It’s interesting that, in 1936, Machen saw the possibility that the mainline would come to “tolerate” confessionalists. Certainly the rhetoric of the liberals in ’36 suggested that possibility. He rejected, however, the mere toleration of confessionalism as one option among many. Interestingly, it is very unclear that any such toleration ever came to exist in the mainline. Is it not true that the one thing that is not tolerated in the PCUSA is confessionalism? In the case that, where ever they conflict, the Confession of 1967 trumps the WCF, and in the case that the Confession of ’67 flatly contradicts the WCF, then genuine confessionalism became constitutionally impossible in from ’67. Since that time there may have developed a certain pluralism in the mainline but let someone oppose the ordination of females or criticize the Barthian view of Scripture. How tolerant would the PCUSA be then?
I’ll tell you how tolerant they are: they kick you out and label you as troublemaker. It’s gone beyond simply holding to the Westminster Confession. If you demand ascent to something as fundamental as God’s personality or the resurrection, you’re branded as a troublemaker and tossed.