Thesis (D. Min.)--Covenant Theological Seminary, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 93-95).

Thesis (D. Min.)--McCormick Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 47-49).

Were the years of the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy (1890-1936) in the Presbyterian Church in the USA years of doctrinal development? This dissertation argues that the answer to this question is both "yes" and ''no." This dissertation, in exploring this particular era of modem American church history, takes its structure from well-known Catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray, and his contribution to the discussion of doctrinal development as it applied to the years of the Arian Controversy culminating in the Council of Nicaea. Murray identified three factions in that struggle: the Futurists, the Archaists, and the Centrists. The Futurists, represented by Arius and his followers, sought to identify Christianity with the prevailing philosophies of the day, thereby reinterpreting and altering certain affirmations of the faith. The Archaists, as seen in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea, reacted strongly to the Arians' proposals by not admitting any doctrinal formulation not couched in the 'sacred words' of Scripture. The Centrists, representing more balanced judgment, as seen in St. Athanasius, prevailed in the end. He saw that doctrinal development, which is herein defined to mean further definition, clarification, and application of existing truths, does indeed take place but not at the expense of denying the historic affirmations of the faith. After investigating development, tradition (the results of doctrinal development over time) and historicism (the theory that doctrine develops out of the historical process itself), Murray's structure is then applied to the struggles in the Presbyterian Church in the early twentieth century. Beginning with Charles Briggs of Union Seminary in New York and his avocation of historical criticism as applied to the Scriptures, the Presbyterian Church in the USA was thrown progressively into turmoil regarding just what constituted the historic affirmations of the faith. Briggs and those who followed, the Liberals or Futurists, wanted to jettison or remold a sizeable portion of the historic Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal heritage of Presbyterianism. Further events, such as the confessional revision of 1903 and the Cumberland reunion of 1906, helped to propel the entire church in a Futurist direction. Opposition from the beginning came primarily from Princeton Seminary. Princeton's professors sought to maintain the historic, confessional stance of the church. In this endeavor they were at times Archaists, Centrists, and even Futurists. The efforts of those who would preserve the traditional, confessional stance of Presbyterianism, however, were doomed to failure as the church moved steadily in a Futurist direction. After some brief insights into the more prominent Futurist personalities and the rise of Fundamentalist opposition, the remainder of the dissertation is taken up with the exploits of J. Gresham Machen and his expulsion from an increasingly Futurist church. Machen was viewed as a trouble maker for opposing this trend. Those of more moderate sentiments often sided with the Liberals/Futurists over against Machen. After much anguish and a lengthy trial, Machen was deposed from the office of minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. He immediately proceeded to found a new Presbyterian denomination. Into this new church came both Archaist and Centrist alike, who had previously formed an uneasy alliance in opposition to the Futurism in the mother church. The coalition, however, did not last, and after a short time fragmented into smaller constituencies. Although things did not change all at once in the Presbyterian Church in the USA, Liberalism/Futurism became the norm and remains so until this day. This dissertation argues that the confessional revision of 1903 and the work of J. Gresham Machen can be classified as doctrinal development and, thus, Centrist endeavors. All of the other events of significance that characterize the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy were either Archaist in character or Futurist endeavors more concerned with changing the historic affirmations of the faith than developing them. / Church History / M.Th. (Church history)

Thesis (D. Min.)--McCormick Theological Seminary, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references.

Were the years of the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy (1890-1936) in the Presbyterian Church in the USA years of doctrinal development? This dissertation argues that the answer to this question is both "yes" and ''no." This dissertation, in exploring this particular era of modem American church history, takes its structure from well-known Catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray, and his contribution to the discussion of doctrinal development as it applied to the years of the Arian Controversy culminating in the Council of Nicaea. Murray identified three factions in that struggle: the Futurists, the Archaists, and the Centrists. The Futurists, represented by Arius and his followers, sought to identify Christianity with the prevailing philosophies of the day, thereby reinterpreting and altering certain affirmations of the faith. The Archaists, as seen in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea, reacted strongly to the Arians' proposals by not admitting any doctrinal formulation not couched in the 'sacred words' of Scripture. The Centrists, representing more balanced judgment, as seen in St. Athanasius, prevailed in the end. He saw that doctrinal development, which is herein defined to mean further definition, clarification, and application of existing truths, does indeed take place but not at the expense of denying the historic affirmations of the faith. After investigating development, tradition (the results of doctrinal development over time) and historicism (the theory that doctrine develops out of the historical process itself), Murray's structure is then applied to the struggles in the Presbyterian Church in the early twentieth century. Beginning with Charles Briggs of Union Seminary in New York and his avocation of historical criticism as applied to the Scriptures, the Presbyterian Church in the USA was thrown progressively into turmoil regarding just what constituted the historic affirmations of the faith. Briggs and those who followed, the Liberals or Futurists, wanted to jettison or remold a sizeable portion of the historic Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal heritage of Presbyterianism. Further events, such as the confessional revision of 1903 and the Cumberland reunion of 1906, helped to propel the entire church in a Futurist direction. Opposition from the beginning came primarily from Princeton Seminary. Princeton's professors sought to maintain the historic, confessional stance of the church. In this endeavor they were at times Archaists, Centrists, and even Futurists. The efforts of those who would preserve the traditional, confessional stance of Presbyterianism, however, were doomed to failure as the church moved steadily in a Futurist direction. After some brief insights into the more prominent Futurist personalities and the rise of Fundamentalist opposition, the remainder of the dissertation is taken up with the exploits of J. Gresham Machen and his expulsion from an increasingly Futurist church. Machen was viewed as a trouble maker for opposing this trend. Those of more moderate sentiments often sided with the Liberals/Futurists over against Machen. After much anguish and a lengthy trial, Machen was deposed from the office of minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. He immediately proceeded to found a new Presbyterian denomination. Into this new church came both Archaist and Centrist alike, who had previously formed an uneasy alliance in opposition to the Futurism in the mother church. The coalition, however, did not last, and after a short time fragmented into smaller constituencies. Although things did not change all at once in the Presbyterian Church in the USA, Liberalism/Futurism became the norm and remains so until this day. This dissertation argues that the confessional revision of 1903 and the work of J. Gresham Machen can be classified as doctrinal development and, thus, Centrist endeavors. All of the other events of significance that characterize the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy were either Archaist in character or Futurist endeavors more concerned with changing the historic affirmations of the faith than developing them. / Church History / M.Th. (Church history)

Thesis (D. Min.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 260-274)

The problem of this study was the roles of the general assembly agencies of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., and the United Presbyterian Church of North America in the development of Barber- Scotia College, Knoxville College, Johnson C. Smith University, Stillman College, and Mary Holmes College. The historical records of these three churches for the period from 1866 to 1983 were examined to analyze the factors surrounding the establishment of the five colleges, the differences and similarities in the administrative practices of the general assembly agencies charged with operating the colleges, the relationships of the colleges to the churches in the transition from dependent mission schools to independent colleges, and to identify way in which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may improve its support of Black higher education. The Presbyterian Churches established the mission schools to meet the religious, educational, and economical needs of the emancipated Black slaves. Though the three 2 churches had differences over the issues of slavery and doctrine, the administrative systems developed for the operations of the schools were very similar. All treated the missions schools as remedial temporary measures necessitated by the refusal of Southern and border states to provide adequately for the public education of Black people, and to satisfy the demand for educated Black clergy to attract Black members. From the period of 1866 to 1922, the churches laid the foundations for their educational and religious ministries to Black people by establishing over two-hundred schools. From 1923 to 1949, great reductions were made in the number of mission schools. During the period of 1950 to 1983, the Presbyterian Churches struggled with strategies to make the five remaining former mission schools independent of their administrative and financial support.

Since the 1970s, the Presbyterian Church in the United States has dealt with its most divisive issue ever: same-gender relationships. Two polity debates have occurred simultaneously: 1) The ordination and/or installation of partnered gay and lesbian Christians as church officers, i.e. deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament; 2) The permissibility of ministers to perform and officers to participate in same-gender blessings and marriages, both liturgical and civil. This period is characterised by an absence of theological discussion and formulation of biblical and/or theological statements. Rather, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and its predecessor churches, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and Presbyterian Church in the U.S., all used polity to guide them. This is in line with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which decided in 1927 to solve controversial theological issues, not through theological discussion, but through polity. Since 1978, various polity processes have guided and shaped the two debates to form the current policies: 1) Presbyteries send overtures to General Assemblies, which, in turn issue “definitive guidance” statements and Authoritative Interpretations; 2) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commissions (GAPJC) issue Authoritative Interpretations in both remedial and disciplinary cases, after complaints have moved through the ecclesiastical courts at Presbytery and/or synod level; 3) The 173 Presbyteries vote on amendments, approved by General Assemblies, to amend the Book of Order. The most notable amendment was the addition of G-6.0106b in 1997. This writer argues that G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, requiring “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness,” is a form of subscription, and, therefore, contrary to the entire history of the Presbyterian Church, which has rejected all forms of subscriptionism since 1706. Subscription to five standards briefly existed from 1910-1925, and was rejected by the 1926 and 1927 General Assemblies of the PCUSA. One ordination standard is now elevated above all other standards and, since 1997, there have been three attempts to rid the Book of Order of this requirement. W-4.9001 and G-6.0106b in the Book of Order reflect the changes made in the Westminster Confession of Faith in the 1950s, allowing for the divorce and remarriage of officers; namely marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet, it is used to exclude partnered gay and lesbian Christians from ordination and/or installation, and from participating in same-gender liturgical marriages. The debates have created camps of conservatives, centrists, and liberals, which consistently threaten the peace, unity, and purity of the church. Thousands of evangelicals and conservatives, opposed to partnered gay and lesbian officers, have left the denomination for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Additionally, Special Organisations, which are not accountable to the denomination, have added to the tension and created intolerance of others’ views. Copyright / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Church History and Church Policy / unrestricted