Think Augusta, Not Barmen

Stephen R. Haynes
Rhodes College

My parents came to my house for Thanksgiving, and it was one of the best visits we've ever had. The only disturbance in our peaceful coexistence came on the morning of the day they departed. Somehow, our conversation wandered onto the topic of church politics. It was my fault. I have learned over the years to avoid subjects we disagree on, and this includes almost everything to do with the Presbyterian Church (USA), of which we are all members. I am on the liberal wing of the church, my parents are on the conservative wing, and rarely do we find much theological common ground. We've moved closer in recent years--I've mellowed with age and they've become a bit more open-minded. But the distance separating us is exacerbated whenever we discuss controversial issues.

Among mainline Presbyterians there is no more controversial issue than sexuality, particularly the ecclesiastical status of homosexual persons. For my parents--as for many "conservative" Protestants--homosexual ordination is a matter on which compromise is not possible. For at stake is the authority of Scripture, the integrity of the family, and (in their more apocalyptic moments) the very survival of American society. Impassioned claims that homosexual Christians have been gifted and called for ministry do not represent the dawning of "more light," but the threatening gloom of apostasy, and the proper response is not openness, but closing of the ranks.

Many "moderates" and "liberals," including myself, have difficulty following this logic. For us, the sexuality debate is rather like previous theological controversies in which what once appeared to be the "clear word of Scripture" turned out to be culturally rooted prejudice at odds with the spirit of the gospel. It was fairly recently, after all, that a majority of mainline Protestants were convinced that the ordained ministry was the exclusive right of men, that racial segregation could be biblically sanctioned, and that Jews were destined to suffer for their ancestors' rejection of Christ. In each case, under the Spirit's guidance, mainline churches have come to repudiate these theological errors as combinations of faulty biblical interpretation and naked prejudice. For many moderate and liberal Protestants today, acknowledging the gifts homosexual persons bring to ministry represents another gracious opportunity to repent of traditional views that appear oppressive and unjust.

This does not mean conservatives view the church's situation with regard to sexuality as without precedent, only that the precedents they cite are very different from those invoked by moderates and liberals. In the current debate, the conservative analogy of choice comes from Nazi Germany and the decision of the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) to resist Nazi influence in the ecclesiastical realm. Many have pointed out how poorly the Presbyterian sexuality debate conforms to the situation of the "confessors" in Nazi Germany. In fact, the PCUSA's "Confessing Church Movement" has been called an abuse of history that is ironic, amusing, tragic, inappropriate, highly offensive, and grossly misrepresentative; its leaders have been labeled misguided, ignorant, and illegitimate claimants to the mantle of Barmen and Belhar. As William Stacy Johnson succinctly noted in The Presbyterian Outlook last May, "the term 'confessing church' has stood for people risking their lives for the conviction that the gospel of grace extends to everyone." ⁽¹⁾ With regard to social context and principle alike, then, today's Confessing Church Movement fails to live up to the name, and thus dishonors the memory of the brave men and women who opposed Nazi totalitarianism and often paid with their lives.

Indeed, the popularity of the Confessing Church Movement (by early December, over 1100 congregations in 46 states had joined) thrives not on a nuanced understanding of the German Church Struggle, but on superficial perceptions of saints and martyrs who stood for pure Christianity against Nazi idolatry. The breakfast table argument with my parents began, in fact, when I asked whether their church in Florida had felt pressured to join the "movement." My mother, who is on the session, proudly responded that they had indeed joined. However, neither she nor my father (who is also an elder) had any notion that the movement's name had been carefully selected to invoke responses to Nazism within the German Evangelical Church. In fact, they insisted that if what I was claiming was true--that the title "confessing church movement" implied that their side stood for the purity of the gospel against capitulation or "coordination" (Ger. Gleichsschaltung) to secular culture--surely their pastor would have mentioned this. That he did not is testimony to how poorly the movement's historical and theological precedents are grasped by its participants. ⁽²⁾

Whether out of ignorance or misunderstanding, leaders of the Confessing Church Movement within the PCUSA have misguided faithful Presbyterians by suggesting that the impasse in American Protestantism over homosexual ordination is analogous to church struggles in Germany during the 1930s or South Africa during the 1980s. Nevertheless, their "movement" is not without ecclesiastical precedent. One hundred and forty years ago this month, a group of devout Presbyterians met in Augusta, Georgia for the purpose of salvaging the sanctity of the church. The time had come, they believed, to repudiate an apostate denomination, one that had fatally mingled the gospel with politics and that was determined to ignore the clear witness of Scripture. These men called their movement the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America.

In a statement unanimously adopted at the PCCSA's first General Assembly and proudly addressed to "all the Churches of Jesus Christ throughout the earth" ⁽³⁾ the delegates stressed that they should not be viewed as schismatics. On the contrary, since retaining fellowship with Northern Presbyterians would create a "mournful spectacle of strife and debate," a separate ecclesial body was needed to serve "the interests of true religion" and promote the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. With regard to the fundamental reason underlying their departure--differing perspectives on the "Christian doctrine of slavery"--the Augusta Assembly defended at length the view that slavery is no more "sinful" than aristocracy, monarchy, or poverty.

Laying its authors' views on slavery "before the Christian world," this Augusta confession, as it were, established itself firmly on the Bible. "Let it be distinctly borne in mind," the confessors wrote

that the only rule of judgment is the written Word of God. The Church knows nothing of the intuitions of reason or the deductions of philosophy, except those reproduced in the Sacred Canon. She has a positive constitution in the Holy Scriptures, and has no right to utter a single syllable upon any subject, except as the Lord puts words in her mouth. She is founded, in other words, upon express revelation. ⁽⁴⁾

Confusion on the issue of slavery, the Augusta confessors went on, issues from the fact that those who regard forced servitude as a sin have "gone to the Bible to confirm the crotchets of their vain philosophy. They have gone there determined to find a particular result, and the consequence is, that they leave with having made, instead of having interpreted Scripture." ⁽⁵⁾ On the other hand, "we have assumed no new attitude," the confessors wrote; but faithfully "stand exactly where the Church of God has always stood--from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, from Christ to the Reformers, and from the Reformers to ourselves. We stand upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner-stone." ⁽⁶⁾ Thus, the Augusta delegates emphasized their spiritual kinship "with all the noble army of Confessors who have gone to glory from slave-holding countries and from a slave-holding Church, without ever having dreamed that they were living in mortal sin…" ⁽⁷⁾

According to the Augusta confessors, the PCCSA would be animated by its commitment to slaves as well as slavery itself. Intent to protect the slave's spiritual condition (which they regarded as a "solemn trust"), the confessors refused to "give up these millions of souls and consign them, so far as our efforts are concerned, to hopeless perdition. For the sake of preserving an outward unity which, after all, is an empty shadow." ⁽⁸⁾ From the perspective of these men of God, nothing was clearer than God's purpose in enslaving the African race in America: "We cannot but accept it as a gracious Providence," they wrote, "that they have been brought in such numbers to our shores, and redeemed from the bondage of barbarism and sin." ⁽⁹⁾

I have argued that Augusta1861 is a more compelling symbol than Barmen 1934 for understanding the Confessing Church Movement within the PCUSA. Let me develop that argument by noting a number of formal similarities between the slavery and sexuality controversies, their historical contexts, and the arguments employed in each case:

1. Differing attitudes toward slavery split most Protestant denominations in the mid-nineteenth century, a result that seems quite possible in the case of the PCUSA and other mainline churches.
2. In both cases, one issue has become symbolic of the division between opposing church factions. In the nineteenth century, slavery was not the only issue about which Christians vigorously disagreed, but it became an emblem of these disagreements' intractable nature. According to the Augusta confessors, slavery "so radically and fundamentally distinguishes the North and the South, that it is becoming every day more and more apparent that the religious, as well as the secular, interests of both will be more effectually promoted by a complete and lasting separation." ⁽¹⁰⁾ Similarly, in the PCUSA and other denominations today, the ordination of homosexual persons is the issue over which long-standing conservative and liberal factions have chosen to wage war .
3. In each case, the confessors emphasize the centrality of Scripture. Thornwell, the PCCSA's leading intellectual, articulated a conviction shared by conservative Protestants then as well as now--that "the only rule of judgment is the written Word of God." Similarly, one of the PCUSA Confessing Movement's three "essential doctrines" is "that holy Scripture is…the Church's only infallible rule of faith and life." ⁽¹¹⁾ And in both cases the Bible is understood to be frightfully clear: Didn't St. Paul say "slaves obey your masters" (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22), Thornwell and his epigones asked. Didn't Paul write that "sodomites" will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9), ask today's confessors. As many antebellum slavery apologists noted, "Bible slavery" was established in the Old Testament and assumed in the New. Today we hear that a consistent "biblical sexuality" is taught from Genesis to Revelation.
4. Further, both groups of Presbyterian confessors claim that the Christian "law of love" is fully compatible with the seemingly harsh implications of their reading of the Bible. Opponents of homosexual ordination strive to "hate the sin while loving the sinner"; similarly, American opponents of emancipation claimed to have the best interest of slaves in mind. As Thornwell put it, slavery was a school of virtue "in which immortal spirits are trained for their final destiny." ⁽¹²⁾
5. Another commonality in these two theological movements is the fear of disorder that animates both. If pro-slavery Presbyterians feared the social anarchy they believed slave emancipation would unleash on society, Presbyterians in the Confessing Church Movement worry that acceptance of homosexuality will result in sexual anarchy. Spokesmen for both groups imagine that the victory of their opponents will mean disorder and chaos, moral confusion, the breakdown of the family, vulnerability of the innocent (women in one case; children in the other) and a thoroughgoing assault on nature (through racial amalgamation or same sex marriage).
6. A deep concern with "sinfulness" is also evident in these confessing movements. Proslavery Christians viewed slavery as a by-product of the Fall--"part of the curse which sin has introduced into the world, and stand[ing] in the same general relations to Christianity as poverty, sickness, disease, or death." ⁽¹³⁾ Just so, advocates of "biblical sexuality" see homosexuality as an expression of rebellion, a symbol of humanity's rejection of God. A related mutual concern is for "what is natural." As the Augusta confessors fervently believed that slavery was blacks' normal condition, today's confessors confidently asset that heterosexuality is the norm in creation.
7. There is also a common concern for redemption in these confessing movements. Pro-slavery Presbyterians viewed the South's peculiar institution as a providential scheme for redeeming Africans from barbarism, paganism, and spiritual darkness. The new confessors seek to redeem homosexuals--and those led astray by them--from unnatural desires and bondage to sin.
8. The charge of "infidelity" is another commonality to be noted among these confessing movements. Thornwell regarded abolitionism as "the very spirit of socialism and communism," and it was associated in the pro-slavery mind with the values of the French Revolution, free thought, sexual impropriety, unitarianism, fanaticism, and the Social Gospel. In the worldview of today's confessors, gay rights go hand in hand with secularism, liberalism, sexual impropriety, social activism, and defective christology. ⁽¹⁴⁾
9. Both movements reveal a central concern for purity. In the case of the Confessing Church in the PCUSA, this concern takes the form of sexual purity (expressed through an emphasis on "holiness in all aspects of life" and "honoring the sanctity of marriage"). ⁽¹⁵⁾ In the nineteenth century, it was racial purity that had to be maintained at all costs. But in their quest for purity both movements appear to have more in common with first-century Judaism than with the concerns of Jesus of Nazareth who, as recent scholarship has emphasized, fell afoul of the Jewish leadership because he rejected their purity system.
10. Finally, both confessing movements display a callous ignorance of those affected by their arguments. The Augusta confessors wrote, in what to us must seem a stunning denial of reality, that "the general operation of [slavery] is kindly and benevolent." ⁽¹⁶⁾ From conservative Christians who oppose homosexual ordination, we hear similarly uninformed references to "the gay lifestyle," "the gay agenda," "homosexual predators," and the like.

Even after the war, the Augusta confessors remained convinced that "truth is more precious than union." ⁽¹⁹⁾ But, as their descendants have been forced to acknowledge, they sacrificed union for a "truth" that turned out to be egregious error--biblically, morally, ecclesially. Their confident claim to act "as Christ and His Apostles have acted before us" turned out to be the greatest detriment to Christ and his church ever perpetrated by American Christians. Thus, the story of the pro-slavery confessing church serves as a warning to those of us who are prone to dramatic stands on behalf of "the gospel": When we are tempted to draw lines in the sand, to condemn our ecclesiastical opponents as unchristian, to regard ourselves as God's faithful remnant in an apostate denomination, we should pause to consider the grievous errors committed by good Presbyterians who were every bit as certain as we are that they stand for the truth of the gospel. Before we assume the mantle of the confessors, let us prayerfully consider whether we are laboring in the shadow of Augusta rather than Barmen.

1. William Stacy Johnson, "Regaining Perspective," The Presbyterian Outlook (May 21, 2001), 11.

2. Where the connections with Nazi Germany are understood the situation is more ironic than tragic. The simple fact is that what the Barmen confessors stood for--what men like Barth, Niemöller, and Bonhoeffer risked their careers and lives for--was the principle that membership and leadership in the church should be determined only by faith in Jesus Christ and by baptism. If one extends this principle to the present debate within the PCUSA, the only realistic conclusion to reach is that a Confessing Church Movement within would have to fight any attempt to exclude persons from the church's membership or ministry based on anything other than faith--whether this were race, sexual orientation or interpretation of the Bible. So, the problem with the Confessing Church Movement is not simply that the debate over sexuality does not constitute a status confessionis or "confessional situation," but that even if it did, confessors who understood the German Church Struggle would be compelled to fight on the other side of the issue.

3. "Address to all Churches of Christ," in John B. Adger and John L. Girardeau, eds., The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, D.D., LL.D. Volume 4 (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1873), 448-463.

4. Ibid., 456.

5.  Ibid., 457.

6. Ibid., 459.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., 455.

9. Ibid., 460.

10.  Ibid., 454.

11.  www.confessingchurch.homestead.com

12. James Henley Thornwell, "The Rights and Duties of Masters" (1850), in Robert L. Ferm, ed., Issues in American Protestantism; A Documentary History from the Puritans to the Present (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1969), 189-99; 195.

13. Thornwell, "The Christian Doctrine of Slavery," in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, D.D. LL. D., Volume 4, 398-436; 420.

14. The first "essential doctrine" espoused by the Confessing Church Movement Within the Presbyterian Church (USA) is "that Jesus Christ alone is Lord of all and the way of salvation" (www.confessingchurch.homestead.com).

15.  (www.confessingchurch.homestead.com).

16. "Address to all Churches of Christ," 460.

17.  James A. Lyon," Slavery, and the Duties Growing out of the Relation," Southern Presbyterian Review (July, 1863), 1-37; 16.

18.  Cited in Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, Volume 2: 1861-1890 (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973), 61-2.

19.  "Address to all the Churches of Christ," 463.

The author:

Stephen R. Haynes is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College and Parish Associate at Idlewild Presbyterian Church, both in Memphis. 

He is author of Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery  (Oxford, 2002).

Please share your thoughts about this essay!  Just send a note -- and check out what others are saying.

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: