# PCA vs. OPC



## jbergsing

I'm interested in learning what the differences are between the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Any thoughts?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Simple distinction:
OPC, formed 1936 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who were forced out of the _northern_ Presbyterian mainline (PCUSA)

PCA, formed 1972 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the _southern_ Presbyterian mainline (PC,US--formerly PC, CSA)


----------



## Casey

The names are different.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Both are not perfect; get over it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Another difference:

The folks that formed the PCA in 1972 got to keep that name without threat of lawsuit.

The OPC was originally called the PCA when it formed but was sued by the PCUSA over the name and had to change its name to the OPC.

I'll be honest with you, I think the name of the OPC is a hinderance to its broader appeal and it might have grown more rapidly in recent years if it didn't have the name.

I was not a complete novice to Reformed theology when I moved to CA in 1999. I was concerned because there was only an OPC in town and I had just become Presbyterian (in a Springfield PCA congregation) a couple of years prior. It had been quite a leap for me and my wife to leave "interesting" worship for the sake of sound doctrine in a PCA Church.

I didn't know anything about the OPC except it's name. The term Orthodox in its name instills the idea of being old, stodgy, etc. I pictured all the men in suits and all the women in bonnets singing with dour expressions. 

I know that sounds funny to some now but I think I can safely say that, at the time, I represented what a typical evangelical in the process of reforming is thinking. My vocabulary has always been above-average so imagine what others are thinking.

I don't know the solution because I love the OPC. There's no point in going back in time but I sometimes wonder how the OPC might have grown with a different name.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I think in the book publishing world I have had similar problems.

I chose Naphtali Press to name my reformed publishing outfit (with good Scottish Covenanter pedigree as reason); and someone of very good Reformed pedigree told me this week it made him think "Mormon".  Ooops.



SemperFideles said:


> Another difference:
> 
> The folks that formed the PCA in 1972 got to keep that name without threat of lawsuit.
> 
> The OPC was originally called the PCA when it formed but was sued by the PCUSA over the name and had to change its name to the OPC.
> 
> I'll be honest with you, I think the name of the OPC is a hinderance to its broader appeal and it might have grown more rapidly in recent years if it didn't have the name.
> 
> I was not a complete novice to Reformed theology when I moved to CA in 1999. I was concerned because there was only an OPC in town and I had just become Presbyterian (in a Springfield PCA congregation) a couple of years prior. It had been quite a leap for me and my wife to leave "interesting" worship for the sake of sound doctrine in a PCA Church.
> 
> I didn't know anything about the OPC except it's name. The term Orthodox in its name instills the idea of being old, stodgy, etc. I pictured all the men in suits and all the women in bonnets singing with dour expressions.
> 
> I know that sounds funny to some now but I think I can safely say that, at the time, I represented what a typical evangelical in the process of reforming is thinking. My vocabulary has always been above-average so imagine what others are thinking.
> 
> I don't know the solution because I love the OPC. There's no point in going back in time but I sometimes wonder how the OPC might have grown with a different name.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Since being reformed, I have actually always thought to myself that the OPC had a better name than the rest of the Presbyterian Churches. I never thought of it from the perspective you described, Rich.

Before discovering the reformation, I simply never heard of any of these churches. I only knew "Presbyterian" and figured they were all the same.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ChristopherPaul said:


> Since being reformed, I have actually always thought to myself that the OPC had a better name than the rest of the Presbyterian Churches.




Me too. But maybe I am getting old and stodgy. I like the name. It sounds Historic.


----------



## Kristine with a K

Are you looking more for what the differences are in faith/practice between OPC and PCA? Assuming "yes".... I know the PCA encourages infant baptism and such children receiving the Lord's Supper at an early age. I believe the OPC encourages infant baptism, but withholds the Lord's Supper until the child is older (teen-agish, right?).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kristine with a K said:


> Are you looking more for what the differences are in faith/practice between OPC and PCA? Assuming "yes".... I know the PCA encourages infant baptism and such children receiving the Lord's Supper at an early age. I believe the OPC encourages infant baptism, but withholds the Lord's Supper until the child is older (teen-agish, right?).



Kristine,

That's actually not quite accurate. The practices are not quite monolithic enough in each to characterize them that way. I've seen young communicants in both denominations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've actually been wracking my brain for a fair way to characterize the differences but each time I come up with an idea I realize I could come up with an OPC or PCA that I know of that "breaks the rule" I'm thinking about. This is tough.

In broad categories, on the whole the OPC is a bit more conservative. The PCA is likely to have large congregations that are not strictly Reformed with people who are Presbyterian in the South because they've always been Presbyterian.

OPC congregations are typically pretty small. The OPC is about 1/10th the size of the PCA.

Maybe a good characterization is that being in the OPC is like being in a small town as opposed to a city - more likely to know your neighbors but also likely to be sometimes wary of strangers. The city dwellers may be too busy to get to know each other and too big for the leaders to keep good tabs on the goings on.

Again, these are broad brush strokes.


----------



## jbergsing

SemperFideles said:


> I've actually been wracking my brain for a fair way to characterize the differences but each time I come up with an idea I realize I could come up with an OPC or PCA that I know of that "breaks the rule" I'm thinking about. This is tough.
> 
> In broad categories, on the whole the OPC is a bit more conservative. The PCA is likely to have large congregations that are not strictly Reformed with people who are Presbyterian in the South because they've always been Presbyterian.
> 
> OPC congregations are typically pretty small. The OPC is about 1/10th the size of the PCA.
> 
> Maybe a good characterization is that being in the OPC is like being in a small town as opposed to a city - more likely to know your neighbors but also likely to be sometimes wary of strangers. The city dwellers may be too busy to get to know each other and too big for the leaders to keep good tabs on the goings on.
> 
> Again, these are broad brush strokes.


Interesting. Do you think any of the leadership might consider changing the name?

BTW, thank you for your service. My father served in the Corp in Korea.


----------



## jfschultz

Contra_Mundum said:


> PCA, formed 1972 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the _southern_ Presbyterian mainline (PC,US--formerly PC, CSA)





SemperFideles said:


> The folks that formed the PCA in 1972 got to keep that name without threat of lawsuit.



Actually the _National Presbyterian Church_ was formed in 1973 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the _southern_ Presbyterian mainline. There was a "Convocation of Sessions" in the summer of 1973 that established the "Organizing Committee of 40" and the first General Assembly was in December of 1973.

The 1974 General Assembly a received a communications from the National Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the northern church in Washington DC. After a short discussion a new name, _Presbyterian Church in America_ was adopted.

See A BRIEF HISTORY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jfschultz said:


> Actually the _National Presbyterian Church_ was formed in 1973 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the _southern_ Presbyterian mainline. There was a "Convocation of Sessions" in the summer of 1973 that established the "Organizing Committee of 40" and the first General Assembly was in December of 1973.
> 
> The 1974 General Assembly a received a communications from the National Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the northern church in Washington DC. After a short discussion a new name, _Presbyterian Church in America_ was adopted.
> 
> See A BRIEF HISTORY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA


----------



## KMK

If they both hold to the same confessions why don't they join forces?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> If they both hold to the same confessions why don't they join forces?



That almost happened. I don't know the exact year but it was a very close vote.


----------



## Kevin

KMK said:


> If they both hold to the same confessions why don't they join forces?



Because OPC really stands for "Only Perfect Church" and they could never join with the PCA which, of course stands for "Partly Confessional Americans".


----------



## Kevin

KMK said:


> If they both hold to the same confessions why don't they join forces?



In point of fact all confessional reformed churches sort of do that now by way of NAPARC.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

KMK said:


> If they both hold to the same confessions why don't they join forces?



As much as I am disgusted by the amount of disunity within the Reformed church and find the many fractions embarrassing, I would not be so quick to support such a merger. I find the two denominations are more alike on paper, but worlds apart in practice (generally speaking, there are exceptions within each side).


----------



## Theoretical

Well, the proposed OPC-PCA merger would have happened _before_ the PCA's merger with the less confessional RPC-ES if my reading of that chronology is correct. If the OPC and PCA had merged when the PCA was more confessional, then perhaps the RPC-ES might have not merged with the new strongly confessional body. But, you sadly now have to deal with the situation that we now have.


----------



## Archlute

I believe they attempted to merge twice over a period of years; the OPC rejecting it the first time around, and the PCA doing likewise the second. I don't have the facts on hand, but that's what I seem to remember from readings and discussion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The proposed mergers went:

PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).

Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).

The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and _rejected the OPC._ This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.

At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. *So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.*

Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.


----------



## jbergsing

I have to say this is most interesting. I did not know about any of this before now. My knowledge ended with knowing the PCA formed by people who disagreed with issues inside the PCUSA.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The PCA proposed a "J&R" method to the OPC c. 1986. The OPC was in the midst of her 50th anniversary celebrations, giving folk opportunity to think again about why the OPC was formed in the first place. In this context, the the OPC rejected the "Joining and Receiving" because they wanted a negotiated merger. The PCA, it seems to me, essentially said, "Here are the terms, take 'em or leave 'em." As a result of the failed attempt to unite several (mainly "new life" - infl. by Jack Miller's New Life PC in Phila) OP congregations left for the PCA.

Since then the two denominations have taken on rather different characteristics. The OP is more homogenous. It is much smaller (who ever used the analogy of a small town is on to something). It has probably _proportionally_ more theonomists, supporters of Norm Shepherd/FV, and fundamentalists. It also has _proportionally_ more old school types. The dominant approach to the confession in the OPC seems to be "system" subscription. Until recent years, most of her ministers (as John Muether has noted) came from the same school. With the proliferation of Reformed seminaries, candidates for ministry now come from a variety of backgrounds.

The mainstream of the OPC holds to system subscription and identifies with Old School (and some even with Old Side!) Presbyterianism (Old Princeton, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Old Westminster etc). 

There is a certain amount of fundamentalism (e.g., 6/24 creation defines the Reformed faith) in the OPC and their influence grew considerably after the counter-balancing progressive movement left for the PCA ca. 1989. The recent justification controversy may represent the apex of the fundamentalists revisionists (Kinnaird, FV) and the recent creation and justification reports probably represent the re-assertion of the old school/system approach as the dominant approach to Reformed theology, piety, and practice in the OPC.

Ten times larger than the OP, the PCA is much more diverse. There was an attempted merger between the OPs and the RPCES in the 70s. I believe the merger with the RPCES and the PCA in 1982. The premillennialism of the RPCES also brought into the PCA some of the old fundamentalist influences from the earlier in the 20th century. Having emerged fairly late from the mainline Southern Presbyterian Church, the PCA was rather broader (more inclusive of a variety of positions and approaches to the confession) than the OP. Today, the PCA is probably best described as a coalition of several groups:

1) Conservative (strict) subscriptionists (e.g., Pipa, Smith, Knight) who tend to be Southern Presbyterian along the lines of Dabney and Thornwell;

2) Progressive ("good faith") subscriptionists (e.g., Chapell, Keller) who tend to be Northerners and more closely aligned to and tolerant of American evangelicalism (and to revivalism) than the conservative/strict subscriptionists. This is also tends to be the PPT lot. This group also represents the pastor's group that disbanded a couple of years ago, the name of which I can't recall (led by Tim Keller and others).

3) Evangelicals (e.g., folks with strong ties to evangelical para-church organizations such as Crusade and the like) who have mainly a formal connection to Reformed theology, piety, and praxis. If you asked this group about the "RPW" or other Reformed distinctives you might get a blank stare. In this they are like the "traditionalists" except they are probably more theologically conservative. Both groups are most pietists.

4) Traditionalists (folk whose ties to the old So Presbyterian Church kept them in the PCA after the merger, but who don't identify strongly with the confession). These folk are in the PCA because their family has always been Southern Presbyterian etc. Before folk start screamng, every denomination (including my own) has this group. 

5) Revisionists (e.g., a good section of the Louisiana Presbytery!; those advocating the federal vsion, paedocommunion, theonomy etc; those advocating the ordination of females to presbyterial or ministerial office). This group is certainly the smallest but probably the noisiest. This is an eclectic grouping that is not internally coherent (e.g., some of the FV are theonomists, some of the theonomists are not FV and both of those groups would reject the ordination of females). I group them together because these smaller groups are advocating the most radical changes in the PCA.

6) I'm not sure what to call the "system" subscriptionists who identify with the old school such as Will Barker. I don't know how large this group is. Maybe they are the silent majority? 

7) The Twin-Lakes Fellowship includes folk from a variety of groups but is led by folk such as Ligon Duncan who tend to be confessional but come from different regions and different approaches to the confession in the interests of promoting the growth and planting of confessionally Reformed churches in the PCA.

These categories aren't meant to be definitive and certainly not pejorative but descriptive. I'm happy to revise these.


----------



## BobVigneault

Very helpful Dr. Clark. Thank you for taking the time to post that. Much appreciated.


----------



## KMK

Where do the 'Dutch Reformed' fit in? I once heard that Crystal Cathedral was 'Dutch 'Reformed'.


----------



## BobVigneault

The Dutch Reformed DON'T fit in. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

(Sorry)


----------



## KMK

BobVigneault said:


> The Dutch Reformed DON'T fit in. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> (Sorry)



My uncle is 'Dutch Reformed' and claims that they are all either 5 or 4 pointers.


----------



## jfschultz

Contra_Mundum said:


> The proposed mergers went:
> 
> PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).
> 
> Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).
> 
> The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and _rejected the OPC._ This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.
> 
> At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. *So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.*
> 
> Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.



The J&R idea came up at a OPC RPCES meeting where the PCA had an observer.

The first step was for the PCA to invite the OPC and RPCES to join. That vote, at the presbytery level passed for the RPCES, but failed by one presbytery for the OPC. The RPCES then acted to accept the invitation.

A bit of local Presbyterian history: Independent Presbyterian Church was formed by a group that broke off from Second Presbyterian Church (then PCUS and now EPC). It went independent due to the lack of a conservative Presbyterian denomination (perhaps just looking locally). First Reformed Presbyterian Church was formed by a group that broke off from IPC and went RPCES. After J&R First Reformed moved from east Memphis to Germantown, the name was changed to Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church. A few years ago IPC joined the PCA.


----------



## KMK

Where does Chalcedon fit in?


----------



## wsw201

Outside of the differences that have been discussed, one major difference is polity. The PCA operates totally different from the OPC. Its like day and night! You can easily see this from reading each denominations BCO. This is one reason I could never see a merger between these two denominations.


----------



## Kevin

KMK said:


> Where does Chalcedon fit in?



Chalcedon pres of Atlanta (Cumming, actually)?

They are members of the RPCUS a denomination formed when a couple of PCA congregations left over the ordination of a man who took an exception or held to a non 6 day view of creation. If memory serves that was in the mid 80's.


----------



## Kevin

BobVigneault said:


> The Dutch Reformed DON'T fit in. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> (Sorry)


----------



## 5solasmom

My personal experience (from one PCA) is that it differed in worship style - they had a band, praise songs as well as hymns and a children's church. The OPC's I know of were mostly hymns, no band and children were encouraged to be part of the church. 

I don't know if that is at all representative of PCA's and not assuming it is. OPC just seemed to fit us better.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Is it true the PCA distinguishes between Ruling and Teaching elder whereas the OPC does not? I thought not, but I have got the impression there is a difference in this area.

Also if the PCA merges with the EPC then that may close all chances of an OPC merger.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

KMK said:


> Where do the 'Dutch Reformed' fit in? I once heard that Crystal Cathedral was 'Dutch 'Reformed'.



Both Bob Schuller (Crystal Cathedral) and Norman Vincent Peale (Marble Collegiate Church, NYC and author of the Power of Positive Thinking) were or are ministers in good standing in the RCA. 

The RCA historically "Dutch Reformed." They were the American daughter of the Hervormde Kerk, but they haven't been confessionally Reformed for about a century or more. That's why the CRC was formed in the 1850s, because they judged that the RCA was already too "Methodist" (i.e., broadly evangelical).

There are some fairly conservative classes and congregations but they tend to be in the Midwest. My impression is that on the E. Coast and W. Coast the churches tend to have been weakened greatly as symbolized by the twin pillars of the Be-Happy Attitudes.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco

ChristopherPaul said:


> Is it true the PCA distinguishes between Ruling and Teaching elder whereas the OPC does not? I thought not, but I have got the impression there is a difference in this area.
> 
> Also if the PCA merges with the EPC then that may close all chances of an OPC merger.



If anything, the OPC tends to be more three-office (TEs more distinct from REs), as can be seen in the revised Directory of Worship, and the PCA tends to be more two-office (less distinction between TEs and REs).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The OPC is pretty distinctly a "three-office" church. They have deacons, elders (ruling), and minsters. In practice, I have not seen the "clericalism" that some outsiders feel marks a church that has a distinct ministerial class (clergy) of elder. Certainly I have not seen any OPC churches that have ever been "run" by the pastor/cleric.

The PCA created on paper a very clear "parity" between RE's and TE's. This reflected the view espoused by Thornwell that elders were elders, their difference being primarily functional. 1) I think that these concerns were overwrought to begin with; besides, in practice TE's are still functionally very distinct from RE's. 2) I actually think there may be more "clericalism" in the PCA, and in my opinion it stems in part from the need that some TE's feel to stress their uniqueness, since there is no simple formal acknowledgment of it, but rather extra emphasis is placed on the "parity" of elders.


----------



## yeutter

After the Clark VanTil dispute over the incomprehensibility of God, the OPC has become largely [if not exclusively] VanTillian. 

The PCA is more broad Church. Some one who agreed with VanTil, or Clark, or Gerstner, or Warfield, or Hoeksema, or Kline could find a home in the PCA.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

yeutter said:


> After the Clark VanTil dispute over the incomprehensibility of God, the OPC has become largely [if not exclusively] VanTillian.
> 
> The PCA is more broad Church. Some one who agreed with VanTil, or Clark, or Gerstner, or Warfield, or Hoeksema, or Kline could find a home in the PCA.




or Bruce Wilkinson, or Rick Warren, or Billy Graham....

If you agree with Gerstner, Warfield, Hoeksema, Kline, or Clark you will not be welcomed in the OPC.  

That is nonsense. Upon my first visit to the OP church I am now a member of, I was given two Clark books because the Pastoral intern who is studying at Greenville had extra copies for the very purpose of handing them out. One of our teachers uses Warfield often and recommends his books to the congregation. During my family’s last visit to Carlisle Pennsylvania we spent the Lord’s Day with the family of Rev. Morris who is the senior pastor at Redeemer OPC. He considers Kline his greatest influence and recommends him highly.

So your statement about not finding a home is totally debunked just within the last six months I have been a part of the OPC.

When in fact I can say from the PCA church I was a member of prior to moving actually taught from the _Prayer of Jabez_ and _the Purpose Driven Life_.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Though the OP has a strong theoretical and practical commitment to Van Til's apologetic, there remain Clarkians and others.

I was in an OP some years ago where the adult catechism class was watching video of John Gerstner railing against the free offer of the gospel. 

During the Q/A I pointed out the report to the 15th GA on the Free Offer of the gospel written by John Murray, I was told, in effect to shut up! 

The PCA is broader than the OP, no doubt, but there are Warfieldians, Klineans (including Meredith himself!), as well as followers of Hoeksema et al in the OPC. 

In theory, anyway, most Presbyterian congregations don't even require subscription by the laity to the Westminster Standards, let alone adherence to the particular views of a given theologian. 

rsc



yeutter said:


> After the Clark VanTil dispute over the incomprehensibility of God, the OPC has become largely [if not exclusively] VanTillian.
> 
> The PCA is more broad Church. Some one who agreed with VanTil, or Clark, or Gerstner, or Warfield, or Hoeksema, or Kline could find a home in the PCA.


----------



## greenbaggins

Bruce, it seems to me that the PCA, on paper, is 2 office, but in practice is 3 office, since elders are not allowed to serve communion without a TE present (but are allowed to preach: what is up with that?). If you want 2 office, then go the whole way, I say. If you want 3 office, then go the whole way, and don't let them preach either. But, in my opinion, this half-way house is not especially helpful.


----------



## wsw201

Actually RE's in the PCA and OPC can only exhort, not preach.


----------



## greenbaggins

What do you see as the difference?


----------



## KMK

R. Scott Clark said:


> most Presbyterian congregations don't even require subscription by the laity to the Westminster Standards



Are you referring to PCA and OPC or do you mean all Presbyterians including PCUSA?


----------



## fredtgreco

wsw201 said:


> Actually RE's in the PCA and OPC can only exhort, not preach.



Wayne,

I don't think is correct - at least by BCO standards. The reason is that a man must be licensed to preach if he preaches _regularly_, not if he preaches at all. Different Presbyteries in the PCA interpret regularly differently (in Great Lakes we defined it as preaching more than 12 times in the year, but it is possible to preach and not need to be licensed. Hence, it is possible to be an RE (or even unordained) and irregularly preach.


----------



## Archlute

wsw201 said:


> Actually RE's in the PCA and OPC can only exhort, not preach.



I'm not trying to pounce on you in particular, Wayne, but the whole distinction between "exhorting" and "preaching", is a false distinction in my opinion, and cannot be supported by scripture. It is rather a theological distinction that stems from a false view of the nature of preaching and its relationship to office. 

I wrote a paper against this view for an ST class here, propounding what I felt to be the historic view within the broader tradition of the reformers (not just within American high-Presbyterianism, which is just about as early as I can find this semantic split ever mentioned). A fellow student, who is an elder in a local PCA, asked for a copy as their session had been studying the issue for a bit. They read it, and told me that they had basically come to the same conclusions as I, and even pointed out an area that was helpful in advancing my thesis.

Basically, the problem lies in a linking of the power and authority of preaching with the ordination of a man to his office, rather than in the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority of the Word. These men want to say that the unordained only exhort, and that their "exhorting" is not as authoritative as an ordained man's "preaching". Whereas the apostolic view (which I don't have time now to cite and discuss), is that it is the message itself that is authoritative, and that it is the work of the Spirit that brings it its power. Also, if we want to be scriptural in our description of terms, "exhorting/exhortation" is always seen as a style or a subset of preaching, it is an action done within preaching, and it is never something other or lesser. 

If you look up vol. 9, p.454 in the Works of John Owen, you will find him specifically stating (in a sermon on pastoral duties) that every minister needs authority in their work (particularly their preaching), and that authority comes from the unction of the Holy Spirit, and not the office, which he is rather emphatic about. He discusses this in more detail in an essay found in vol. 13 (I believe) regarding ordinary and extraordinary callings to the ministry. 

Also to be noted, the _Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God_ recognizes the preaching of an unordained man as such, and describes it in no lesser terms that "preaching". Neither the term, nor the concept, can be found there from what I've read of it.

There's much more, but I haven't the time to post it - I'm preparing to preach  this coming Lord's Day at a small, out-of-state church during my Spring Break travels, which will require much driving time over the next few days. Please pray that (however we may describe the delivery of the message) the people will be made to glory in the Gospel, and that the Lord would work among them. 

(Can we still be friends?  )


----------



## Contra_Mundum

greenbaggins said:


> Bruce, it seems to me that the PCA, on paper, is 2 office, but in practice is 3 office, since elders are not allowed to serve communion without a TE present (but are allowed to preach: what is up with that?). If you want 2 office, then go the whole way, I say. If you want 3 office, then go the whole way, and don't let them preach either. But, in my opinion, this half-way house is not especially helpful.



Definitely, we are 3 in practice. We are 3 with a vengeance. Reason? Because we expend all that energy defending parity, and then more energy defending a TE's uniqueness. We have to do that, or we'll end up in either thoroughgoing congregationalism or clericalism. Meanwhile, the GA turns itself into a Convention, creates a Supreme Court and now a Senate, all the while developing a denominational bureauocracy that rivals anything the mainline ever created. And the OPC, with its open admission of 3 offices and delegated GA rolls along without rampant clericalism, and running their denomination out of a strip mall. And that has little to do with the fact it is 1/10 the size of the PCA, and much to do with the perception of power in the gathered church as exercised at all three levels.


----------



## wsw201

Fred,

You may be right. In the NTP it was exhort. Per our past Clerk if you showed an RE as preaching in your minutes, you would get a gig from the Presbytery.

Lane,

If you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you!  

If you take that as "he doesn't know either" you would be right.  But it's got to mean something!


----------



## wsw201

Adam,

No problem  I always figured that the distinction had to do with office versus the substance of the message. 

BTW, what did you get on your paper?


----------



## Archlute

wsw201 said:


> Adam,
> 
> No problem  I always figured that the distinction had to do with office versus the substance of the message.
> 
> BTW, what did you get on your paper?



Heh, heh. Let's just say that it was not quite the "A" I had hoped for, but I should have expected as much. The previous two times that I had written a paper that went directly against a thesis that the professor had argued for in class, it went about the same. Go figure. What prof wants to have their student writing a paper that basically says that what they just taught in class was flawed?  

The grading was a hoot, each time I scored perfection, or near perfection in the categories of style/grammar/research/etc. You know where I lost all of my points every time? Under the sole category of "convincing argument"


----------



## fredtgreco

Adam,

Any chance you could email me a copy of the paper? (Even better if you have the material from your interaction with that Session.


----------



## greenbaggins

Contra_Mundum said:


> Definitely, we are 3 in practice. We are 3 with a vengeance. Reason? Because we expend all that energy defending parity, and then more energy defending a TE's uniqueness. We have to do that, or we'll end up in either thoroughgoing congregationalism or clericalism. Meanwhile, the GA turns itself into a Convention, creates a Supreme Court and now a Senate, all the while developing a denominational bureauocracy that rivals anything the mainline ever created. And the OPC, with its open admission of 3 offices and delegated GA rolls along without rampant clericalism, and running their denomination out of a strip mall. And that has little to do with the fact it is 1/10 the size of the PCA, and much to do with the perception of power in the gathered church as exercised at all three levels.


----------



## fredtgreco

Contra_Mundum said:


> Definitely, we are 3 in practice. We are 3 with a vengeance. Reason? Because we expend all that energy defending parity, and then more energy defending a TE's uniqueness. We have to do that, or we'll end up in either thoroughgoing congregationalism or clericalism. Meanwhile, the GA turns itself into a Convention, creates a Supreme Court and now a Senate, all the while developing a denominational bureauocracy that rivals anything the mainline ever created. And the OPC, with its open admission of 3 offices and delegated GA rolls along without rampant clericalism, and running their denomination out of a strip mall. And that has little to do with the fact it is 1/10 the size of the PCA, and much to do with the perception of power in the gathered church as exercised at all three levels.



Bruce,

I agree with your criticisms of the PCA, but many REs I have met would object to the thought that the OPC is free of clericalism. In fact, many that I know have basically given up on being able to do anything or have any influence in Presbytery or GA. At the higher courts, only the TEs really matter.


----------



## SRoper

fredtgreco said:


> Wayne,
> 
> I don't think is correct - at least by BCO standards. The reason is that a man must be licensed to preach if he preaches _regularly_, not if he preaches at all. Different Presbyteries in the PCA interpret regularly differently (in Great Lakes we defined it as preaching more than 12 times in the year, but it is possible to preach and not need to be licensed. Hence, it is possible to be an RE (or even unordained) and irregularly preach.



For some reason I thought the BCO already defined preaching regularly as more than once a month. I could be mistaken.


----------



## fredtgreco

SRoper said:


> For some reason I thought the BCO already defined preaching regularly as more than once a month. I could be mistaken.



No, it doesn't.



> 19-1. To preserve the purity of the preaching of the Gospel, no man is
> permitted to preach in the pulpits of the Presbyterian Church in America on a
> regular basis without proper licensure from the Presbytery having jurisdiction
> where he will preach. An ordained teaching elder who is a member in good
> standing of another Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America may
> be licensed after being examined as to his views, according to the provision
> of BCO 13-6. This license shall immediately become void if the minister’s
> own Presbytery administers against him a censure of suspension from office
> or the sacraments, or deposition from office, or of excommunication (in the
> event of such censures, the Presbytery with jurisdiction shall always notify
> the licensing Presbytery). A ruling elder, a candidate for the ministry, a
> minister from some other denomination, or some other man may be licensed
> for the purpose of regularly providing the preaching of the Word upon his
> giving satisfaction to the Presbytery of his gifts and passing the licensure
> examination. (See also BCO 22-5 and 22-6.)


----------



## bookslover

greenbaggins said:


> What do you see as the difference?



There _is_ no difference, especially to the person in the pew. This "exhortation" versus "preaching" thing is a fake distinction propagated by 3-office guys who are out to protect what they think is _their_ territory. 

The OPC is unofficially 3-office, but I think it's getting more explicit all the time.

The Bible only knows two offices, though - elder and deacon. (Can you tell that I'm a 2-office guy?)


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> I'll be honest with you, I think the name of the OPC is a hinderance to its broader appeal and it might have grown more rapidly in recent years if it didn't have the name.



Actually, the word "orthodox" in our name has led to a different problem in modern times. With the rise in popularity of Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches in the last 20 years (go figure), we have sometimes been mistaken for one of those churches! I was standing on the steps of an OP church some years ago before the worship service when a car drove up with a couple of people who thought we were the local Greek Orthodox church in town - and all because we have "orthodox" in our denominational name.

I'm sure no one thought about that in 1936. Talk about unintended consequences...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

fredtgreco said:


> Bruce,
> 
> I agree with your criticisms of the PCA, but many REs I have met would object to the thought that the OPC is free of clericalism. In fact, many that I know have basically given up on being able to do anything or have any influence in Presbytery or GA. At the higher courts, only the TEs really matter.



Fred,
I guess the real question is how each of us is defining "clericalism." I don't know how the OPC GA apportions its representation, and maybe they make it minister-heavy (if so, is it because as usual, its almost impossible for an equal number of REs and TEs from the Presbyteries to go?). But we know that the PCA GA draws TEs to REs at a 5, 6, 7, 10 to 1 ratio. That's pushing clericalism in fact, though not perhaps by the rules.

My personal feeling is: its inevitable that the ministers will be predominant. So, set a strong ratio of not more than 3:1 (limiting factor placed on the ministerial reps), and _insist_ on RE representation. That approach counters the clericalism tendency.

I would distinguish between "clergy", _divines,_ what is essentially a professional class of men whose specialty is the study of God (for other's info: divines are to divinity, what chemists are to chemistry), and "clericalism", or the notion that these specialists are entrusted exclusively with the duty and honors of church authority, as distinct from the "laity", who are all sheep. That sharp distinction is not supposed to be present in Presbyerianism.

The RE ensures that the clergy cannot turn that church into a hierarchical institution. But he doesn't exist for the purpose of "balancing" every enlarged court. That kind of thinking, in my opinion, actually works against Presbyterian principles. After being chosen by the Presbyery to represent it, all those men (REs and TEs) *must* shed their "identity" politics, and function as Presbytery representatives.

An RE or TE that feels as though he is primarily representing his "class" in the GA has stumbled regarding his duty. But I regret that in the PCA, this thinking is actually fostered by the structure. And others would disgree, not with the analysis, but with my negative evaluation. But speaking as a person who has studied polity from both secular and ecclesial perspectives, I am confident (for myself) that history validates my view.

I do not agree that the old denominations fell due to ministerial dominance. They fell due to systemic issues, failures up and down the line. Only one problem was failure in the seminaries. Another was bureauocracy, independent organs of the church with vast powers and big budgets. Perhaps the greatest issue was failure to discipline at every level. This is how Israel fell into sin generation after generation. From the human standpoint, it was the failure of discipline _at every level_. (Rich and I are in perfect agreement on this). And in the world-wide church age, not much has changed.

But now I'm almost off topic.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

bookslover said:


> Actually, the word "orthodox" in our name has led to a different problem in modern times. With the rise in popularity of Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches in the last 20 years (go figure), we have sometimes been mistaken for one of those churches! I was standing on the steps of an OP church some years ago before the worship service when a car drove up with a couple of people who thought we were the local Greek Orthodox church in town - and all because we have "orthodox" in our denominational name.
> 
> I'm sure no one thought about that in 1936. Talk about unintended consequences...



 

I have witnessed this same sort of confusion.


----------



## bookslover

Contra_Mundum said:


> The proposed mergers went:
> 
> PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).
> 
> Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).
> 
> The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and _rejected the OPC._ This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.
> 
> At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. *So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.*
> 
> Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.



When I first joined the OPC in 1996, I was regaled with lots of stories about the "joining and receiving" efforts between the OPC and the PCA of 20 years before. _*To a man*_, all those who told me this history were greatly relieved that it didn't happen. They all felt it was a case of the 800-pound gorilla (the PCA) swallowing the OPC whole, then spitting out the bones. Dark stories were told to me about OPC churches that had been lured into the PCA with promises of big $$ for ministry, etc., only to find that, after joining the PCA, they found themselves, in time, with their OPC guys replaced by PCA guys, and being told, in effect, "You belong to us, now, boy!"

Don't know if any of those latter "dark stories" are actually true. But I can say that my general impression is OPC people believe that the OPC "dodged a bullet" by not accepting the "joining and receiving" efforts, and are _very_ glad that it didn't happen.


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Adam,
> 
> Any chance you could email me a copy of the paper? (Even better if you have the material from your interaction with that Session.



No problem, it'll just have to wait until after I get back in town on the 9th. I don't have anything written by that session, but I'll speak with them again to make sure that I correctly understood their additional point.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

This is not a criticism, but an observation. Over the years I've noticed that the most assertive elders I've known have been OP. My guess is that they may be a little better trained (partly because of the homogeneity, size, and relatively stronger emphasis on the confessions etc) in the OP. 

As a matter of praxis, I don't see a lot of difference between the two-office PCA and the three-office OPs or URCs for that matter. 

In most of the assemblies (classes, presbyteries, synods, and GAs) I've attended, the ministers did most of the talking and most of the committee work.

That's natural. The ministers are usually the only persons who are employed full-time by most of our congregations. Most REs bring wisdom and experience and piety (as they should) but they don't usually bring as much specialized training. 

rsc



fredtgreco said:


> Bruce,
> 
> I agree with your criticisms of the PCA, but many REs I have met would object to the thought that the OPC is free of clericalism. In fact, many that I know have basically given up on being able to do anything or have any influence in Presbytery or GA. At the higher courts, only the TEs really matter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> No problem, it'll just have to wait until after I get back in town on the 9th. I don't have anything written by that session, but I'll speak with them again to make sure that I correctly understood their additional point.



Adam,

Please post that in the Journal section of the Theology forum...


----------



## rjlynam

ChristopherPaul said:


> Also if the PCA merges with the EPC then that may close all chances of an OPC merger.



I don't think there needs to be a merger, or even talk of merger. I've been a member in both the PCA and OPC. After growing up in the OPC, I spent many years in the PCA as a young adult. My wife and I left the PCA for the OPC purposely. We find the OPC to be much more conservative.

And I like the name "Orthodox Presbyterian"; for people looking for a church, it causes one to think that there may be something different about this church, as opposed to PCUSA PCA etc. etc. and there certainly is.

Just my


----------



## yeutter

R. Scott Clark said:


> The PCA is broader than the OP, no doubt, but there are Warfieldians, Klineans (including Meredith himself!), as well as followers of Hoeksema et al in the OPC.
> 
> rsc



I have no doubt the membership of the OPC is broadly reformed. How many teaching elders would we find that are agree with Warfield, or Hoeksema or Gerstner?

When Dr. Gerstner finally left the old liberal Presbyterian Church could he have been received into the OPC the way he was in the PCA?


----------



## Redaimie

I think the difference between the OPC & the PCA depends on what part of the country you live in. I was a member of the PCA for many years until they decided they'd like to emulate Willow Creek. I've found that many of the PCA churches "in our area" are very much like "evangelical free churches" rather than Presbyterian. There is very little emphasis on the sacraments & worship is more like a rock concert geared toward the "seeker friendly". I could never understand why so many renegade churches are tolerated in the PCA but my understanding is that it's not that way in all parts of the country. 

I love & pray for the PCA but I would not like to see a merger with the OPC until or unless the renegade churches were brought back to Presbyterian standards.


----------



## KMK

Do the OPC and the PCA have different seminaries?


----------



## Casey

KMK said:


> Do the OPC and the PCA have different seminaries?


The OPC has no seminary.

(Though there are some classes available through OPC MTI, but it is not a seminary.)


----------



## jfschultz

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> The OPC has no seminary.
> 
> (Though there are some classes available through OPC MTI, but it is not a seminary.)



The PCA got Covenant Seminary in the J&R from the RPCES.


----------

