Three visits that make me glad I'm not a Presbyterian

In the past year I've visited three Presbyterian church congregations, all in different denominations, all in different states.  Nothing I'm going to say should be taken to impugn individuals or specific congregations.  The visits I made may not have been representative of the congregations or of the denominations.  All three congregations seem to have some strengths.  Yet each one pointed out some reasons I would have trouble being a Presbyterian, or any sort of a Calvinist.  I'd like to tell a little about these adventures.

All three churches read the Scripture.  None read it as much as the Lutheran congregation I'm in.  But all three read a significant passage of Scripture, long enough to give some context.  This is good.  I could wish that more Christian congregations took the Scripture seriously enough to read more than a couple of verses in a worship service.

All three churches sang some Christian songs.  One used two different hymnals.  One used one hymnal.  One projected words on a screen.  Of the three congregations, the one with the songs which were most relevant to the theme of the day and which had content that was the most clear in its presentation of the Scripture was the one with two hymnals.  The one with one hymnal didn't do too badly.  The one with songs projected on the screen seemed to have songs in which the Gospel was veiled.  They did not proclaim specific truth of God with clarity and power.

All three churches had welcoming congregations.  The most welcoming was the one with two hymnals.  The least welcoming was the one with one hymnal.

In each worship service the pastor preached a fairly lengthy sermon which was based fairly clearly on the passage of Scripture which was read in the service.  Two of the sermons had a great deal to do with the main point of the text which was read.  One of the sermons dealt primarily with matters which were not the main point of the text which was read.

So far, these are just observations.  They have nothing to do with the predicate of my header, though they do have to do with the subject of my header.

There were some commonalities among the three services that struck me.  Now we deal with the predicate in the header.

First, each church had a time for confession and forgiveness.  Yet in each instance, the congregation was left with somewhat vague statements of confession to proclaim corporately.  In one instance the congregation, in their confession, proclaimed their enthusiasm for serving the Lord.  In one instance, the congregation's confession was a moment (a short moment) for silent reflection.  In each instance, the pastor's proclamation of forgiveness fell sort of a proclamation of forgiveness.  At best it was a prayer that if we were truly sincere about our confession we would be accepted by God.  At worst, it was a plea that the Lord would have mercy on his people and give them a greater desire to follow his Law.

Confession and absolution is not about hoping the Lord will forgive you if you are repentant enough.  It is about proclaiming your failures and receiving firm words of assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ has died for your failures and through his work on your behalf has forgiven all your sin.  If the confession and absolution I saw in the Presbyterian churches was the norm, I'm glad I am not part of that tradition.

Historically, Presbyterians have been famous for detailed exposition of Scripture.  They are well known for the two hour sermons in which every detail of a difficult passage of the Bible is explained.  They are well known for applying Scripture to the lives of the people in the congregation.  In my Lutheran tradition the basic framework of exegesis and preaching is the Law and Gospel distinctive.  In the Law we are told what we must do to be pleasing to God.  In the Gospel we are told what God has done in Christ to make us pleasing to himself.  So we come to expect that a sermon from any passage of Scripture will first confront us with our sin, then proclaim the forgiveness and life that Jesus has provided.

Of the three sermons I heard, one was entirely predicated on God's righteous demand that we obey His Law.  When we have failed to obey the Law, we live in condemnation.  Our cure is to repent and then obey the Law.  One of the three sermons I heard had a bit of a mix of Law and Gospel, but sometimes it tended to say that the good news was that we would be able to follow God's Law.  It also was what we might term a "salad bar" sermon.  That is, it has "lettuce" coming up at the end.  We hear God's commands, we hear the Gospel, then we wrap it up with "let us therefore..." keep God's commands.  The third sermon I heard had no clear proclamation of the Gospel.  Jesus did not do anything in the sermon.  It was unclear that salvation was through Jesus' substitutionary atonement.

It would seem that two of the three sermons I heard fit into historic Presbyterian patterns.  But notice while they did talk about Jesus and forgiveness of sin they left the burden for belief, obedience, on the Christian, not on the Christ, who is the only one ever shown to be able to fulfill God's Law.  This is not the hope I need.  I know I have failed.  I know I am in sin.  I don't need someone to tell me I'm a sinner and that I need to repent and then not sin any more.  I know I can't do that.  I need someone to tell me I'm a sinner and then point me to how Christ has become sin for me and redeemed me from the curse of the Law.

I had understood that Presbyterians treated baptism sacramentally, as an effectual ushering of a child into a covenant family.  I'm a little weak on the exact explanation of how the covenant theology works.  But I was at a baptism of a child in one of these congregations.  It surprised me that the pastor said specifically that the water was symbolic of an inward change.  This struck me as the same message that a Zwinglian would have, not a Calvinist.  I wonder if that is typical of Presbyterians now?

As I have studied the Scriptures about baptism I have come to the conviction that, though I don't understand how, baptism does wash sins and deliver the forgiveness purchased by Jesus on the cross. It appears in Scripture that the water is effective when accompanied by the proclamation of the Gospel.  This forgiveness is what we look to in faith, just as we have received the verbal proclamation of forgiveness through the Gospel.

So, everyone, is this what Presbyterianism has to offer?  I don't wish to run anyone down.  These are the observations I made.  Maybe they are not adequately representative.  But I find it hard to believe that these similarities would be accidental.  My final impression, the sum of these experiences, is that this brand of Calvinism leaves the individual responsible for his own salvation, for obedience to God's perfect Law, for hoping that God will accept his repentance as adequately genuine, and for testifying that he should be baptized and received into Christ's kingdom because he believes well enough.  That is a hope in myself, not in Christ, the living God.  If this is what Presbyterians believe, I'll keep looking to another branch of Christian tradition.

-- 

Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com