PCEA [Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia]/PCA [Presbyterian Church of Australia] Differences

.

.

By Rowland S. Ward, PCEA Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

From The Presbyterian Banner October 2019

We are often asked, ‘What is the difference between the PCEA [Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia] and the Presbyterian Church of Australia [PCA]?

Of course the PCA is much larger with a typical Sunday attendance in over 500 centres of some 26,000. Its form of worship is generally somewhat different with praise bands in many churches and perhaps a more contemporary feel. The Psalter has some use but certainly not exclusively. Still that is not the major difference although we make no apology for giving the Word of God the chief place in our simple form of worship. The significant issue is the way office-bearers are required to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The following article, prompted by a new book from the PCA, is not written with the aim of stirring up ill feeling with brothers and sisters we hold in high regard, but rather to show why our position of constructive separation in organisation is still warranted.

Paul F. Cooper & David A. Burke (eds.), Read in the Light: The 1901 Declaratory Statement of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (Eider Books, <eiderpress@gmail.com> 2019) 300pp $35

This book from the section of the Presbyterian Church which stayed apart from the formation of the Uniting Church in 1977 seeks to give an account of the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. The general position of the authors is that the Declaratory Statement, ‘in the light’ of which the Westminster Confession is to be read, aims to safeguard the orthodox Reformed or Calvinistic faith but to give a measure of liberty on other matters. I was privileged to represent our own PCEA Moderator, the Rev. Robin Tso, at the General Assembly of Australia [GAA] last month, to bring greetings and lead devotions on Thursday morning. Apart from a minority view arguing for the participation of covenant children in the Lord’s Supper from birth, I heard nothing that was not consistent with an orthodox position on the great doctrines of the Christian Faith. It was very different when I was brought up in the church and was the reason I withdrew around 1968 and joined the PCEA. The Church was still giving an uncertain sound when I represented the PCEA in 1982, but continued further on the way of reform in 2001, when I was also present. So one is very thankful for the vast change that has occurred. But what of the book under review?

I: Background to the Basis of 1901

Our own denomination stayed out of unions in the 1850s and 1860s because the Confession of Faith was compromised on the Church-State issue in order to unite three streams of Presbyterians – Established, Free and United – originating from Scotland. You could believe, as the PCEA believes, in the ideal of a Christian Church in a Christian State with each having their distinctive government without interfering in the lawful rights of the other or being intolerant or persecuting. But you could also believe otherwise, like some of the radical United Presbyterians who thought Church and State had nothing to do with each other – a position leading to the secular state model so common today where even fundamental Christian morality is ignored. It was not the biggest departure in the world but it indicated a pragmatic mood.

The Presbyterian compromise on the Confession widened soon after to questioning of major doctrines. In the 1881 case concerning Charles Strong of the Scots’ Church, Melbourne, radical theological revision was rejected but in the doing so more modest shifts were embraced or tolerated. This particularly impacted Scripture (a view of inspiration which limited it to its saving message so that incidental errors or mistakes on other matters could be allowed) and the atonement (where its objective reality was affirmed over against Strong’s position but its precise nature, whether as a penal substation or a moral influence, was somewhat open).

The desire to see greater unity among the colonial Presbyterian churches led to Conferences 1879-85, to a Federal Assembly from 1886 and ultimately the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia in 1901 as a federal union of the state-based churches but with certain powers, especially doctrine, ceded to the new body.

II: The Evolution of the Basis of Union

As one reviews the discussions over these 20 years, a draft doctrinal basis in 1884 is important (although disappointingly most of it is omitted from Read in the Light useful appendix of documents). The first question to be answered by office-bearers was: ‘Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice?’ This language is in line with the 1711 requirement in the Church of Scotland except that ‘manners’ was used in lieu of ‘practice’. The 1884 draft formula of subscription to the Confession was to the ‘system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession’ rather than to ‘the whole doctrine’, an expression which also dates from the Scottish Church in 1711. Accompanying the formula was (1) a declaratory statement on several matters generally in line with what would be adopted in 1901 with ‘liberty of opinion allowed on points in the Confession not necessary to the integrity of the system of doctrine therein taught’; (2) an explanatory note to assist in understanding the words ‘system of doctrine’ was provided and referred, in order, to the subjects covered by Chapters 1 to 20 of the Confession. ‘System’ subscription was certainly intended to be less restrictive than ‘whole doctrine’ and the brief comments in the explanatory statement on each of the 20 chapters certainly gave scope for wriggle room, but the proposed Basis was generally worded in a conservative way.

Subsequent discussion related to matters such as the training of ministers. However, in 1894/95 a fresh basis was W The Presbyterian Banner October 2019 7 agreed which stated the supreme standard to be ‘the word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments’ and the subordinate standard was to be the Westminster Confession ‘read in the light’ of a Declaratory Statement. This Statement now included a clause interpreting the meaning of subscription to the whole doctrine as the Reformed system of doctrine in its unity &c. and a clause allowing liberty of opinion in ‘points not essential to the system of doctrine’ taught in the Confession. There was a modest expansion of the clause referred to in 1896, but in 1898 the entire clause interpreting the meaning of subscription was dropped. A declaratory Statement was maintained in 1901 as well as liberty of opinion ‘in matters not essential to the doctrine taught’ in the Confession.

III: Comments

In this section I limit myself to the doctrine of Scripture. The wording about the Scriptures, whether they ‘are’ (Larger Catechism) or ‘contain’ (Shorter Catechism) the word of God are words which can have a fully orthodox meaning. However, there is every reason to believe that the affirmation that they ‘are’ the word of God was taken by some before and after 1884 to allow that there could be errors in Scripture on matters not essential to salvation. NSW Moderator in March 1894, the Rev. George McInnes, delivered an address along these lines proclaiming the death of ‘verbal inspiration’ which sparked considerable controversy. The leading Victorian theologian Dr J.Laurence Rentoul attractively argues at length just this position (Sydney Telegraph, 23 April 1894, 5) although avoiding much of the inflammatory language used by McInnes.

At the Federal Assembly in September that year, the Rev. Duncan McEachran of Carlton (Melbourne), a conservative, gave an address as retiring moderator which dealt with the inspiration of Scripture in a modest but orthodox way. Another conservative the Rev. Alex Yule of Parkville read a paper, subsequently published, entitled ‘The Westminster Teaching on Inspiration’ (Melbourne,1894). He rejects theories which postulate a rationalistic or naturalistic view of Scripture but advances three theories of inspiration that he says may be fairly claimed ‘to be tenable and not merely tolerable under the Westminster Confession’. The first is verbal inspiration of the originals, the orthodox view exemplified by Charles and Alexander Hodge of Princeton. The second is the view that inspiration varies in quality or intensity; Yule thinks this can be held along with complete loyalty to the Confession although he does not particularly like it and he says it lacks explicit support in the Confession. The third view is that the Scriptures are inspired as to their moral and spiritual truth so as to be the rule of faith and life and that this is what the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer. This is the same view advanced by McInnes in his NSW Moderator’s address in 1894 and well described in the Rev. Peter Barnes’ doctoral dissertation, Living in a Half-way House: The Rise of Liberal Evangelicalism in the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales 1865- 1915. Both Rentoul and Andrew Harper, the leading theologian in NSW, supported Yule’s proposal that his three positions be an acceptable peace platform (The Presbyterian, 6 October 1894, 5). Indeed, when Yule died Rentoul acknowledged Yule had agreed with him to take a mediating position so as to reject radical liberalism on the one hand and ‘the minute network of doctrinal propositions’ of the Reformation faith on the other (The Weekly Messenger, 17 May 1907, 332).

IV: Some conclusions

a) The evolution of the document that became the Basis of Union of the Presbyterian Church of Australia is instructive. Taken along with the death of older ministers in the 1880s and 1890s and the increased number trained under men like the immensely influential Rentoul and Harper, it is very difficult to hold that the legal position of the PCA commits it to the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Such a position can be held, and happily is now very widespread, but it is not the legally exclusive position.

b) Contrary to one essay in the book reviewed (page 99, footnote 3) it is not necessary to regard the framers of the Declaratory Statement as disingenuous or theologically incompetent if they regarded the DS as consistent with the Confession. The Basis was designed to accommodate different views of Scripture and different views of what was essential to the doctrine of the Confession. Ultimately the legal meaning of the Basis is of higher authority than a majority vote.

c) It is also noteworthy that in 1888 the Church of Scotland changed the question on Scripture addressed to candidates from that in 1711 to the ‘word of God contained in the Scriptures’. For the Church of Scotland this could more clearly accommodate the view of Scripture that had become prevalent in her circles as inspired in religious and moral teaching but not necessarily in matters of lesser importance. In Australia it was easier to justify as it had been used in the earlier unions in Queensland (1863), South Australia (1865) and New South Wales (1865).

d) It was certainly not the intention of the Basis of Union to allow the wide departures from very fundamental doctrines that occurred after 1901, but nor was it intended to clarify and tighten up adherence to the Reformed faith as historically understood, which seems to the assumption of most of the authors, but to modify somewhat as was the case throughout the Presbyterian world of the time. Apart from the frequent lack of adequate historical context, and an assumption as to the intent of the Basis that is not justified, the standard of the essays by the 13 authors, while varying somewhat, is good overall. As an exposition of one approach to the Basis of Union there is much of interest and value. I would simply say to our brothers: ‘Although there are great legal difficulties, do take steps to eventually eliminate the ambiguities from you Basis so enable subscribers to know exactly where they stand, hinder departures from a consistent Reformed position in the future and thus enable greater unity among Presbyterians in Australia to be realised.’#

.

The Rev. Dr. Rowland S. Ward is the Editor of The Presbyterian Banner [ISSN 0729-3542], the official magazine of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia. The PCEA was founded in 1846 and adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) as a correct summary of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. There are congregations in Wooloowin (Brisbane), Qld.; Maclean, Grafton, Wauchope, Kindee, Taree, Cardiff, Raymond Terrace, Sydney CBD, Mt Druitt in NSW; Wantirna, Mulgrave, Narre Warren, Carrum Downs, Geelong in Vic.; Ulverstone, Tas.

.