Day 685 - Who is Viola Larson and Why Is She Attacking Mercy Junction, 1001 Worshipping Communities of the PC(USA) and the Presbytery of East Tennessee? Part II

October 25, 2014, Who exactly is Viola Larson and what is her theology? 

To be fair, we should consider seriously Ms. Larson's criticism of Mercy Junction and the Presbytery of East Tennessee (PET) because (1) I believe she is, or was, a member of PC(USA) denomination, (2) she judges other Christians as non-Christian, (3) she challenges a basis credo of all persons of the Reformed faith that honors at its core the freedom to raise a question seeking dialogue in the continuing struggle to be reformed and always reforming and faithful. 

If there is no vigorous debate, there can be only a rigid, unchangeable denomination that risks at best death by irrelevancy and at worse abandonment and replacement by its Creator. Richard Niebuhr proposed this idea in 1935, in an essay “What must the Church do to be saved?”² 

Richard Niebuhr identified also the fundamental dilemma of Reformed Protestantism, it is a cultural expression of faith and the reality it faces is that it has created the ultimate anarchy, "...the church reformation was not a structure but a life, a movement, which could never come to rest again in secure habitations, but needs to go on from camp to camp to its meeting with the ever-coming kingdom."³ In other words, there can never be a port in the storm for Reformed Protestantism. It's Christianity is to sail place to place, seeding believers to fabricate a new reality.

It is for this reason alone (survival of the current Church) that it is important to understand exactly what basic theology Viola Larson holds to support her judgments.  

The question you must answer is does her theology further the work of the Church in the world and does it stand even on orthodox Reformed belief? (I will tell you in advance I do not think it does, though it may give her personal spiritual sustenance.) 

Ms. Larson only criticizes the theology of these organizations and does not propose a counter hypothesis of her own. Therefore, I set out to discover what she believes from her writings. I went to her blog and did a little web browsing that led me to the web site of the Presbyterian Layman (a group who is extremely hostile towards the current PC(USA) in order to discover, “Who is Viola Larson and what does she believe?” 

I discovered that she is part of the movement best represented publically by the Presbyterian Layman and lives in California. She has been writing a blog since the mid-2000 timeframe. Before her current blog, she authored a blog called Voices of Orthodox Women (VOW) that has been archived by the Presbyterian Layman on its website.

The earliest posts of a web author is where we often find the rationale and belief of the blogger. In an Aug,8, 2007 post, Ms. Larson self- identifies as a “Presbyterian Calvinist.” 

Although she says she is a Presbyterian, she maintains the local Presbyterian Church is of congregational nature since it has the right to demand that their pastor preach the "biblical truth." (She does not define what “biblical truth is in her post, but later she refers to the “inerrancy” of Scripture which she seems to think means its absolute, literal truth, word for word, especially if it resists changes in the Book of Order and Confessional declarations.)

In this same post she says concerning schism, "I don't think it is right when those staying malign those leaving. I know there is despair and a feeling of abandonment on the side of those staying yet the church is God's church and certainly he has not abandoned any part of his church. I don't think it is right when those leaving malign those staying. I know there is a feeling of despair and weariness of the battle (emphasis is mine) on the part of those leaving yet the church catholic is God's Church and you will not abandon any part of his Church." 

I assume this balm is good for all, those who stay and support the denominational church, those who determine to leave, and those who remain but disagree. Her advice does seem to put the ones who decide to stay but disagree with the majority, such as her, in a difficult spot. 

Her stated  compassion towards those with leaving the denomination seems a far cry from her current judgment against Mercy Junction, First Creek Communion, the Presbytery of East Tennessee, 1001 Worshipping Communities, and PC(USA). I wonder if she has even engaged in dialogue with the ministers in Chattanooga and Knoxville to fully understand their theological grounding.

She opposes even discussing non-canonical literature in a more recent post.  She accused a spokesperson of the Presbyterian News Service of promulgating heretical Gnostic ideas by simply discussing a particular book that analyzes newly found “pseudo-“ Gospel fragments. (Gnosticism deserves an entirely separate discussion. The early Church was rift with Gnostic-like perceptions of the world as good and evil.)

In her August 13, 2007 post,  she revisits disagreement in the church and what I would call her reservation about generally applying the charity of forbearance.  It is a very Calvin-like reaction:

On dismissal of churches from PC(USA), she says we should release each other with dignity and respect as brothers and sisters in Christ “But I believe the most important aspect of upholding each other is seeing the other and relationship to Jesus Christ. I cannot call the other person unfaithful if I (Viola Larson) see them following the call of Jesus Christ (emphasis is mine), while upholding the fate of the church universal whether standing or journey." 

Note that in spite of her conciliatory statement towards those with whom she disagrees, she reserves her right (emphasis is mine) to be judge of their faith and to determine “whether or not they follow the call of Jesus Christ.” 

In a subsequent post she says she “believes that pluralism has this culture in such a grip that in the future every Orthodox Christian will be affected by the by the culture’s intolerance towards the Lordship of Christ.”

Some of her later posts that reveal more of her “orthodoxy.” She criticized Presbyterian Women for criticizing capitalism. Her exact words are, "I think it would be wise not to alienate the national leadership of PW from women and the pew belief (that) capitalism is certainly not perfect but is a solid economic system and who espouse a conservative political stance.” So we know she also is supportive of Conservative political views.

I feared I would have to infer for myself what burrs are in her saddle until I came to her post of November 22, 2009.  It reveals a concise statement of her theological vantage point. She endorses a document called The Manhattan Declaration; A Call of Christian Conscience. 

This document summarizes its belief, “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, (emphasis is mine) we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image." (See link)

This document is quite pernicious in its use of the term “religious liberty.” It encourages civil disobedience to achieve its goals. (The defense by the Beachy Amish- Mennonite group that kidnapped the daughter of a lesbian partnership and fled to Nicaragua used this document as a defense.) She said she has signed it encourages her readers who agree to sign up as it is a very important theological and political document. 

This declaration essentially says her theological position is (1) all abortion is evil; (2) marriage is only between a man and a woman, (3) homosexuality is evil, (4) anyone who holds this theology and feels the State is opposing them should engage in civil disobedience against the state, (5) change of any of these tenets threatens orthodox faith.

Clearly she believes the idea that reforming the confessional status of our documents and our book of order somehow leads us astray from of her idea of orthodoxy. She believes if the church restates its sense of Christian values in the context of modern times it has abandoned all faith.  For her orthodoxy is defined by Calvin’s Institutes and only subsequent early Reformed confessions (Westminster, Helvetic, up to Barmen, it is not clear she would include the confession of 1967. Belhar is clearly not in her “orthodoxy). 

In a post of October 31, 2012, she states "the moral code has been rewritten...personal taste now rules supreme; …Every thing is reduced to individual reaction and opinion…This is the context of the Orthodox in PC(USA) (emphasis mine); they are in the midst of an organization that has lost its way-the PC (USA) cords are speedily turning into ropes. Using capricious human experience and desire, Presbyterian leadership is starting to turn Biblical morality upside down. Any guilt that exist(s) is hidden under layers of disbelief. There is little effort to do, the fruits are already weathering."

My conclusion is that Viola Larson began as a classical Barthian orthodox Calvinist Presbyterian but has swung into a reactionary stance that labels all change in the denomination standards as bad. She holds tightly to and favors the confessions of the era of the Reformation, and the prescientific worldview and circumstances of John Calvin. It is ironic to call this Reformed Protestant orthodoxy since as Richard Niebuhr pointed out, the fundamental nature of the Protestant Reformation is revolution against institutionalization of spirituality and faith.

Source documents, continued

2. H. Richard  Niebuhr, The Question of the Church[1935] in The Responsibility of the Church for Society," edited by Kristine A. Culp, Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, (2008), p16-21.

3. H. Richard  Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America, Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press (1988) (original copyright 1937 Harper&Row), p44 (see p 28-44).