the Presbyterian Church (USA). Thanks to this year's General Assembly passage of Commissioner Resolution 00-2 (which will reverse policy set by former interim General Assembly Council executive Frank Diaz) General Assembly staffers will be entitled to paid study leave to attend a similar conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota this Fall.

    Further buttressing this contention are recent comments made by incoming Women's Ministry Division head June Parker Huber during an interview with the Presbyterian Outlook ("Debate over women's programs continues as Presbyterian Women gather in Louisville") that attempts to argue against the Re-Imagining Movement are nothing short of attempts to control women and make them subservient. This was a line of argument further articulated in the same article by Judy Strausz-Clement, an Illinois pastor who said, "We're challenging the good old boys and the way it's always been done before. It's a threat to the power structure. It's a power and control issue."

    And one of the chief assertions consistently made by proponents of this movement has been precisely the point made and articulated by Strausz-Clement. Orthodox Reformed Theology has consistently been used as a power and control apparatus to keep women silent and beholden. Because of this, they contend, it is necessary for us to take a new and more proper look at the feminine attribute Sophia (or wisdom). The express goal of such re-evaluation is to force people to see that God is really more of a Goddess who is all inclusive of all creation and who suffers along with creation in all of its travails.

    That such assertions are from any orthodox understandings of the Doctrines of God, Creation, Sin, Redemption and Eschatology pure poppycock loaded with a virulent panentheism that blows away notions of God's immutability and impassability cannot be denied either in full or in part. The Revs. Strausz-Clement and Huber may call them issues of power and control (and indeed they may be, but not in the ways that they evaluate control), but in truth they are more fundamentally issues of Christian orthodoxy and heresy. And from the perspective of reformed theology, this movement, by-and-large, postulates an utterly heretical views of God, Creation, humanity, depravity and salvation.

    And in order to defend ourselves from such heresies, we must look not so much at the gender assertions of the feminists as we must look at their philosophical and epistemological worldviews. This is so because such a critical look will show that their conclusions are insupportable by their system which crumbles in on itself under its own weight.

    As a system that began with the philosophical investigations of Alfred North Whitehead, Process Theology essentially became one of the myriad brands of designer theologies with a five to 10 year life-span in the liberal seminaries of the 1960s and 70s.

    Strict Process Theology died as much from the boredom of its adherents as it did from major gaps in its system. However it was to this system that many of the feminist, womanist and mujerista theologians and writers of the 1970s and 80s turned for use as a vehicle for making new base assertions about God; assertions for which, hitherto, they had had little or no support.

    Under the tutelage of such writers as Rosemary Radford Reuther, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and Sallie McFague, the feminists welded their agenda onto the back of Process Philosophy and came up with a new model for Christian theology which they have primarily called either Feminist-Process Theology or Ecological Theology.

    The aim of this study is to show that what they, in fact, created is a worldview that is distinctly non- or anti-christian and epistemologically untenable.

    DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:

    To begin such a study we should first understand that orthodoxy holds that God is the transcendent and immanent, immutable, impassible uncreated Creator Who, for reasons known only to Himself, decided to create all that exists ex nihilo. Everything else that orthodoxy holds and understands devolves from this root presupposition derived from Scripture.

    Process Theology, on the other hand, holds that we are all part and parcel of the evolutionarily superior being who gains existential fulfillment through creation. The minds involved in Process thought reject God's transcendence in favor of a more personable deity who is wholly immanent.

    Such a conception of God flies in the face of broad based orthodox Christian theology, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed or Arminian. It is also, at root, an understanding loaded with crucial epistemological statements that effect any and all attempted dialogue between process theology and classical Nicene or Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

    At the heart of any such discussion are three interconnected doctrines without which Christianity as faith or system makes no sense: [1] The Doctrine of God; [2] The Doctrine of Creation; and [3] The Doctrine of Inspiration, Revelation and/or Authority. Some fundamental understandings of these three must exist on all sides of the argument in order for it to proceed at all. And the variances in understanding make all of the difference in the world.

    We will briefly examine what each camp holds with regard to the above in order that we may proceed in any fashion with the discussion at hand.

    CLASSICAL ORTHODOXY:
    Classical orthodoxy holds that God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Hypostatic or Personal being who exists from and to eternity above and apart from all matter, energy or any other thing that He Himself has created. This God, according to "the most wise and holy counsel of his own will" determined and decreed the creation of the universe [that is to say, all that exists]. This creation took place in a void where only God existed and it was accomplished through the agency of God's direct Word over some period of time. That which was created in no wise shares any substance with God and was entirely created by Him from nothing.

    Any definitive knowledge we possess about God, or the genesis of that creation, comes from Him to us by verbal communication with humans who have passed it on in oral and written form. This information is contained for us primarily and authoritatively in the scriptures which we acknowledge as the Old and New Testaments.

    These documents, which are viewed as authoritative (though with some differences in emphasis -- some view the texts as being inerrant, some as infallible, some as simply authoritative) are seen as reliable in their own right by virtue of the Holy Spirit's inspiration and preservation of them in order that they may tell us everything we need to know about the nature od God, the creation, the Fall, sin and our redemption by Christ through faith.

    PROCESS THEOLOGY:
    Process Theology holds that God is the focal point of creativity. An eternal force, or spirit, this God is an evolutionary one who expands [along with] His/Her/Its creation. Inherent in much of process thought is some greater or lesser form of panentheism which holds that creation is incorporated within yet not contiguous with the greater totality of God. This notion, then, means that all of creation is, in some fashion or other, divine. This ties in with the evolutionary nature of God. If the cosmos, as a lesser portion of God, is evolving, then so too must the totality of God be evolving toward some zenith, "Omega Point" (DeChardin) or "Cosmic Christ" (Fox).

    In fact, in much of process thought -- particularly as it has been employed as a vehicle for feminist theology -- God is the One who suffers with humans in creation and gains some measure of existential fulfillment from our existence and travail.

    Creation, then, is not static and dependent upon God as an outside Person or Force. Rather, Creation, as a part of God, is in a state of perpetual expansion or flux. Creation and God are mutually interdependent; much in the same way as the organs of the human body and the autonomic nervous system only function when in synch.

    Further at issue in this discussion is the nature of revelation and/or authority within Process Thought. If this system has any serious central understanding of the inspiration and authority of scripture, then it is one obscured to those who cling to either orthodox or neo-orthodox models.

    In a relatively contemporaneous essay comparing the merits of process and reformed theologies, University of Dubuque Theological Seminary professor Donald Bloesch noted that Process would seem to take the authority of Scripture with much less seriousness than traditional and neo-orthodox Reformed theologies. He grounds this assertion on his study of the number of direct and indirect citations and allusions to actual Scriptural references of authority in support of theological claims staked and stated.

    As he notes, Luther and Calvin through Barth and even Brunner are fairly loaded with references while many Process works run virtually from beginning to end with none or only rudimentary ones.1

    FEMINIST / ECOLOGICAL PROCESS MODEL
    DECONSTUCTIONALIST - BASED:
    Sallie McFague's model holds to the same essential presuppositions as does the more broad-based Process model, but with the added twist that it is explicitly based upon an epistemology of deconstruction. Deconstruction holds, essentially, that all knowledge is fleeting and is truly mere human construct.

    This makes for a poor epistemology that cascades in upon itself in short order because if all knowledge is mere human construct and people cannot truly know anything, then all attempts to re-value, re-mythologize or re-imagine are in vain for they are every bit as inherently flawed as any- or everything else.

    Therefore, in this system, whether intentionally or not, all revelation is viewed critically as farce. In short, "it just 'ain't' gonna happen"

    ANALYSIS:
    Now, with the epistemological problems "in hand" we may proceed to a critical look at the initial proposition of the movement: God is the eternal She who subsumes all creation within Herself and suffers along with it. And working from a classical reformed understanding it is quickly evident that Feminist-Process models are fundamentally impossible on several grounds if one is consistent with one's fundamental presuppositions.

    If this view is taken at all seriously, then one must wholly embrace the notion that God is totally immanent and never transcendent because God is everywhere and everything exists within God. This sentiment is radically opposed to the Christian notion that we live "in God" when we are Christian solely because He has adopted us as His children in a soteriological and eschatological form. Rather, according to the Feminist / Ecological theologians, we exist "in God" because we are, in fact, part of Her being like some spiritual internal organ.

    Transcendence as such, then, would mean that the God/ess would have to physically reach inside Him/Her/Itself to have discourse with humanity. But because Process metaphysics holds that Creator and creation are in some symbiotic relationship, God is seen as always immanent and therefore as ubiquitous.

    From the standpoint of any reformed metaphysics, God as the uncreated creator whose work is done ex nihilo in a closed system is seen as being both immanent and transcendent simultaneously. In short, God is always present, even if not always accessible in two-way dialogue the way humans understand it.

    The next point of contention is the feminist insistence that God is the Goddess within whom all creation has its literal existential being. This line of argument stems from the concept that classical theology is outmoded and bad, so that we must needs come up with new visions for and valuations of God. This is best stated by Sallie McFague when she says:

    How are we naming reality in the twilight years of the twentieth century? I would suggest that we live most of the time, and in most ways, by outmoded, anachronistic names. We are not naming ourselves, one another, and our earth in ways commensurate with our own times [sic] but are using names from a bygone time. However helpful and healing these names may have been once upon a time, they are hurtful now. And Christian theology that is done on the basis of anachronistic naming is also hurtful.2
    The argument that God is She is derived almost wholly from McFague's (and other Process visionaries') model inasmuch as neither Whitehead, nor any strictly Process-based philosopher or theologian, ever held that God was she.

    We can see here that McFague has bought into the worldview and thought trajectory of the multi-culturalists holding that any western thought is automatically outmoded, patriarchal, sexists, bigoted and no longer worthy of consideration in a pluralist world because no truth can ever be seen to be unilateral or absolute. To assert that truth could be either unilateral and/or absolute is divisive, hurtful, and non-productive.

    McFague and others like her, see all theology as being purely metaphorical. And while most orthodox theologians would agree that there is metaphor involved in theology, they see it as resting on absolute truth so that the metaphors remain constant without need for perennial or perpetual re-imagining.

    As mentioned above, even strict Process thought would find McFague's valuation of God as She to be aberrant because they would most probably hold God to be [1] androgynous, [2] beyond gender, or [3] neuter. This is an argument McFague derives from her deconstructionalist-metaphorical approach to theology Because she holds that all knowledge is of human origin and construction, we must continually update or upgrade our conceptions or metaphors for God to bring them into accord with contemporary cultural understandings. In the process, McFague would very much like us to scrap all previous (and therefore unhealthy and unhelpful) conceptions of God, creation, revelation, and salvation.

    As discussed above, this is a dangerous epistemology on logical grounds because it cuts itself off at its own knees. If all knowledge is truly unknowable, and if all truth claims are relative (and quite possibly/probably) spurious, then there is no good reason to re-value one myth for another than personal preference and comfort. One myth is just as untruthful and unhealthy 10 minutes after it is articulated as the one that was replaced 10 minutes prior. Unfortunately this renders any serious discussion of metaphysics (or anything else) as unimportant and subjective as whether one likes chocolate or vanilla ice cream. It also cuts off its own rationale for existence in the process because if it is unimportant and subjective then there is absolutely no good reason for changing the model.

    On general theological grounds, within the context of Christian faith, this epistemology is even more suspect than it is on logical ones. With no inherent authority upon which to base truth, morality and ethics claims (the entire essence of McFague's work and her raison d'ĂȘtre) Christianity makes no sense whatsoever; and certainly not on the basis of any solid understanding of Scripture as the primary or foundational text. And if one does seriously believe that scripture has some inherent authority as having originated as normative revelation of God by Godself then the concept of God as She is, at best, problematic.

    Bloesch, Elizabeth Achtemeier and Alister McGrath have dealt extensively with this subject and have shown with some dexterity that the attributive language regarding God is divided into two categories: [1] metaphor, and [2] simile.

    Metaphor is that linguistic function which describes one item, person or quantity by the use of another item, person or quantity. With such a description there is no comparison between the items. The first item is understood to possess the qualities of the second item while not actually being that second item. This is a vertical-linear descriptive that uses the minor quantity to describe the major. For instance, a fisherman from Martha's Vineyard might describe the now fabled "Perfect Storm" thusly, "That storm was a real bitch." The reader or listener, however, understands that the storm is not diminutive, is not feminine (though storms have historically been identified that way), and is not a dog. What that read or listener actually perceives and understands the speaker to be saying is that the storm possess the same qualities of persistence, longevity and ferocity as a canine mother who is protecting her puppies.

    The simile is a device used for parallel contrasts between two different objects and is always introduced by the use of the word "like" in order to set up a similarity or parallel comparison between and among objects. This, however, is significantly different from the vertical linear connectedness of the metaphor. In Scripture, as all of the above three scholars have pointed out, anthropomorphic parental metaphors for God always utilize "Father" or "He" for God. Mother is never used in metaphor, but only in simile with God being referred to as being "like a mother."

    All of this is important in the discussion of authority of Scripture because those who follow orthodox models believe God revealed Himself in certain specific ways He wished us to understand fundamentally. When one views theology in this fashion -- that is, normatively as revealed and inspired via a study of God-revealed Scripture-- then one is forced to say, "God told me to do it this way, so I had better ought to do it that way."

    And, this is no merely simplistic and child-like understanding of the command, but rather it is a well-reasoned and pre-meditated surrender to what is honestly and intellectually perceived, understood and believed to be God's clear command and will. God clearly tells us that He possesses feminine attributes of motherhood, but that we are to view Him normatively as Father. From the broadly Reformed perspective, the "why" for God's self-revelation is either unknown or not fully apprehended, but the imperative for it clearly exists, in any case.

    That this sentiment is prevalent and well held by academics as well as "simple folks" is seen in the decision of the NRSV translation committee to translate all generic references to anthropos as human or people. But, and this is an important BUT, Bruce Metzger and his team deliberately left all gender specific references to the deity as they were in the original texts for the same reasons as those articulated above. In essence, the argument over changing metaphors for the Almighty amounts to deciding whether or not Christianity is a revealed religion. And if it is, then one must determine whether it is revealed by God or by humankind.

    The use of She as referent for God by the adherents of the Feminist/Ecologist Process model brings up another important, though ancillary, issue. And this is directly tied into the inherent panentheism of McFague, her compatriots and their followers. If God is SHE, and if this SHE is inclusive of all creation then we humans, as part of the Body of God, are aberrant cells in the cosmic/divine body. Whether one possesses a Doctrine of the Fall or not (and it can be successfully argued that McFague and other Feminist Process thinkers do not) the human race as it is now constituted amounts to a cancerous growth within the divine body. And if humanity is a cancer for God then logically we cannot be redeemed, but only eradicated or exterminated. Once a cell is cancerous, it is so deformed as to make it impossible to transform it into something benign. IT MUST BE DESTROYED!

    Here the model breaks down irreparably because [1] if we are part of God and are so distorted then God is also fundamentally and irremediably flawed; and [2] if God gains existential fulfillment from such depraved humanity, and humanity must be extirpated for God's health, then God will not and cannot survive. Ergo the universe will amount to one gigantic cosmic fizzle.

    As Christians we must recognize that God is represented by ALL of the attributes that classical orthodoxy has seen and held from Scripture. And we must understand that McFague is correct when she says that our normative doxological understanding of God will and must affect our praexilogical understanding and action as Christians in the world. That she takes such a correct assertion and extends it to its most illogical extreme in no way negates the truth of the initial assumption.

    Cincinnati Christian Seminary Professor Jack Cotrell argues at this point with a salvo which should be decisive for all of us when he says:

    In Human terms, we will attempt to describe the question of God's essence insofar as Scripture has enlightened us on the subject. We realize that there is a great deal of objection to the very concept of the being of God, especially by those who feel that metaphysical terminology is a relic of the dead past. We believe that such objections ignore the clear teaching of the Bible, however, which tells much more about the nature of God.3
    Our problems with the Feminist Process thinkers come, not in their understanding that faith affects practice, but in what is done with it. Reformed thinker Francis Schaeffer makes this abundantly clear in most of his 22 books as he points out from a presuppositional framework that our problems with theological liberalism and secularism come because thought always translates into practice at some point.

    This is what Christian theology is all about and the reason it exists. If we do not have a proper view of the Doctrine of God, then we will not have a proper view of the nature of humanity. Schaeffer put it this way in an oft used quotation from Martin Luther:

    If I profess Christ with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.4


    END NOTES:

    [1] BLOESCH, Donald G. "Process Theology & Reformed Theology". Major Themes in the
    Reformed Tradition. Donald McKim, ed. Erdmanns. (Grand Rapids; 1992)
    Pp. 386 - 99.

    [2] McFAGUE, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological Nuclear Age.
    Fortress Press. (Philadelphia, PA; 1987). Pg. 3.

    [3] COTTRELL, Jack C. What the Bible Says About God the Creator. College Press
    Publishing Company. (Joplin, MO.; 1983). Pg. 209.

    [4] SCHAEFFER, Francis The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: Vol. I.
    "The God Who Is There." Crossway Books. (Wheaton, IL; 1982). Pg 11.




    BIBLIOGRAPHY:

    COTTRELL, Jack C. What the Bible Says About God the Creator. College Press
    Publishing Company. (Joplin, MO.; 1983).

    BLOESCH, Donald G. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority & Method in Thelogy.
    Inter-Varsity Press. (Downers Grove, IL; 1992). Chaps. Intro, 3, 4, 6 & 7.

    "Process Theology & Reformed Theology". Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition.
    Donald McKim, ed. Erdmanns. (Grand Rapids; 1992) Pp. 386 - 99.

    FROELICH, Karlfried, ed. & Trans. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. "Against
    Heresies," Ireaneas of Lyon. (Fortress Press; 1984). Pp. 44-7.

    JUSTIN Martyr. Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I. (American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition).
    "Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks." the Rev. M. Dods, M.A., Trans.
    AGES Software. (Albany, OR; 1997) The Master's Christian Library: Version 5.
    Chaps. 20-27. Pp. 559-65.

    McFAGUE, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological Nuclear Age.
    Fortress Press. (Philadelphia, PA; 1987).

    The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Fortress Press. (Philadelphia, PA; 1993).

    McGRATH, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell. (Oxford: 1994)
    Chaps. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 15.

    SCHAEFFER, Francis The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: Vol. I.
    "The God Who Is There."
    "Escape From Reason."
    "He Is There & He Is Not Silent."
    Crossway Books. (Wheaton, IL.: 1982).

    SMITH, Stephen. Mission & Ministry Journal. (Journal of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry).
    "God's Body or His Creation? A Review of Sallie McFague's Models of God."


    Copyright © July 2000 by The Rev. Albert Rhodes Stuart
    Self-Published

    The Rev. Albert Rhodes Stuart
    Pastor
    Rock Stream Presbyterian Church &
    Lakemont Congregational Christian Church
    Yates County, New York