One of the hallmarks of liberalism is to approach a long-standing tradition as a friend. Paying homage to the tradition’s enduring character and in some cases, the depth of the ideas that undergird it. The liberal then suggests, because of its long-lasting nature, this traditional belief has elements from its time which need to be reworded, or perhaps new ideas should be added onto the existing framework. Suddenly, the definition of words are altered and the tradition is chipped away at, until it is replaced entirely or kept around in a humiliating, subservient position. The liberal reveals himself to be a pure deconstructionist. He is incapable of building something better than what he destroyed, but is convinced what he did needed to take place and that it is more important that he was sincere and well-intentioned in his work regardless. This is evident in the political realm with the changing definition of terms like “racism,” or the fluid definition of “male” and “female.” Liberalism unmoors its victims from the traditions and beliefs that founded and sustained a successful culture under the guise that what is “new” is by definition better because what is “old” is outdated.
It is a lot easier to do this in the secular world, where there is no objective standard. When it comes to the Word of God, this attempt at deconstruction has far greater consequences, leading people away from the truth on the road to a God that looks more and more like the culture the deconstructionist lives in. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America’s (PCUSA) Confession of 1967 (C-67) is such an attack. It began life as an effort to “reword” the Westminster Shorter Catechism. As it took shape, it turned into an attack on the WCF generally, including and specifically it’s low view of Scripture. When a church is willing to remove Scripture as it foundation, it has shown that it won’t hold to any standard it sets for itself. To demonstrate this, we will first look at Scripture’s view of itself and affirm that it is the very Word of God, move to the WCF’s high view of Scripture, before looking at the history and philosophy undergirding the 1967 Confession. Afterwards we will look at C-67’s lower view of Scripture, and how it has allowed the church to become more egalitarian and unbiblical in some of its practices, specifically in regards to homosexual marriage and the ordination of gay pastors.
Scripture’s Authority and the Role of Confessions.
Before we discuss the respective views of Scripture from either Confession, it’s important to note that Scripture does not derive its authority from either document. God is the ultimate author of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).[1] What is canonical in the Scriptures is given to us by God (1 Corinthians 2:12)[2] and nothing can be added to or taken from it (Revelation. 22:18-19).[3] Scripture is therefore far above any writing written purely by mankind. Confessions are at their best simply “guard rails”,[4] stating biblical truth in a concise manner, pointing believers back to, and never standing above, Scripture.
The Westminster Confession of Faith’s view of Scripture.
The WCF begins with a lengthy discourse on the nature and power of Scripture. This was to “affirm the importance and sufficiency of Scripture”,[5] Notably, that it is the final revelation of God, bringing an end to all other forms of revelation such as speaking in tongues or private revelation (WCF 1.1). Moreover, the Confession doesn’t view the Scriptures as the writing of men inspired by the Spirit but who were men regardless. Nor does it say that it is a witness to the Word of God. Rather, it declares the Scripture as we have it today is the Word of God and is to be received as such. (WCF 1.4). Nothing in the WCF is superior to or contradicts the Word of God.
History and Perspectives of the Confession of 1967
C-67 is the product of several attempts to unify the PCUSA, the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) and the United Presbyterian Church in North America (UPCNA). The PCUSA and UPCNA merged in 1958[6] after the respective General Assemblies approved the union in 1955 (UPC) and 1957 (PCUSA).[7] While both denominations agreed the WCF should be the basis of this newly formed church, both denominations were allowed to bring their statements of faith, which were “not substitutes for, but rather interpretations of and supplements to, the WCF.”[8] In 1958, a committee was assembled by the PCUSA for a “Brief Statement of Faith”, in response to an overture by the Presbytery of Amarillo. There soon grew an opposition to WCF itself, led by, among others Edward A. Downey, who was the chair of the PCUSA’s Special Committee.
Whereas some maintained that these new statements could be subordinate to the WCF, Dowey and his committee instead suggested that the WCF existed on a spectrum and that a new statement of faith was needed to serve issues “facing the living church in the 20th century”[9] This reinterpretation of the WCF is similar to what is popularly called “deconstruction” today. It begins by paying homage to the “great and undoubted merits” of the WCF, before relegating it to being a product of its time and being “excessively legalistic”, and too “black and white”.[10]
The Confession of 1967’s View of Scripture
C-67’s view of Scripture, like the Confession itself and the philosophy behind it, has an eye toward opening the field for reinterpretation. It achieves this through a pattern of a conciliatory half-truth, followed by a more obvious allusion to its real goal. For example, C-67 begins well enough with the observation that “confessions and declarations are subordinate standards”, under the authority of Christ and the Word of God “as the Scriptures bear witness to him” (9.03).[11] While this is not untrue, this is a clear attack on both the WCF and its view of Scripture as not merely a witness to God, but the Word of God itself. Regarding the Bible, C-67 says very little compared to the WCF. What it does say is Barthian in nature. Section 9.29 of the Confession says “The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and the cosmos which were then current.” Because of this, C-67 says, the Church must analyze the Bible in relation to the changing world and work from there.
C-67 also notes that Jesus Christ, being the Word of God incarnate, is the “one sufficient revelation” (9.27). This phrase further shifts the focus away from the Scriptures, reducing them to a witness of the Word of God, and not the Word of God.[12] One commentator at the time noted that, in the Old Testament, the phrase “The Word of God is never used to describe a book, or a collection of books” but rather is used to describe God’s words to the prophet. The Scriptures, therefore, are “not directly the Words of God but rather the words of various men that convey the message of God to believers.”[13]
This seems to be a mixture of neo-orthodoxy, which implies that the Bible is not the Word of God, but merely the efforts of man in a futile attempt to understand God, and a Catholic view of Scripture where the Church interprets the Bible[14] in a way that is distinctly authoritative. Of course, the problems here are numerous. As has been discussed, the Bible’s authority does not come from the church or a manmade document, but rather is authoritative on its own. It can’t be any other way. Were this not the case, the Bible would indeed just another manmade book with no inherent authority. If we’re going to call into question the Bible’s authority, why could we not also call into question the authority of anyone trying to interpret it? Additionally, it is only true that sinful man will never fully understand God and His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).[15] What God has revealed to us, he has done so in a way that we can understand[16] (Deut. 29:29).[17] This more significant focus on Christ in place of the Scriptures kicks the historical foundation out from underneath the Bible as well. The Old Testament points to Christ and demonstrates why Christ needed to come in the first place. The point about “moving toward Christ” and away from the Scriptures is the same rhetorical sleight of hand that would give one an Affordable Care Act that isn’t affordable or an Inflation Reduction Act that doesn’t reduce inflation. Critics can be dismissed as being “Against affordable care” or “reducing the financial burden on Americans”. Similarly, critics here could be dismissed as those who would see a greater focus on Christ as undesirable. Of course, look one level deeper and it will be seen that the “greater focus” turns Him into just another moral teacher when He is not so, and the Bible into just another book when it is not, either.
Interestingly, a “desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ,” is a term that was utilized by the PCUSA in 2011 when the General Assembly relaxed ordination standards to allow for the ordination of gay pastors. We will get to how a low view of Scripture leads to promoting unbiblical practices in the next section.
Contradicting Confessions
With the adoption of C-67, there exists a contradiction within the PCUSA is that it has as part of its Constitution a “Book of Confessions.” It is here the C-67 shares space with the Westminster Standards, as well as the Belhar[18], Heidelberg and Scots Confessions among others.[19] What the differences and similarities between all of these Confessions might be is not the point of this paper. It is enough to point out that the WCF and a document that so clearly contradicts the WCF existing in the same constitution creates confusion at the foundation of the church.[20] The Book of Confessions looks almost like a post-modern document, where any new policy, even if it is more influenced by cultural winds than Biblical instruction, can be justified in the moment because it somewhat aligns with a Scripture, out of context, somewhere in the Bible.
The Wesminster Confession for example, reaffirms that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman (WCF 24.1 andd 24.2) with numerous references to Scripture.[21] At one point, C-67 said so as well.[22] In 2015, the PCUSA amended their Book of Order to describe marriage as “traditionally between a man and a woman” (emphasis added), leaving room for same-sex marriages. This amendment to the Book of Order points to a 1957 UPCUSA amendment to the WCF[23] which, along with the proof texts for it, still state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.[24] It seems the fact they no longer venerate Scripture as the very Word of God has led to a point where they reference it perhaps out of a sense of obligation (still being, in theory, a church).
Further, there is no biblical warrant for the ordination of gay pastors at all, but the organization passed that amendment in 2011. With a change to the Constitution that took out the idea “those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture,” with “standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ” without explain explaining how this revolutionary turn does that.[25]
Conclusion
Cornelius Van Til, in a prophetic essay protesting the adption of C-67, described it as culmination of a dangerous revolution.[26] In just over 60 years, the PCUSA went from proposing a rewording of the Westminster Shorter Catachism, to creating a subordinate standard to the Westminster Standards and its view of Scripture, built in a spirit of opposition to those standards, to supplanting the WCF with C-67. This confession, as has been established deliberately took the focus away from Scripture. The WCF is still in the PCUSA’s “Book of Confessions” as a symbol of the church’s confused, unserious approach to doctrine.
From the passing of C-67, the church has continued to pass amendments to their Constituon and their Book of Order. These amendments now only make symbolic references to Scripture which prohibit the amendments the General Assembly is going to pass anyway. Those outside of this invasion should take several lessons from the PCUSA’s collapse into an unbiblical, progressive organization.
When liberalism approaches a denomination, it will do so as a friend. Liberalism has learned not to offend right away and to earn the trust of the people it intends to subvert and lure away from God. The liberal will suggest that the church can still be the church, but there are issues it “should consider” rethinking and doctrines it “should consider” in a more contemporary light. Once the liberal has not only the church’s attention, but he has made a bit of progress in planting his heretical seed, his intentions to fundamentally remake the church into an expression of the popular cultural mores of the time becomes clear, and it may be too late. With the increasing secularization of the West and with a blueprint for what works in destrying a church from the inside, biblical churches must be vigiliant for these kinds of attacks.
More importantly, it must affirm the Scriptures as uniquely authoritative. All leaders and members of the church must be aware of these attacks, and build up their defenses by spending more time in the Word and in constant connection with God through prayer as this will not happen on our own strength. Lastly, we must pray for those who would seek to subvert the church and request God to come into their life and show them that they are ensared in Satanic ideas (2 Timothy 2:24-26). While the attacks on the authority of Scripture are abhorrent and lead only to confusion and pulling away from God, In Christ, there is always hope for redemption. Therefore, through Him, we have the opportunity to redeem our brethren and show them the authority and power of the Scriptures. This authority and power comes exclusively from the fact that they are the infallible, inerrant Word of the Lord Himself.
[1] 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scriptiure is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
[2] 1 Cor 2:12: “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God”
[3] Rev 22:18-19: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book”
[4] Matthew Everhard, Hold Fast the Faith: A Devotional Commentary on the WCF (Pittsburgh, PA: Independent Reformed Media, 2024).
[5] R.C. Sproul, “Of the Holy Scripture,” in Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the WCF (Ligonier Ministries, 2019), 5-7.
[6] Robert H. Bullock, 1982. “Presbyterian Reunion and Union Negotiations, 1937-1955: The Political Dimensions.” Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985) 60, no. 2, 154-56.
[7] John Wilkinson, “Edward A. Dowey, Jr., and the Making of the Confession of 1967,” The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-) 82, no. 1 (2004): 5–22.
[8] The WCF for Today: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Confession of Faith. 1960. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press. 11
[9] Wilkinson, “Dowey and the 1967 Confession.”
[10] George S. Hendry 1960. The WCF for Today: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Confession of Faith. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press. 14
[11] “Confession of 1967.” n.d. In Book of Confessions, 287. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A). Accessed October 11, 2024. https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/boc2016.pdf, 287
[12] William F Orr, “The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the Proposed Confession of 1967,” n.d., https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=e47e08fa-5348-4f92-9d7b-80f2f1fcf0ec%40redis, 20
[13] ibid. 21
[14] “Catholics and the Bible,” Catholic Answers, accessed November 9, 2024, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/catholics-and-the-bible.
[15] Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “as the heaves are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
[16] Richard C. Gamble 2018. Whole Counsel of God, Vol 2: God’s Final Revelation. Phillipsburgh, New Jersey: P&R Publishing. 5
[17] Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law
[18] The Belhar Confession is a relatively new document, first drafted in 1982. It has a “call-and-response” style that begins each chapter with a section titled “we believe”, and a series of beliefs, and a second section that begins with “therefore, we reject any doctrine” and a list of things the Confession denies. It has numerous scriptural references in it, but it does not have anything to say about the Scriptures themselves, specifically whether or not they are the Word of God or merely a witness thereto. “The Belhar Confession,” Reformed Church in America (blog), accessed November 13, 2024, https://www.rca.org/about/theology/creeds-and-confessions/the-belhar-confession/.
[19] “The Book of Confessions,” in The Constitution of the PCUSA, accessed October 23, 2024, https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/boc2016.pdf.
[20] David Engelsma, “The Doctrine of Scripture in ‘The Confession of 1967’ – The Standard Bearer Magazine by Reformed Free Publishing Association | RFPA,” The Standard Bearer, accessed October 24, 2024, https://sb.rfpa.org/the-doctrine-of-scripture-in-the-confession-of-1967/.
[21] WCF 24.1 references Gen 2:24, Mat 19:46, Rom 7:3 Prov 2:17. WCF 24.2 references Gen 2:18, Eph 5:28 and 1 Peter 3:7
[22] The Presbyterian Outlook, “How the 220th General Assembly Almost Threw out the Confessions,” The Presbyterian Outlook, December 31, 2012, https://pres.wxp.io/2012/12/how-the-220th-general-assembly-almost-threw-out-the-confessions/.
[23] Ibid
[24] “Anonymous: WCF of Faith – Christian Classics Ethereal Library,” accessed October 25, 2024, https://ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3/westminster3.i.xxvi.html. Among these proof texts are Gen 2:24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. See also, “PCUSA Confessions.”, 177-179, 200
[25] Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – PC(USA) Relaxes Constitutional Prohibition of Gay and Lesbian Ordination” (Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), May 11, 2011), https://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/5/11/pcusa-relaxes-constitutional-prohibition-gay-and-l/.
[26] Van Til, Cornelius, The Confession of 1967: Its Theological Background and Ecumenical Significance (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1967).
Finally tonight 