One more thing...

The problems with the PCUSA are not unique to them; the other mainline groups are infected with the same core problem as well. Conservatives like myself regularly cite what they believe is the mainline's abandonment of Scriptural authority and all that this entails as the real reason behind their demise. And in one sense, I think this is correct. But frankly, I don't think it's the biggest problem. During my years at seminary, I had the privilege of reading liberal Biblical commentaries and systematic theologies; something most of my evangelical brethren have not done. And it has become clear to me that liberal academics, for the most part, take the Bible very seriously. A typical reader would have a hard time reading a commentary from the Hermeneia or Anchor Bible series and concluding that the scholar wasn't seriously interacting with the text. On the contrary, in comparison to most evangelical commentaries, one might conclude with some justification that the most in-depth Biblical scholarship of the last 50 years or so has been conducted by liberal scholars. While the quality of evangelical scholarship has improved considerably in the last 20 years, the point to be made is that liberal academics can't really be accused of abandoning a serious study of Scripture. I think the same can probably be said of most mainline pastors, teachers, and leaders as well.

So where does this leave us? The real problem in the mainline is their abandonment of their own theological tradition and the wisdom of the historic church. Now I know this flies in the face of some scholarship. Apologists for the mainline, like Dr. Bass at Virginia Seminary, argue that if anything, the problems in the mainline can be traced to a stubborn adherence to tradition and an unwillingness to get current and recognize that times have changed. This sounds good, but it is terribly misguided. The mainline's embrace of tradition is, in many ways, purely at the realm of aesthetics. They sing old songs, have traditional orders of worship, and conduct the sacraments in the same old way. But this is hardly the problem. Evangelical churches who have embraced traditional worship are growing for the most part. No, the problem is that underneath the traditional aesthetics, a radical redefining has gone on. There's no power in singing old hymns that few people believe, or conducting the sacraments without really subscribing to the words and actions they are meant to convey. While the mainline looks traditional, they are in fact anti-traditional because they have divorced themselves from the theological underpinnings of their own tradition. This is why they can take Scripture seriously, and yet reach conclusions that are completely at odds with 2,000 years of church wisdom.

Richard Pratt used to accuse evangelicals of having a 'me, Jesus, and the Bible' hermeneutic, and this inevitably resulted in individualistic interpretation of the Bible that lacked external controls and wisdom. While there are no shortage of evangelicals who fall into this category, it is the liberals who have mainly adopted this hermeneutic by scuttling the wisdom of their community throughout history. While they wouldn't refer to their hermeneutic in this way, it is indeed a hermeneutic that stresses individualism at the expense of community wisdom. This allows us to interpret the Bible however we want and come up with whatever kind of Jesus we want, and embrace whatever kind of massaged faith we want. It's a very American approach to spirituality, but it is antithetical to Scripture's own emphasis on community unity and community wisdom. Scripture assumes the sinfulness of man (including his emotional and mental faculties) as a starting point for encouraging the wisdom of community. What Dr. Bass and many others miss is that the mainline is dying because it has chosen to rebel against the wisdom of the historic church so radically that nothing controls what they do in the present (except the to-and-fro of secular culture).

Liberal theologians and pastors would do well to consider a rather simple observation. They don't have a Calvin, a Luther, or an Augustine who's influencing people 500+ years later. They don't have a Spurgeon, Edwards, or a Lloyd-Jones whose sermons are read 100 years later. Liberal sermons aren't read 100 days later. This is the product of being anti-traditional. It is the product of being schismatic in the sense of swearing off one's historic community under the presumption that we know better today and have no need for the wisdom of yesterday to act as a guide for what Christianity should look like today. Again, this is a very American attitude, but it is wholly anti-Christian. Denominations like the PCUSA, whose leadership often espouses anti-American language and condemns American policies, really needs to look in the mirror, because they have embraced a way of doing spirituality that is American through and through.