Why do theological progressivism and liberalism always win in a denomination? Because the majority are moderates and moderates do not care. Progressivism and liberalism always start as a minority, a small minority. Then like a leaven, they increase to a sizable minority. When the alarming conservatives, who are also a minority, try to address this at a denominational level, the proposal or policy can hardly get passed because of lacking support from the majority, who are theologically conservative but are not willing to do anything about the liberal or progressive. This was what happened in the PCUSA when Machen was defrocked at the sunset of the Old Princetonian glory. This is what is happening recently in denominations such as Southern Baptism Convention (SBC) and Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), although for Machen it was liberalism, and for these two denominations it was progressivism.
The latest SBC annual meeting (Jun 9-12, 2024) failed to pass the resolution of limiting pastors to qualified men. This resolution was essential since the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000) has already defined “the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” in Article VI[1]. But the failure of this resolution showed how the clear biblical definition was violated and how feeble the BFM2000 was in practice (even considering some may reject the resolution on the ground that BFM2000 was sufficient). It was estimated that 1,844 female pastors serving in 1,225 SBC churches (13% of all pastors)[2]. SBC also elected several presidents supporting female pastors (e.g., J. D. Greear), not to mention other denominational leaders. That means, you have presidents, leaders, and a sizable proportion of pastors simply ignoring BFM2000, the very document supposed to be the identity of SBC and serving as the foundation of a church’s “cooperation” with SBC. Yes, SBC is not formally confessional; yes, baptists value congregational autonomy. But what is the value of BFM2000 if it has no binding authority and the willful violation has no consequence? Just to let the conservatives feel better for a while? Yes, a few churches were disfellowshipped, and a few more voluntarily withdrew. But the fact remains that thousands of churches ordaining female pastors have conformably been part of SBC for over a decade, until this very day.
There was a time that only a handful of SBC churches having female pastors, and most conservatives thought the issue was too small to be addressed at a denominational level. Then slowly, the number of female pastors increased. At one day, suddenly the problem was found to be too big to be addressed, since it means thousands of churches being disfellowshipped on a supposedly non-essential issue. Why bother?
What does this mean? It means the silent majority of the conservatives hands the liberals or progressives an easy win. They refuse to fight when the fighting costs little; they refuse to fight when it costs a lot; and they refuse to acknowledge there is any legitimate time for a fight. Theological orthodoxy is good, worth talking but not worth fighting.
When does the conservatives start to lose in a denomination? When the defining documents of a denomination lose their binding and disciplinary authority. When most conservatives lose the courage to face a church or a pastor willfully violating these documents.
One issue raised in the PCA General Assembly this year was Sarah Young’s book Jesus Calling, one of the best-selling Christian books ever (45 million copies sold). Sarah Young (deceased in 2023) was a member of a PCA church, and her husband is a PCA elder. Twenty years after its publication and less than one year after the writer’s death, this book will be investigated by a study committee. We are not discussing whether it is appropriate for a denomination to investigate a book, or any book, and then express the opinion at a denominational level, or “ban” a book at this level. What is shocking is that there are elders in the PCA openly defending this book and similar books, having no regard of the sufficiency of Scripture defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith and historically understood by Christian orthodoxy. Now the problem is not whether PCA should “ban” a book, but whether these elders will face any consequence due to their deviating view on the nature of God’s revelation. In one word, will PCA embrace charismatics?
Here we are back to the point Machen was at a century ago. Will a denomination uphold to its confessional standards, or will it let the standards erode bit by bit? The liberals or progressives have a talent to ignore the standards, and devote to their cause regardless of what the texts say or what their vows are. They are graceful enough to win the moderates. They are patient enough to let the spirited conservatives get irritated, defeated, and then the conscientious conservatives will withdraw. The liberals and progressives will have this denomination, and the conservatives are forced to form a new one. This happens so many times that it becomes a law in the Christian church.
As Machen said, the liberals are dishonest. Machen was not against someone being liberal, just like he was not against someone being a baptist. But he was against someone who was a liberal yet calling himself a Christian, just like he was against someone who was a baptist yet calling himself a presbyterian. This was an intentional confusion of terms.
Nobody is saying that if you are a female pastor, you are not a Christian, or if your church ordains female pastors, your church is a false church. Nobody is saying if you are a charismatic, you are not a Christian. But you should not be a female pastor in a denomination that clearly defines the pastoral role as biblically qualified male only; you should not be a pastor advocating charismatic teachings in a denomination that historically and confessionally upholds the sufficiency of Scripture (not to say the Third Commandment); you shall withdraw from your position if you take vows to uphold these confessional standards. Go and find another church, or disassociate from the denomination.
But very few liberals/progressives will do this. They stay and they try to change the denomination. So it is up to the conservatives to protect the integrity of the confessions and the genuineness of the denomination. But as always, there are a lot of people with conservative views, but the majority stand on the middle ground in the battle. Theologically they are not liberal or progressive, but policy-wise they support liberal/progressive causes. They do not wish the denomination breaks up over this debate, and they think there are other hills to die on. They see the confessional documents as fragments, here one bit there one bit, and when smaller bits fall of, no worry. But it is the authority of the confessions at stake. If nobody cares about what it says on one point, who cares about what it says on the other? The whole document is useless. This was the same tactics the liberals used in attacking the seemingly trivial issue of Scripture’s inerrancy.
The arguments of the moderates are popular among Christians. Who can be against unity, love, missionary work? Who can be against peace and grace to fellow Christians? This echoes well with the slogans from the liberal and progressive side. The attack on or erosion of truth is always stealthily smuggled in under such covers.
And the moderates are blind.
[1] https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/
[2] https://americanreformer.org/2023/06/how-many-female-pastors-are-in-the-sbc/. The number may be higher according to other sources.
