Dissension in the Ranks

Note: This case study was a response to an assignment. The requirements were as follows:

Cases involve five parts. The first part is a brief (one or two paragraphs) statement of problem focus: setting, time, decision-maker, specific decision to be made and general and specific issues involved. Each of these elements should be presented briefly yet clearly. Part two consists of exposition of biographical facts needed as general background prior to dealing with the issues (one to one-and-a-half pages). Exposition provides a biographical overview of the protagonists in your study as well as the context within which the narrative can be understood. Part three contains narrative, the longest section, which traces the development of the problem in chronological sequence, usually from the perspective of the person who must make a decision. Part four, the reprise, recaps and encapsulates the setting, time, person and issues and brings the case to a conclusion. The writer poses the questions that need to be discussed for a decision to be made and the implications of the alternative choices. Part five includes an appendix of pertinent documents and/or exhibits written by participants in the case which provides the reader with more detailed information to make an informed decision.

Dissension in the Ranks: a case study examining Old and New School Presbyterianism in light of the General Assembly of 1837

Christopher H. Meredith

19 April 2005

Problem Focus

“It is indeed a pleasant picture which the Church in the first three decades of the nineteenth century presents,” wrote Edward Morris in 1905.¹ One hundred years before his time, the Presbyterian Church in the United States stood as an efficient, unified ecclesiastical body, members working together with a spirit of catholicity. Yet on May 23, 1837, the General Assembly met to decide the fate of this church.² Would The Presbyterian Church remain a unified body our would it be split in half? One is left to wonder; how had it come about that such a drastic measure would be considered? What happened to the unity the Presbyterian Church enjoyed?

In 1837, the lines were drawn between the Old School and the New School Presbyterians. The Old School men were theologically and politically conservative, concerned that their New School counterparts were introducing dangerous innovations into the church. The New School men were concerned that the Old School was standing in the way of a vibrant revival in the church, marked by social progress and religious renewal. For almost forty years, the differences between the two sides became more and more pronounced until that Spring day in 1837. Would the General Assembly preserve the union of the Presbyterian Church or would it divide it in two?

Exposition

Morris identifies six points of contention between the Old and New Schools which will help introduce the parties.³

Formulations of Certain Doctrines

At the heart of the Presbyterian Church stands Calvinism as a theological system. During the early 19^th century, disagreements arose between the Schools as to the proper way to formulate some of these doctrines. Writing in 1853, N. L. Rice identified five doctrines that were debated between the schools: imputation, atonement, justification, regeneration, and ability.⁴ For an example of the types of discussions that arose, consider the debate over imputation in which the Old School considered this doctrine under attack by men such as Albert Barnes, perhaps the most prominent New School theologian of the time. In his commentary on Romans he wrote:

[We do not have] a right to assume that this [passage] teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity;--for (1.) the apostle says nothing of it. (2.) That doctrine is nothing but an effort to explain the manner of an event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to attempt to explain. (3.) That doctrine is, in fact, no explanation. It is introducing an additional difficulty. For, to say that I am blameworthy or ill-deserving for a sin in which I had no agency is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional difficulty still more perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be just.⁵

Old School theologians saw in this and other writings a fundamental denial of orthodox doctrine. Responding to Barnes, Rice wrote,

Can any one for a moment doubt, after reading these declarations of Mr. Barnes, that he wholly rejects the doctrine of imputation, as taught in our Confession of Faith? If he does not, then language has no meaning.⁶

Confessional Subscription

One result of the Plan of Union of 1801 (which we will discuss in detail in a moment) was that those in in the New School who favored this and other acts of ecumenism advocated a more relaxed approach to confessional subscription. The intention was to maintain Christian fellowship with believers who had different confessions and creeds. Naturally, the Old School viewed this as disloyalty to the church and was concerned with the effect such a relaxation would have on the doctrinal purity of the church.⁷

Presbyterian Government

As will be elucidated in the following section, certain actions raised questions in the minds of Old School advocates as to the loyalty of the New School men to the Presbyterian form of government upon which their denomination was based. Until the details can be put forth in a coherent manner, it must suffice here to say that the Old School was committed to a purely Presbyterian polity while the New School was willing to make concessions and exceptions for the purpose of unity with those of other ecclesiastical traditions and practices.

The Role of “Parachurch” Organizations

To speak of “parachurch” organizations is admittedly anachronistic, but it helps explain to the modern reader the function of the 19^th century voluntary societies. These were groups that had formed for such purposes as missionary activity, training of ministers, publishing of religious literature, and other religious activities. They were denominationally unaffiliated and were not accountable to any ecclesiastical body. They began small but by the 19^th century, they had become more visible and had more points of contact with the church. Those of the Old School were wary of any groups that existed outside the church and felt that the church should be performing the functions that were undertaken by the voluntary societies. The New School apparently had no such compunctions.⁸

Revivalism

Although revivalist movements predated Charles Finney, his entrance to the scene in the 1820's serves as a good point of focus for this issue. Finney brought to the New School Presbyterian churches a form of Christianity very different from the tradition the Old School was used to. He stressed the experiential over the doctrinal and introduced several shocking innovations including the encouragement of women speaking out in services. The Old School considered these “promiscuous assemblies” with derision.⁹

Slavery

The disagreement within the Presbyterian Church over the issue of domestic slavery seems almost to be a result of the previously discussed issues as several of them are at work. The New School emphatically declared slavery to be inherently sinful and wanted to have all slaveholders branded sinners and some even advocated church discipline. The Old School saw in this abolitionism the introduction of humanist/Enlightenment rationalism and refused accept the condemnation as sin of something which the Bible did not forbid.

Having briefly introduced the players, the story can now proceed:

Narrative

During the wave of religious immigration to the American colonies in the 17^th century, New England became heavily populated with Congregationalists while the Presbyterians mainly occupied the states just to the south: New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The two groups had much in common. They both accepted the Westminster Standards, were Calvinistic in their theology, and were concerned with establishing Christian cultures and societies. But they disagreed on issues, most notably issues of church government and polity. Due to these and other factors, the two groups had a history of cooperation between them, a history that went through periods of close cooperation and periods of distance. ¹⁰

By 1800, the two denominations had been pushed closer together by their common concern over the tendency of their Massachusetts brethren toward Unitarianism. According to George Marsden, Congregationalists and Presbyterians were working together so closely by this time that Congregational and Presbyterian ministers were already informally occupying one another's pulpits and “Presbyterian” had become an acceptable label for both groups.¹¹ Therefore it came as no surprise when, on May 22, 1801, at the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, a statement from the Congregationalist General Association of Connecticut was read, asking the General Assembly:

to consider measures proper to be adopted... for establishing an uniform system of church government, between the inhabitants of the new settlements who are attached to the Presbyterian form of government, and those who prefer the Congregational form.¹²

Exactly one week later, the measures were written up, adopted, and called the Plan of Union. In short, the Plan of Union provided for the existence of mixed congregations, modified systems of church polity, gave instructions for the resolution of disputes, and allowed Congregational ministers a vote in Presbyterian assemblies, all in an attempt to regulate and encourage the forms of unity that had been growing between these two denominations. The result was a much closer association of Congregationalists and Presbyterians and under the Plan of Union, presbyteries experienced enormous growth while the Congregational bodies declined in number.¹³

While the Presbyterian Church had presbyteries throughout the young nation, extending into the deep south, the major points of interaction between Congregationalists and Presbyterians occurred in the north, particularly in the middle colonies in New York and Pennsylvania. At the General Assembly of 1809, a request was made by the Presbytery of Geneva (in New York) to be split into three separate Presbyteries. The division was done along denominational lines, such that the three new presbyteries were entirely composed of Congregational churches.¹⁴ In 1812, these three presbyteries were joined together as the Synod of Geneva.¹⁵

Similar shifts occurred over the next 20 years. In 1821, the Synod of Geneva split, forming the Synod of Genesee from the detached presbyteries.¹⁶ In 1825, the Synod of Pittsburgh split, the Synod of the Western Reserve being formed from the detached presbyteries. ¹⁷ And in 1829, the Synod of Albany split with the detached presbyteries organizing themselves as the Synod of Utica.¹⁸ In each of these cases, the new synods were formed from presbyteries that had become almost entirely composed of Congregational churches. In fact, the Presbytery of Oneida, which was one of the charter presbyteries of the Synod of Utica, had received all the churches and members of the Congregational Oneida Association which disbanded in 1819.¹⁹

While all of this was going on, other theological factors were gradually driving a wedge between the conservative Presbyterians and the more liberal, predominantly northern “Presbygationalists.” Charles Finney, the figurehead of the revivalist movement, was making inroads in the northern Presbyterian churches. As mentioned previously, he introduced many practices and encouraged behaviors that were raising the ire of the more conservative, predominantly southern brethren. Combining this wave of religious affections with the spirit of ecumenism enjoyed in the northern churches, the Presbyterian church in this area began to develop a new approach to Christian living. It was during this period in the late 1820's and early 1830's that the term “New School” first became a popular label for these emphases.²⁰

The New School developed an emphasis on the voluntary principle. They believed that true spiritual revival and religious fervor would necessarily come from the voluntary response of the people. The result was the rise of disestablishment and the formation of numerous “voluntary societies.” As mentioned before, these groups formed initially as missions organizations but eventually, there was a society for almost any conceivable cause. By the 1830's, there were hundreds of these societies, ranging from the American Bible Society to the Protestant Half Orphan Asylum Society and the Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants in New York.²¹

The Old School looked upon these societies with great disdain. They felt that they were undermining the work and authority of the church. Rice summarizes well the attitudes of the time:

The Old School, as we have already remarked, regarded it as the solemn duty of the Presbyterian Church, as a Church, to engage in the work of sending the Gospel to the heathen. The New School were determined to oppose everything of the kind.²²

The 1830's also saw the first reactions of the Old School to what they considered perversions of doctrine and, in some cases, heresy as exemplified by the New School. In 1830, Albert Barnes, a leader of the New School movement, was brought to trial for his sermon, The Way of Salvation. Barnes had been called to the pastorate of First Church, Philadelphia, a city that held the largest Old School contingency in the area. The churchmen, concerned with the theological contents of The Way of Salvation tried Barnes and condemned his teaching. However, the General Assembly of 1831 had a sufficient New School majority to reverse the condemnation, simply warning Barnes to be more careful of his wording.²³ But in the course of the debate, the Old and New School representatives went head-to-head for the first time, in such a vicious manner that it prompted Ashbel Green, the editor of Christian Advocate, to write,

There occurred such disorder and confusion as we have never witnessed in the General Assembly, and which we devoutly pray may never see again.²⁴

Stinging from defeat, the Old School marshaled their forces. In 1835, Barnes was again tried, for virtually identical charges, this time for his commentary on Romans. In this case, the Old School had lengthy writings of Barnes', including the passage quoted earlier in this document. The New School majority could no longer claim that Barnes was simply unclear. But the pattern repeated itself and the New School majority, seeing Barnes' theology as representative of their own, again acquitted Barnes with this statement:

In respect to the fifth charge, Mr. Barnes no where denies, much less 'sneers' at the idea that Adam was the covenant and the federal head of his posterity. On the contrary, though he employs not these terms, he does, in other language, teach the same truths which are taught by this 'phraseology'²⁵

In the face of what they considered an overwhelming body of evidence, the Old School concerns were again rejected. But they refused to give up. Convinced they were defending orthodoxy in belief and practice, the Old School engaged in a series of campaigns to build support and their voice at the General Assembly.²⁶

By 1837, the Old School felt it had achieved the necessary majority. Convinced that the Old and New Schools could no longer continue to peacefully coexist in the same ecclesiastical body, the Old School sought to become separated from the New. As the trains steamed into Philadelphia and the delegates stepped onto the platform, each side prepared for the impending showdown.

Reprise

The New School had risen to prominence in the northern states and New England as a result of the ecumenism created by the Plan of Union of 1801 and the influx of revivalism. They desired peace with all brethren and had done whatever possible to foster unity within the church. Their legacy was a vibrant partnership between the Congregational and Presbyterian churches, marked by a new resurgence in holy living and personal piety. Would their numbers be enough to prevent the Old School from effecting a split? Would they be willing to hear the Old School's concerns?

The Old School had grown more and more concerned as they watched their brothers drift further and further from their confessional standards. They considered the Plan of Union blatantly unconstitutional and pointed to the shameful results of the subsequent revivalist movement as proof of the dangerous result of laying aside the emphasis on doctrinal purity. The Old School had suffered major losses in their attempts to stem the tide of false teaching and dangerous practices. They saw where the New School was heading and they didn't want to be dragged along with them. Had the Old School gained enough support to win a majority vote at General Assembly? Would the New School agree to a peaceful separation? If not, would the Old School have enough votes to effect a separation anyway?

Monopedilos
http://www.monopedilos.com/staticpages/index.php/oldnewschool