Reflections of a Lifelong Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP)

.

By Dr. Kate Stewart

.

[Editor’s Note: This essay first appeared in the Christian Observer’s Presbyterians-ARP email discussion group in June of 2009 as an extended reflection in response to several threads about ARP history, which in toto constitute some of the most informative and interesting discussion in the fifteen-or-so year history of this Yahoo-based, unofficial ARP forum.  Dr. Stewart, in the style of oral history, honestly and accurately captures much of the theological reality and culture, pro and con, of the ARP Church so many of us know and love.]

I have a vivid memory from childhood, and somewhat beyond, of some kitchen renovation projects at Ebenezer ARP Church in Blue Mountain, Mississippi, which exemplify rather bizarrely the historic struggles of the ARP Church.  Constructed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Ebenezer did not originally have a kitchen; a modest one was added in the late 1950s.  For a good number of years thereafter, when a group of women attended meetings at other churches, they would come back with declarations of “we want a kitchen like the one at Bethany (ARP Church of Guntown, Mississippi—or wherever).”  The kitchen would, of course, undergo renovations; I recall at least three expansion projects before the one that rendered the kitchen to its current state.   By the time the last project rolled around, one of the deacons said to me:  “Katie, I want you to make sure that this is what the women folks want because this is the last time we are doing this.”

In a somewhat similar vein, I often recall a family story that speaks to the heritage and history of the ARP Church.  My maternal grandfather became the pastor of Ebenezer in 1931.  Shortly after the Hunter family’s arriving in the Northeast Mississippi community, a local who was not affiliated with Ebenezer asked my mother:  “Isn’t your daddy the new preacher at the ‘Ceder Church?”  An ingénue (my mother has just recoiled from the grave at my calling her that) of fifteen, my mother was baffled by the comment and thought initially that the local referred to Ebenezer by the type of wood used for construction.  My grandfather explained later the meaning of ‘Ceder Church.

I realize that most of you will disparage my valuing this episode from the annals of the Hunter family and Ebenezer church history as shallow and of no consequence in the context of the broader history of the ARP Church.  I mean, after all, such commentary is not included in any of our revered scholarly church history tomes.  Differing though, I contend that it speaks rather clearly about the ACTUAL history of the ARP Church.  I’m rather amazed that an “outsider” would speak of Ebenezer’s Seceder roots.  We can assume, I think, that the individual who quizzed my mother knew nothing about the Associate and Reformed bodies in Scotland, Ebenezer Erskine, Erskine College and Seminary, and the myriad of other associations that Ebenezer would carry with it.  This man, however, identified Ebenezer as the ‘Seder Church thirty odd years after the waves of defections to larger denominations, the turmoil of the Civil War, and the myriad of others issues mentioned previously in this forum.

I find this tidbit bittersweet:  sweet because of its accurate, distinctive description of Ebenezer as a “particular church of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church”; and bitter because I grieve that we have submerged (hmmm, is buried a better word?) our true historical roots.  Why are so many of us ashamed that our denomination is a direct descendent of Covenanters and Seceders?  Why do we want to revamp our history to put it within the framework of mainline Presbyterianism in the United States?  Does it sell better that way, or does it give our heritage more glitz and glitter to be associated with Presbyterianism in America?  Is this a clever way to get rid of those nasty old Psalms?

I was a spectator at a substantial number of Synod meetings in the 1970s, so I remember well those pages from our history.  From my vantage point on the last three or so rows of the chapel at Bonclarken (Synod was smaller then), I observed, listened carefully, and analyzed the words of the warring factions.  Admittedly, as a student of literature, I may have analyzed too deeply—an occupational hazard.  I can safely say that the most vocal people at those Synods broke rather clearly into two camps:  those who wanted the denomination aligned (affiliated?) with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and those who wanted it aligned (affiliated?) with the PCUS (a.k.a. Southern Presbyterian—later Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)).  I’ve become increasingly saddened (disgusted might characterize more accurately my feelings) by individuals who constantly seek to make us more like other denominations.  Is being a traditional ARP really such a bad thing?  Many of you, for example, discuss and favor Psalmody.  For crying out loud, neither the PCUSA nor the PCA has a heritage of exclusive Psalmody.  Adding to my consternation is the fact that ARP Psalmody (especially the Bible Songs) is not good enough for some.  While I will admit readily that the Bible Songs is not a true Psalter and far from perfect, I do think that it is many, many, many rungs above some hymn books that I could mention.  And I won’t even mention some of the half-baked theology that appears in some of our favorite hymns.  Some of the new Psalters, moreover, make the Bible Songs look like the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I could add some other points, but once again I would ask:  “Why can we not embrace our Seceder roots and build our denomination on that rich history?”  Oh, I can hear some of the objections: not stylish enough, not in touch with contemporary society, not appealing to young families, etc.  The ARP Church is, to be sure, a “mixture of truth and error.”  But so are those denominations whom some would employ as molds for an “improved” ARP Church.  Time and time again, we have these waves of people who want to recast the image of the ARP Church.  Unfortunately, some “real” ARPs have yielded to the pressure of pit-bullish despotic ecclesiastical gypsies only to see these individuals depart and leave local congregations, presbyteries, board and agencies, and/or Synod shackled with the bitter fruit of their husbandry.  I would submit that this is exactly why urban congregations defected.  Unfortunately, many ARPs have not been assertive enough to recognize the true worth of the ARP Church as that distinctive branch of Presbyterianism that HAS NEVER BEEN A PART OF ANY PRESBYTERIAN BODY IN THE UNITED STATES.  How many of us still relish Billy Graham’s comment about ARP signifying “A Real Presbyterian?”  True ARPs simply must get over their inferiority complex, and ARP wannabes need to stop trying to refashion us into the denomination which they left.  Dare I ask, “Why did they leave in the first place?”  At this point, let me hasten to add that I am not an isolationist; I welcome those who join the ARP denomination.  Individuals don’t need to be “genetic” ARPs to be real ARPs, but they should embrace this denomination.

ARPs have made the big mistake of “wanting a kitchen like the one at Bethany.”  We don’t need somebody else’s kitchen.  Ours may not have granite countertops, Viking ranges, and other such amenities; but it can certainly produce fine spiritual fare.  Can we improve our kitchen?  Of course, we can; but we also need to take care of our own kitchen (to echo Candide’s “Let us take care of our garden”).  I’m really not as naïve as this sounds, but I wish some people would stop insisting that we remake our denomination into the image of others.

I realize that I do not view ARP history through the sieve of the discipline of broader church history (and I have actually read some of them, but I’ve never taken a seminary course in church history), but I would like to comment on the nature of written history in general.  As much as we would like to reject post-modern ideology that history is subjective, not objective, we must admit that it has infiltrated the thought processes of even the most Reformed of the Reformed.  New Historicism (or Cultural Poetics) is one of the hot tickets in contemporary literary theory.  On the one hand, we utterly despise the notion of the re-interpretation of history to suit a political agenda; but we do not mind employing the same method when it suits our own agenda, particularly when we promote conservative Christianity.  My point here is that we need to be cautious about our own “re-interpretation” of historical data to suit our particular view point, and we need to recognize that like it or not, writers do impose their own values and backgrounds when they began to assess history.

—–

Kate Stewart is a lifelong ARP.  Dr. Stewart holds a Ph.D. from the University of Mississippi, and is a Professor of English at the University of Arkansas at Montebello. Dr. Stewart’s research interests are rooted deeply in Nineteenth Century American literature. Her work has been published in the texts Arthur Sherburne Hardy: Man of American Letters, Poe and His Times, and The Bibliography of United States Literature. Additionally, she has had several publications in Poe Studies, a journal dedicated to understanding the multidimensionality of Edgar Allan Poe.