Classic 1923 text by J. Gresham Machen comes to life again.

In this diverse world of ours, we live side-by-side with colleagues, friends, neighbours and even family members who hold sometimes radically different political views, lifestyles and opinions about life.

The Presbyterian Church in Canada has never been wholly unified. Progressives and traditionalists have been at odds since our inception over theology, worship and preaching styles, music and even architecture. Some would argue that the PCC crossed the line decades ago in practical terms by turning a blind eye to those who openly practiced and preached what was contrary to our subordinate standards. The 2021 decision to formally break with orthodoxy by redefining marriage marked a formal departure from global evangelicalism.

The PCC is formally divided, with two solitudes. We have a small majority consisting of progressives or liberals. We also have a significant minority of those who adhere to what we call “authentic Biblical thinking” – which reflects what most believers follow today and throughout history. There is also the mushy middle of those who aren’t quite sure about theology (or don’t care) but remain due to their love of their community, their building or family ties.

Does theology matter? Even a casual reading of scripture finds great passion for correct understanding of God and His Kingdom. The Lord had little patience for those who should have known better. “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God” (Matthew 22:29) he told the Sadducees.

Indeed, theology matters greatly. This is why the more conservative seminaries place great emphasis on systematic theology – a correct understanding of doctrine – while others emphasize more of a laissez-faire approach to hermeneutics. And it’s why pastors and theologians of all theological leanings publish treatises in an effort to set things straight in their minds.

Christianity and Liberalism is one such work. Don’t let the title of the book deceive you. In grammatical terms, “and” is a conjunction which links or compares various things. At face value, the reader could understand Christianity could be correlated to liberalism in the same way one might say “much of the Western church today lacks discipline and faith.” Both aspects work together. This is a positive correlation. However, the author uses “and” in the negative sense: they are not the same. Christianity and liberalism are presented as antonyms.

Gresham Machen presents liberal Christianity as essentially un-Christian. It’s hardline. At first, I was taken aback by his lack of grace. It was published exactly 100 years ago in the midst of a bitter controversy between modernists and fundamentalists. It resulted in the founding of Westminster theological Seminary when Princeton turned liberal. In an organized fashion, Gresham contrasts the foundations of classical Christian belief with those of liberalism on six matters.

1. Doctrine: “The Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. . . upon doctrine.” (Kindle locations 315-346)
2. God and man – and the concept of sin: “The consciousness of sin was formerly the starting point of all preaching but today, it is gone. Characteristic of the modern age, above all else, is a supreme confidence in human goodness.” (937)
3. The Bible: “Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded on the shifting emotions of sinful man.” (1132)
4. Christ: “Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior.” (1365)
5. Salvation: “According to Christian belief, man exists for the sake of God; according to the liberal Church . . . God exists for the sake of man.” (2207)
6. The Church: “Modern liberalism is like the legalism of the middle ages, with its dependence upon the merit of man. And another reformation in God’s good time will come.” (2555)

Quotes are mere snippets and do not actually do justice to this work. It must be read, slowly and carefully. And with an open Bible at the ready. Technologically and culturally, Machen lived in a different age. But as I plodded through his words, I had the growing feeling that I was reading something that might well have been written in our current church climate. As such, it’s timeless.

A deeper review of this book by Carl Trueman can be found at http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/liberalism.html

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul has pointed words about sin in church. Basically, we are not to permit it. Don’t dine with sinners. Cast them out.

For those in The Presbyterian Church in Canada who adhere to traditional and Biblical sexuality, it’s a bit late for that. The opportunity passed decades ago. Church law caught up to practice in 2021 with the new official understanding of marriage as “a covenant relationship between a man and a woman or as a covenant relationship between two adult persons.” The debate is over. There’s no turning back. Neither side is going to convince the other that they’re wrong. It’s like neither side has listening ears.

Christ tells us in Matthew 10:14 that “If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave.” (NLT)

But what if we can’t do that? Not everyone is being called to depart from the PCC. Some of us are being told to remain in place.

This is where we turn to the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Believers will possess love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. These things may be important as we witness Christ to an unbelieving world. But they are essential as we coexist with folks in the same church who hold wildly different Biblical views.

While all fruitful qualities are useful in this context, patience might be most important.

Patience means that we wait for God’s hands to do the heavy lifting. “All glory to God,” Paul proclaims, “who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think.” (Ephesians 3:20 NLT)

Patience means that we strive to operate under God’s timing, not ours. We humans understand time as chronological: seconds turn to minutes, hours, days, and weeks, and so on. We have a concept of a beginning and an end. Not so in the Kingdom, where a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. This is Kairos time, something that we can’t wrap our heads around. If we try, it hurts.

Patience means that we speak the truth. But we speak it in love. We also lean on that other fruit, self-control. Yes, our Lord took the whip to those who turned the temple into a marketplace. He got angry at those who had little faith, who refused to see with spiritual eyes and who’d rather cling to the flesh. We all lose our cool. But like our Lord, we are to refuse to take the bait. In John 8, He kept them waiting, writing in the dust with His finger. He remained silent in the face of false accusations from His accusers after His arrest.

We are required to work side-by-side in our presbyteries with people who hold divergent views. Same is true in some of our sessions. And once a year, we gather in the Big Tent for General Assembly. Many who operate from a liberal/progressive mindset see the parallel definitions of marriage as only a step toward full inclusion. Liberty of conscience is enshrined in polity, but for how long?

The Renewal Fellowship’s mission is to “Lead each other and The Presbyterian Church in Canada to authentic Biblical thinking, powerful Spirit-led prayer, and effective Gospel witness.” That means that we continue to stand with those who don’t support the theological shift. If we are to do that in a divided house, we will need to wear our spiritual fruit. And keep it fresh.

Has “liberty of conscience and action” replaced “no divisive course” as the touchstone phrase in our polity?

Ministers, elders and deacons promise in our ordination vows to “follow no divisive course but to seek the peace and unity of Christ among your people” and the wider church. It’s widely quoted and tacitly accepted, even though we have no universal understanding of what it means in practice. One could argue that any effort to propose a change that would result in a division within the fold would be included. But that didn’t stop General Assembly from redefining marriage in 2021, a decision which took a natural theological divide and formalized it. It’s been codified in Section 11 and Appendix ‘L’ of the Book of Forms. The mere presence of a clause within our polity which allows us to hold to one of two roads, to the exclusion of the other, is in of itself, a legalization of division.

(Before I go any further, it needs to be stated clearly, once again, that the issue here is not sexuality and marriage. Rather, it’s the theology which allows the reinterpretation or dismissal of scripture and the advancement of an agenda which is guided more by the desires of our human hearts than God’s high calling for human thought and behaviour.)

Liberty of conscience and action is the principle which is intended to allow competing theologies to coexist in the same church. The Clerks of Assembly issued an opinion on the matter in July 2019. The clerks rightly pointed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states: “God alone is the Lord of the conscience (XX.II).” Given our fallen state, the clerks recognized that people “sometimes adopt doctrines and commandments that might be contrary to God’s word. It’s possible for us, and others, to misunderstand or misinterpret God’s word and will. Because of that possibility, nothing should interfere with an individual’s liberty to align their conscience with God’s word and will.” All good. Potentially divisive church doctrine and law need to include generous liberty of conscience.

How then, is liberty of conscience and action being applied on the playing field? So far, not so good. Witness the new section in the PCC’s guidelines for presbyteries, interim moderators and search committees which state that “The presbytery shall instruct interim moderators when proceeding to a call to give equal consideration to LGBTQI2+ candidates . . . . Any who, in the view of their presbytery, have exhibited discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQI2+ individuals shall not be appointed interim moderators.”

What exactly does it mean by “discriminatory behaviour”? I reached out to the clerks for their opinion.^[i]

The clerks responded at length.^[ii] The key statement: “Discriminatory behaviour in this context, is behaviour which contravenes the decisions of the General Assembly regarding the definitions of marriage and the ordination, induction and installation of people who identify as LGBTQI. Liberty of conscience and action is granted to those members of presbytery who choose not to participate in the ordination, induction or installation of LGBTQI persons. However, liberty of conscience and action does not extend to actively speaking out against or denying the right of any qualified individual to be considered for ordination, induction or installation into church office.”

The key words in my mind are “actively speaking out against.” Does this imply that we are not to be vocally opposed to the new doctrine? Or does it mean we shouldn’t speak out against the suitability of specific individuals? It’s not clear.

The larger issue is the new section itself, which specifies LGBTQI2+ communities. That’s fine. But what’s missing is the other side. If we truly hold to parallel definitions and are called to uphold liberty of conscience and action, should we not also extend protection to those who hold to traditional standards? The new clause appears to favour one definition over the other. It’s tunnel vision.

Renewal Fellowship’s board of directors had a healthy conversation over this matter recently. In the words of one member: what we now have is “not an inclusive definition; in fact, it’s discrimination in itself.” Said another: “As someone in orthodoxy, I’m a second-class citizen; I’m feeling muzzled. If I believe someone is unfit for ministry (due to lifestyle choice), I discriminate.” In practical terms, “They’re favouring one child over another.”

If we are to truly exercise liberty of conscience and action, then this section should state: “The presbytery shall instruct interim moderators when proceeding to a call to give equal consideration to all candidates. Any who, in the view of their presbytery, have exhibited discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQI2+ individuals or have exhibited discriminatory behaviour towards those who adhere to traditional Biblical orthodoxy shall not be appointed interim moderators.”

See the big picture? Rather than tunnel vision skewed toward a revisionist mindset, let’s widen our view be truly inclusive of all valid points of view. If we are to hold to true liberty, let’s walk the talk.

While those who adhere to biblical orthodoxy are increasingly marginalized, little is being done to counter the political shift towards full inclusion. As long as we hold to a true interpretation and application of liberty of conscience and action, then the PCC cannot be an affirming denomination, contrary to what GA decided by a relatively slim 58 per cent majority in 2019.

Until this discriminatory guideline is fixed – either by the denominational staff or by the action of General Assembly – I pray that the theological leaning of a congregation will be presbytery’s primary consideration when appointing an interim moderator.

I also pray that presbyters see these guidelines as just that: guidelines – not law. Because they are an official publication of the PCC, they carry some weight and some presbyters will see this as Gospel and interpret it narrowly.

As interim moderator overseeing a search a few years ago for a traditional congregation, I presented every application to the search committee. Yes, even those from candidates who were in far left field. I allowed the search committee to discern. I know that there are interim mods who do not hold to the same theology as the congregation. I would hope that they would respect the wishes of the congregation and not weed out candidates who are not to their liking.

True liberty allows freedom of choice.

[i] The exact text: 1. What would constitute “discriminatory behaviour”? 2. Interpreting the words “shall not” — does this mean presbytery is legally bound to this guideline or is it just advice? 3. Depending on the responses to Q1 and Q2 — I might ask: what about those who are deemed to have demonstrated “discriminatory” behaviour who are currently appointed as interim mods — should presbytery rescind their appointments and find suitable replacements?

[ii] Here is the full text: “In response to your questions regarding the recent additions to the Calling a Minister: Guidelines for Presbyteries, Interim Moderators and Search Committees, I offer these comments. The Church holds two parallel and protected definitions of marriage, permitting people to choose to understand marriage either as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman or as a covenant relationship between two adult people. This decision provides congregations, sessions, ruling and teaching elders with liberty of conscience and action on marriage. Additionally, the Church has agreed that congregations and presbyteries may call and ordain as ministers and elect and ordain as ruling elders LGBTQI persons (married or single) with the provision that liberty of conscience and action regarding participation in ordinations, inductions and installations be granted to ministers and ruling elders. Holding any one of the definitions of marriage that the church has approved and exercising liberty of conscience and action regarding participation in marriages, ordinations, inductions and installations is not, of course, discriminatory behaviour in the context of the decisions of the General Assembly or of Calling a Minister: Guidelines for Presbyteries, Interim Moderators and Search Committees. Discriminatory behaviour in this context, is behaviour which contravenes the decisions of the General Assembly regarding the definitions of marriage and the ordination, induction and installation of people who identify as LGBTQI. Liberty of conscience and action is granted to those members of presbytery who choose not to participate in the ordination, induction or installation of LGBTQI persons. However, liberty of conscience and action does not extend to actively speaking out against or denying the right of any qualified individual to be considered for ordination, induction or installation into church office. Liberty of conscience and action cannot be claimed so as to not recognize the validity of ordination, induction or installation to church office once that ordination, induction or installation has been duly granted. The presbytery is bound within the polity and doctrine of The Presbyterian Church in Canada to take steps to ensure that the decisions of the General Assembly are upheld and honoured. The presbytery would naturally trust its ministers to act with integrity as interim moderators regardless of their personal views and expect them to place the applications and personal profiles of all eligible candidates before search committees for consideration. If a presbytery has reasonable grounds to believe a minister may not be able to discharge the duties and responsibilities of interim moderator in a pastoral and non-discriminatory way, presbyteries should not consider that minister as a possible interim moderator or reconsider their appointment. Discerning who shall be named an interim moderator is within the presbytery’s power and responsibility and is always to be exercised with care and pastoral concern.