# PCA Meeting



## PointyHaired Calvinist

New Meeting of Understanding - byFaith Magazine - PCA News -

What say everyone? Does everyone agree that the problem with the PCA is these TR's who are pushing "too much theological Precision"? Or am I completely off in my understanding?


----------



## Dearly Bought

If I may borrow from R. Scott Clark's comments on ministerial training... would you rather that your doctor was examined by a standard of "love" or precision for his license?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

To get more background, reading some of the comments at the link below would be beneficial. 
PCA “Meeting of Understanding” held in Atlanta « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Beneficial Indeed! I wish I had had this link first. Thanks, brother!


----------



## Reformed Musings

Without truth, there can be no true unity nor love. Doctrine unites. Apparently we learn little from either Scripture or history. I would also add that we should never regret people leaving any denomination for the right reasons.

I greatly respect Dr. Taylor, but this exercise was a mistake. As a once-popular rock group, Uriah Heap, sang: "Secret hearts and sorry tales will never help love grow."


----------



## jwright82

Does it strike anyone else as being a little too close to what Machen went through way back when (one commentor did at least in NaphataliPress' link)? I mean clearly they chose in this article not to paint the "theological precision" group in the best light, those members of this debate (whatever it is) were basically thrown under a bus and not offered anything close to a "civil conversation". I for one am very happy with my particuler church and the PCA in general but these things raise the hairs on the back of my neck. 

I am more convinced than ever that it is evangelicalism that is leading us to this. I admire and respect all those conservative evangelicals out there but evangelicalism is so large and inclusive that it has become liberal, look at the magazine _Christianity Today_. I believe that the PCA's effort to be evangelical and reformed has lead us to a cross road, follow evangelicalism into liberalism or be faithful to our reformed tradition. Now obviously this doomsday look is extreme right now but we are headed there. I believe that we can still fight and with God's help win back our denomination. We are still a faithful church but we are flirting with disaster.


----------



## Philip

There's a balance to be struck here between right doctrine and being rightly related to one another. I do often see a good deal of uncharity in the PCA, particularly on the blogs. If you want a smaller tent, the PCA is not for you. There's a set of essentials, but apart from those, the PCA is (by intention) broad in its interpretation of the confession. I'm surprised that anyone's really surprised here.

I'll also say that personally I avoid much of the reformed blogosphere for precisely the reasons outlined for this meeting. Too often, the tone is opinionated, and cynical: two sins with which I struggle daily. Too much is written in a tone that is not edifying and refuses to recognize that the target is a brother, not an enemy. Civility, courtesy, and charity are not marks of weakness, softpedalling, or feminized weaklings: they are the marks of a gentleman. There's too much vitriol in politics right now and it is greatly disheartening to see it displayed by those with whom I stand on so many crucial issues of faith and practice.

For these reasons, I applaud this kind of gathering: I don't wish to see theological precision pitted against charity by any means, but I think it useful to recognize that sometimes being rightly related is more important than being right just as much as it is sometimes necessary to lose friends for the truth.


----------



## Scott1

The good news is that some of the denomination "founding fathers" see many positive things happening, in some ways even better than a few years ago.

The recent difficulty was the way the "strategic plan" was run through in a divisive manner, with vague goals and mandates, passed in some parts by narrow majority vote. This is not the way to establish strategic (spiritual) direction.

Major re-writes were done at the last minute and the process seemed to come from inside a few denomination agency committees rather than a broad consensus of the denomination. The process was really not very presbyterian because the presbyteries were not really involved.

So, changing that process so this kind of process does not happen again, so that agency power is limited is important and that a spiritual focus is perceived (rather than a bureaucratic one) to be directing the denomination.

All organizations, even churches, need to guard against this and limit the tendency toward insular, bureaucratic control and self interest.

This is the source of any recent discomfort- but overall, the denomination has much going on positive and some of that was brought to light by some of the seasoned fathers and brothers at this meeting.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

On FB on Andy Webb's page there is some illuminating discussion as well with input from an attendee of the meeting.
https://www.facebook.com/andrewjweb...-called-by-the-administrati/10150489472342596 
(sorry if the link doesn't work; never have linked in a FB note before)


----------



## jwright82

P. F. Pugh said:


> There's a balance to be struck here between right doctrine and being rightly related to one another. I do often see a good deal of uncharity in the PCA, particularly on the blogs. If you want a smaller tent, the PCA is not for you. There's a set of essentials, but apart from those, the PCA is (by intention) broad in its interpretation of the confession. I'm surprised that anyone's really surprised here.
> 
> I'll also say that personally I avoid much of the reformed blogosphere for precisely the reasons outlined for this meeting. Too often, the tone is opinionated, and cynical: two sins with which I struggle daily. Too much is written in a tone that is not edifying and refuses to recognize that the target is a brother, not an enemy. Civility, courtesy, and charity are not marks of weakness, softpedalling, or feminized weaklings: they are the marks of a gentleman. There's too much vitriol in politics right now and it is greatly disheartening to see it displayed by those with whom I stand on so many crucial issues of faith and practice.
> 
> For these reasons, I applaud this kind of gathering: I don't wish to see theological precision pitted against charity by any means, but I think it useful to recognize that sometimes being rightly related is more important than being right just as much as it is sometimes necessary to lose friends for the truth.



I agree on the blog thing, that is just wrong, but what precision are they refering too? I do not know. I am wondering just what doctrines they have in mind.


----------



## jwithnell

I first heard the TR term in the early 80s often to differentiate individuals and churches from the antinomians (defined largely as those who went around saying, "we're not under law but under grace, so little before Mathew 1 applies to us as Christians"). I say this to illustrate that the PCA did try to spread a large umbrella but largely did not succeed in doing so. Shortly after the TR term was used, some of the congregations that most closely associated with Rushdoony, etc., pulled out to form a tiny denomination. 

In my recollection, many of the young pastors from this generation were heavily influenced by an emphasis on covenant theology, exegetical preaching, and a robust apologetic, little of which sat easily with churches that left the PCUS to get away from liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, modernism or whatever other ism was bothering folks.

History is most likely repeating itself with the current group trying to leave the PCUSA if they form their own denomination. They have much they're fighting against, but likely don't have a clear idea that unites them. Those with an historically reformed background (now, or formed in the future during seminary) will never fit in very well and will have these same discussions 30 years from now.


----------



## Wayne

To trot this out again, the TR term actually goes back to the early 70's and had nothing to do, in its origin, with theonomy, 
though clearly it was applied at times to theonomists, later on.

It's mostly all here: The “TR” Debates (1977) « - The Continuing Story -


----------



## Scott1

A few comments below.



P. F. Pugh said:


> There's a balance to be struck here between right doctrine and being rightly related to one another.
> Good doctrine and "rightly" relating are not opposite sides of a spectrum.
> 
> They are related because the peace, purity and unity of Christ's church are based on common confessed doctrine, as a basis for worshipping God in spirit and in truth- that provides the basis for relationships on every level of Christ's church.
> 
> I do often see a good deal of uncharity in the PCA, particularly on the blogs. If you want a smaller tent, the PCA is not for you.
> Not sure what is meant by this,
> the tent is a biblical reformed denomination with presbyterian government-
> "Faithful to Scripture, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission."
> 
> The tent is always attracting believers based on whom God will call. It is not a tent intended to be all things to all people.
> 
> There's a set of essentials, but apart from those, the PCA is (by intention) broad in its interpretation of the confession.
> There is no "set" of essentials-
> that might be said for the church universal, but not for our denomination (or any denomination).
> The Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order are the constitution, the former measured by "every proposition and/or statement of doctrine [therein]. That is secured by sacred oath, so it's not a negotiable.
> 
> I'm surprised that anyone's really surprised here.
> 
> There are many good things going on in the denomination, that God is doing through it, to the end of His Honor and His Glory- it is focus on that provides peace and unity, just as in the many apostolic admonitions to the early church.
> 
> It never has been about bureaucracy or institution, something for all of us to constantly and prayerfully keep before us.


----------



## J. Dean

Now, see, it sounds like they're making an "either/or" out of something that should be "both/and"


----------



## Scott1

J. Dean said:


> Now, see, it sounds like they're making an "either/or" out of something that should be "both/and"



We might think of it that way, or that good doctrine, and peace around that provides for good spiritual communion (and discipline). 

The first effect of abandoning clear, good biblical doctrine is usually confusion (while the claim of "broadening" is made). There are many biblical commandments toward seeking clarity.


----------



## Kevin

I was encouraged when I read about the meeting. I think that it is always wise to meet face to face for a "open and frank exchange of views".

That the tension level in the PCA has been rising, especially on-line, is no secret. That this reflects poorly on the cause of Christ is self-evident. I am glad that someone had the presence of mind to call men together for a sit-down.

For us to speculate about what was said based on a couple of quotes in a news story is silly. To assign motives and to speculate about an overarching conspiracy is just plain irresponsible.


----------



## Romans922

Secret meetings which invite a selected few will not bring unity to the PCA.


----------



## Philip

Scott1 said:


> There are many good things going on in the denomination, that God is doing through it, to the end of His Honor and His Glory- it is focus on that provides peace and unity, just as in the many apostolic admonitions to the early church.



Amen to that.

I don't think that fellowship and good doctrine are necessarily opposed. I do think, though, that sometimes in our sin we put them in opposition when they shouldn't be. Something like "either you hold Calvin's exact position or you aren't reformed." Again, I'm not saying that theological precision is bad, but we do need to realize that the tradition itself is rather broad. And theological precision at the expense of proper fellowship is sin. And disagreement should not always mean disunity.


----------



## Kevin

About the secrecy thing.

Meetings happen all of the time that I know nothing about. That is ok. Since not everything involves me, I don't need to know.

But, if I was a part of an ongoing, public dispute then I should be invited to discuss my concerns with other that are directly involved, in a private manner. 

There is nothing nefarious about this. On the contrary, it seems like a pretty direct command of scripture.

I look forward to the day when brothers dwell together in unity. And even a small step in that direction is something that I celebrate.


----------



## Edward

Kevin said:


> I think that it is always wise to meet face to face for a "open and frank exchange of views".



That only happens if multiple views are represented. From the ByFaith story, it wasn't clear to me that this was any more than a pep rally for one faction. Perhaps if you could provide a list of attendees, my concerns chould be shown to be unfounded.


----------



## Philip

Edward said:


> Perhaps if you could provide a list of attendees, my concerns chould be shown to be unfounded.



That's precisely the point: if you reveal who's attending, that makes things public. These are arguments which, in many cases, should be taking place face-to-face and in private, not in public. I'm starting to think that writing about it at all might have been a mistake, given that so many people are reading it with a hermaneutic of suspicion.


----------



## Edward

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm starting to think that writing about it at all might have been a mistake



Agreed. If you are using it as a PR exercise, then you need to make sure that you don't create more problems than you solve. 

Here, the choice was between a private exchange of disparate views, or attempting to stage an event for a purpose. It appears that they chose the second approach, and failed in the goal.


----------



## Kevin

Edward said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it is always wise to meet face to face for a "open and frank exchange of views".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only happens if multiple views are represented. From the ByFaith story, it wasn't clear to me that this was any more than a pep rally for one faction. Perhaps if you could provide a list of attendees, my concerns chould be shown to be unfounded.
Click to expand...


One member of this board that was present has said that all view were represented. I believe him. ByFaith said that differing views were represented. I believe them.

Since the meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, no list will be forthcoming.


----------



## seajayrice

Secret meetings? Creepy.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Kevin said:


> One member of this board that was present has said that all view were represented. I believe him. ByFaith said that differing views were represented. I believe them.
> 
> Since the meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, no list will be forthcoming.



Really, you believe ByFaith? I guess I would if I had 3 collaborating witness that I knew personally. ByFaith clearly has their own agenda which isn't necessarily in the best interest of the PCA.


----------



## Kevin

Bob, are you honestly convinced that our denominational magazine is not to be trusted when reporting facts? 

Or, are you disinclined to believe them based on your theory that they "have an agenda which isn't necessarily in the best interest of the PCA"?

In either case it seems like you should bring this up at your next presbytery meeting. Because (if either theory is correct) they are either staffed by incompetent individuals, dishonest individuals, or they are conspiring against the church that they serve.

If this is your sincere belief, don't hold out for an invitation to a future face-to-face "secret" meeting, bring it up at presbytery.


----------



## Jack K

seajayrice said:


> Secret meetings? Creepy.



Private meetings. Biblical.


----------



## Phil D.

Jack K said:


> Private meetings. Biblical.



Denomination-wide yet unannounced and discriminate meetings of this nature are contrary to the intentional character of presbyterian government. This kind of thing should be discussed in the prescribed venues of presbyteries and General Assembly.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Kevin said:


> Bob, are you honestly convinced that our denominational magazine is not to be trusted when reporting facts?
> 
> Or, are you disinclined to believe them based on your theory that they "have an agenda which isn't necessarily in the best interest of the PCA"?
> 
> In either case it seems like you should bring this up at your next presbytery meeting. Because (if either theory is correct) they are either staffed by incompetent individuals, dishonest individuals, or they are conspiring against the church that they serve.
> 
> If this is your sincere belief, don't hold out for an invitation to a future face-to-face "secret" meeting, bring it up at presbytery.


Kevin,

I worked the ByFaith issues at GA last year with others. GA did not accept our recommendations to defund the outfit. I also learned at GA last year that though ByFaith is subsidised by the PCA through the Admin committee, the Admin committee has no influence over the publication. That makes them essentially unaccountable until the full GA as a body decides to get a handle on them. Last year's GA proved unwilling in that regard.

As for reporting facts, one can achieve any desired outcome simply by reporting select facts and by printing select authors. I found this out again yesterday when my comment on the subject article was not published by ByFaith. My guess is that I asked too many inconvenient questions in my comment. Today, I wrote a different comment, which ByFaith edited before printing. Carefully selected facts don't constitute the truth. As this isn't the first time I've encountered this type of filtering, I am speaking from first-hand experience, not hypothetically.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure what scripture you are using but I somehow doubt the Chatham House rule will be found therein. Disregarding whether it was appropriate, if the meeting was intended to be private it should have remained private. Allowing un-sourced complaints out to the media, and comments that generally reflected the view of only one side of these "tensions," should have been seen for the source of stumbling and offense that it has become. 



Jack K said:


> Private meetings. Biblical.


----------



## Jack K

Phil D. said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private meetings. Biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denomination-wide yet unannounced and discriminate meetings of this nature are contrary to the intentional character of presbyterian government. This kind of thing should be discussed in the prescribed venues of presbyteries and General Assembly.
Click to expand...


But doesn't that assume we're discussing matters of either (1) official church doctrines/policies or (2) discipline that's reached the level of the courts? If the issue is personal conflict—and that's what the article claims the meeting was about—isn't a private meeting a necessary and biblical step in the process?

Or have things gotten so bad that elders can't even meet to talk over person conflict without some folks getting suspicious and crying foul? Is there _that_ little trust on one side, _that_ little integrity on the other? Because a meeting like this ought to be able to happen and be good for the church.


----------



## lynnie

_ I'm sorry brothers, but as ByFaith reported it, only those concerned about orthodoxy were identified as a problem, and not those pushing the boundaries as the recent "evolution only" symposium of Metro NY presbytery did_ ( Andy Webb)

I am no longer in the PCA, but is it now a standard acceptable position that Adam nursed at the breast of his primate Momma before God breathed a human soul into him? Do most of the presbyteries accept that now for ordination?

Do any of the negative references about the TRs reflect tolerance for Federal Vision do you think?


----------



## Phil D.

Jack K said:


> If the issue is personal conflict—and that's what the article claims the meeting was about—isn't a private meeting a necessary and biblical step in the process?



It is biblical only if both the offending and offended parties are involved in the process (Matt. 18:15). By all indications this case fails to meet that criteria.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Jack K said:


> But doesn't that assume we're discussing matters of either (1) official church doctrines/policies or (2) discipline that's reached the level of the courts? If the issue is personal conflict—and that's what the article claims the meeting was about—isn't a private meeting a necessary and biblical step in the process?
> 
> Or have things gotten so bad that elders can't even meet to talk over person conflict without some folks getting suspicious and crying foul? Is there _that_ little trust on one side, _that_ little integrity on the other? Because a meeting like this ought to be able to happen and be good for the church.



I disagree. This wasn't a personal meeting between elders. It was called by invitation by an official representative of the PCA. I see no such approach in the BCO. The PCA BCO calls for open and recorded proceedings, other than executive sessions as called by duly constituted courts. That's not the case here.

If a few elders get together informally over beers, fine. We all do that routinely. But when select, unelected individuals are called to a meeting as representatives of various viewpoints anonymously at a secret meeting that will not be recorded, that presents a constitutional issue in my opinion.

Oh, and I have yet to see mention that ruling elders were present. What message does that send? That REs aren't really co-equal with TEs in authority even though the BCO says so?


----------



## Edward

Kevin said:


> One member of this board that was present has said that all view were represented.



Can you give us a quote, if not a name? 

And I can think of 4 or 5 guys from my church that might have been on the list (all pretty much solidly in the moderate camp). I'll fish around Sunday to see if any were there, and if so, if they spotted any TRs.


----------



## Romans922

Reformed Musings said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> But doesn't that assume we're discussing matters of either (1) official church doctrines/policies or (2) discipline that's reached the level of the courts? If the issue is personal conflict—and that's what the article claims the meeting was about—isn't a private meeting a necessary and biblical step in the process?
> 
> Or have things gotten so bad that elders can't even meet to talk over person conflict without some folks getting suspicious and crying foul? Is there _that_ little trust on one side, _that_ little integrity on the other? Because a meeting like this ought to be able to happen and be good for the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This wasn't a personal meeting between elders. It was called by invitation by an official representative of the PCA. I see no such approach in the BCO. The PCA BCO calls for open and recorded proceedings, other than executive sessions as called by duly constituted courts. That's not the case here.
> 
> If a few elders get together informally over beers, fine. We all do that routinely. But when select, unelected individuals are called to a meeting as representatives of various viewpoints anonymously at a secret meeting that will not be recorded, that presents a constitutional issue in my opinion.
> 
> Oh, and I have yet to see mention that an ruling elders were present. What message does that send? That REs aren't really co-equal with TEs in authority even though the BCO says so?
Click to expand...


Make an overture Bob!


----------



## Jack K

Sigh. Suspicion is so deep-seated that if a meeting happens and we weren't there, we look for evidence of a plot. And of course we find it. Sigh. 




lynnie said:


> _ I'm sorry brothers, but as ByFaith reported it, only those concerned about orthodoxy were identified as a problem, and not those pushing the boundaries as the recent "evolution only" symposium of Metro NY presbytery did_ ( Andy Webb)
> 
> I am no longer in the PCA, but is it now a standard acceptable position that Adam nursed at the breast of his primate Momma before God breathed a human soul into him? Do most of the presbyteries accept that now for ordination?
> 
> Do any of the negative references about the TRs reflect tolerance for Federal Vision do you think?



As gently as I can say it... I know you didn't mean to, and your passion for biblical truth is great, but do you see what you've done? You've indirectly accused the people at that meeting of being both evolutionists and of tolerating doctrine contrary to justification by faith. Then we wonder why the guys' names are kept secret. This is why. To protect them from accusations that have no evidence behind them.

Again, sigh. It's a pity things have come to this. But frankly, folks, what we're seeing here tonight shows why things have come to this. There's deep distrust that brings hasty reactions and an eagerness to assert one's superiority.

I feel it in myself, too. I need to step back, pray, and make sure I'm not speaking out of anger or past hurts. Good night. I'll be back here in the morning.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Romans922 said:


> Make an overture Bob!



Let's see how my current one goes next week.


----------



## N. Eshelman

We don't have secret societies in the RPCNA.  

Seriously though, if this is a called meeting of presbyters then how were they gathered? Were they appointed or was it anyone with a grievance could come? I am really unsure how these non-board, non-committee, non-commission meetings get going. In the RPCNA all members of boards, committees, and commissions are listed in public. They may meet "in private" but why all the dark mystery around this meeting? Is it G8 Summit or something?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For those of us outside the PCA this just looks bizarre. Regardless of intent, it seems shady.


----------



## Reepicheep

The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private. 

I fail to see how this is the big deal some of you brothers are making it.

I'm just glad I didn't get invited.


----------



## jwright82

Reepicheep said:


> The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private.
> 
> I fail to see how this is the big deal some of you brothers are making it.
> 
> I'm just glad I didn't get invited.



The "big deal" is that it was not what it pretended to be. If open dialogue was sought between opposing parties why was one side not even invited? Being honest The article and the meeting seemed to be little more than propaganda for one side of the debate. The lack of serious engagment and thought in this "talk" and article is very appalling. For one they never define what being a Precisionist is. For two they curiously point out that several elders, who have been with the PCA for many years, think that nothing is wrong with the PCA. They never bring any opposing party member to make their case. This is curious because it stinks of propaganda and not of real dialogue.

I for one am ashamed that the strategic plan, that I defended on this website, is being used to smuggle in evangelical accomedation. The next step after that, historically speaking, is full on liberalism. For me the proper diagnosis of ho wthe PCA is doing will be on 3 fronts. 

1. If the SJC (the supreme court of the PCA) handles the appeals in the Federal Vision trials, which lower courts decided that men (who clearly are heretical in their views) are not outside the confession in their views. 
2. How the commitee goes on whether or not the PCA should leave the NAE, which is I guess probably liberal.
3. And whether or not the PCA deals with people like Ron Choong and Peter Enns, who advocate theistic evolution and changing our confession to accomedate that view.


----------



## Edward

Reepicheep said:


> The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private.



Then the promoters should have kept it private, not used it for spin in their PR publication. From what the 'leaders' have put out, it wasn't a private meeting, it was a PR event.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

I think a lot of PCA'ers are getting flashbacks of the "Fellowship of St. James" in the PCUS, with its secret meetings to turn the denomination to liberalism. And when the main speech organ (ByFaith) proclaims the judgment that the problem is "too much theological precision" and "too little love" (with no specifics, mind you), and present an either/or dilemma, you have to understand where those on the Right (which I consider myself) are getting their jitters.


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> If open dialogue was sought between opposing parties why was one side not even invited?



How do you know this? Just because only people from one side were quoted does not mean that only people from one side were there. That's a logical leap. If you weren't there and haven't been in contact with those who were, then don't presume to make this assertion.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

From one report Andy Webb had from a non TR in attendance, there were not so many TR statements reported because there were simply not that many made. So whether from not enough being there (if so, why?) or not enough speaking out (if so, why?), the preponderance of complaints/commentary were from one side of the groups in "tension".


----------



## Reepicheep

I'm not looking to belabor this, but I will give this perspective-

The meeting sounds like something called by Taylor to get the perspectives of various PCA leaders able to give a good analysis of the dynamics at work in the PCA. It doesn't sound like an attempt to get two perceived sides together for a debate or negotiation. The intention was probably to identify the tensions in the PCA and get an idea of how widespread they are, how big the divide or divides are, etc. You don't need to have representatives of "opposing sides" there to gather a picture of the current state of things. Lots of PCA elders know a spectrum of elders and it wouldn't take too many to paint an accurate picture of the PCA's issues.

The blogosphere doesn't always paint an accurate picture of how big divides actually are. Most PCA pastors don't blog. Most don't have time. Many do take time to peruse various blogs regularly, however. When they do read some of the blogs out there, it could seem all Reformed hope is lost and that a whole bunch of people agree. The reality of the PCA's state may be something all together different than what is represented on blogs and boards, so touching base with a bunch of other non-blogging elders in a personal meeting could be helpful to gain perspective. I don't know for sure.

Again, I'm glad I wasn't invited, I just don't have time for such informal discussions. I have simply learned to take the blog banter with a grain of salt and do my best to faithfully execute my various pastoral duties here in my local church and Presbytery. I barely have time for anything else. 

I know this perspective won't assuage the ever growing frustration of those here who are pretty convinced a propaganda campaign (or maybe even some conspiracy to Evangelical-ize the PCA _even more_) is afoot, but I offer it any ways.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Tony,

I appreciate your comments, but I still see a number of problems. First of all, the PCA is more than a collection of TEs. REs also exercise leadership in the PCA, both practically and per the BCO. In fact, RE's make up the majority of all Sessions of which I'm aware. And the fact that most TE's don't blog is irrelevant. A vaster majority of RE's also do not blog, and they have perspectives as well.

To arbitrarily gather a group of TE's together as "leaders of the PCA" seems flawed from its conception. We don't have bishops and priests in the PCA. All officers are equal with one vote in the courts. Some may exercise more influence for one reason or another, but they aren't "leaders in the PCA" any more than those who don't exercise the same influence.

Again, I greatly respect Dr. Taylor and the way he executes his tough position. I strongly supported him at last year's GA. But that doesn't place anyone above critique for perceived errors. The way this meeting was executed, especially cone of silence rule, does not promote unity. The biased ByFaith piece only served to throw gasoline on the fire.

For the record, I'm not advocating a conspiracy theory, only that an error in judgment has served only to further the divisions in the PCA.


----------



## jwright82

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If open dialogue was sought between opposing parties why was one side not even invited?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this? Just because only people from one side were quoted does not mean that only people from one side were there. That's a logical leap. If you weren't there and haven't been in contact with those who were, then don't presume to make this assertion.
Click to expand...


Your right Philip I shouldn't have assumed. The article did seem a little one sided though didn't it?


----------



## lynnie

Jack- I appreciate you trying to be so kind and nice, but did you notice that instead of simply answering my two questions with "no" and "no" ( the answer I was hoping to hear), you deflected the subject back to my alleged bad attitude?

Let me try again: Does the PCA have any debate these days about ordaining men who think Adam nursed at his non human Momma's breast? Is that OK now?

And do you think the guys at the secret meeting are in favor of tolerating FV?


----------



## Kevin

One more time. 

A member of this board has identified himself (in an other forum) as being present.

He has stated clearly that ALL sides in today's PCA seemed to him to be well represented.

He is no fan of the FV (to say the least).

The statements about the PCA that were reported in the ByFaith article are NOT editorial musings. But are the statements made by those men that were present and those statements reflect the views of the speaker. Not some vast FV/evolutionist conspiracy.

---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> Jack- I appreciate you trying to be so kind and nice, but did you notice that instead of simply answering my two questions with "no" and "no" ( the answer I was hoping to hear), you deflected the subject back to my alleged bad attitude?
> 
> Let me try again: Does the PCA have any debate these days about ordaining men who think Adam nursed at his non human Momma's breast? Is that OK now?
> 
> And do you think the guys at the secret meeting are in favor of tolerating FV?



Lynnie, I can see jacks point. And I agree with him.

No one TE or RE can state with anything like certainty that That "no one, anywhere" held to a particular view at the time of their ordination.

I can tell you that no one has been passed by the C & C committee that I chair with anything remotely resembling the view you suggested.

I can say that I find it highly unlikely that someone was passed with those views in other committees that I am familiar with.

The only way to say with certainty would be to undertake an exhaustive survey of 40 years worth of the minutes of the Review of Presbytery Records committee.

If your fear is that someone, somewhere, at some time might have slipped in with that view then by all means begin the search. 

But to simply throw it out as a challenge "did this happen?" and then to view anything less then a blanket assertion of No , as evidence to the contrary is just not fair.

If you know (or believe that you know) of an individual that holds a view that you consider outside of the bounds, ask them. I really doubt that any PCA TE would decline a polite request for information about his views.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I think Alan Strange's comment on Wes White's blog sums up the overriding concern very well. 
PCA “Meeting of Understanding” held in Atlanta « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## Jack K

lynnie said:


> Jack- I appreciate you trying to be so kind and nice, but did you notice that instead of simply answering my two questions with "no" and "no" ( the answer I was hoping to hear), you deflected the subject back to my alleged bad attitude?
> 
> Let me try again: Does the PCA have any debate these days about ordaining men who think Adam nursed at his non human Momma's breast? Is that OK now?
> 
> And do you think the guys at the secret meeting are in favor of tolerating FV?



If I misunderstood your post I do apologize. In that case, I suppose I don't understand what the two topics you brought up have to do with the meeting.

Are you trying to guess what theological issues divide those who were attending? I don't know that we should be doing that, especially if the guesses we come up with lead us to mention specific, clearly-minority-in-the-PCA views of the sort that are likely to get people inflamed. I understand from you (I think) that you didn't mean to imply you suspected meeting attendees of holding these views. But then why bring them up? I don't get it.

I accept that you just want to understand. But I do think we need to be very careful in how we speak on this particular issue so as not to pour gasoline on the fire. Once we ask a question like that, even if it's nothing but blind speculation, someone will assume it must be true and start to believe the worst. Then the damage is done.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Questions for those who attended the recent PCA "Meeting of Understanding"


----------



## lynnie

Thanks for the replies and clarifications.


----------



## Edward

Kevin said:


> A member of this board has identified himself (in an other forum) as being present.



Can I get a couple of hints to make the search less 'interesting'? 

Does the poster use the same screen name at both locations?

Is the poster who attended male or female?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ken Pierce; see Andy Webb's FB comment/thread linked previously; and see Andy's report from another non TR attendee.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Questions for those who attended the recent PCA "Meeting of Understanding"



The linked article by G. I. Williamson is also the prescription we need in the PCA.


----------



## Reformed Musings

NaphtaliPress said:


> The linked article by G. I. Williamson is also the prescription we need in the PCA.



Amen, brother!


----------



## Edward

NaphtaliPress said:


> see Andy Webb's FB comment/thread linked previously;



Thanks, that might have been part of my problem. For several reasons, I don't do facebook.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

NaphtaliPress said:


> The linked article by G. I. Williamson is also the prescription we need in the PCA.


Indeed.

AMR


----------



## Zenas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> For those of us outside the PCA this just looks bizarre. Regardless of intent, it seems shady.



As one who's coming into the PCA from the ARP, I'd rather have the PCA's problems.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There has been an official explanation of the meeting of understanding as reported here.
Dr. Roy Taylor Explains the “Meeting of Understanding” « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## Scott1

> The Honorable Stated Clerk
> As quoted in ByFaith on-line
> 
> The world has changed since 1973. The PCA of today is not the PCA of 1973. We are more consciously and consistently Reformed in our theological understanding. The Lord has added to the number of our members, churches, and Presbyteries. We have more and a greater variety of ministries to work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission to make disciples of all peoples. The PCA, like North America, has become more ethnically diverse. We are no longer a southeastern denomination; we have churches across the USA and churches in Canada. Growth that has made us more diverse, coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.



Though a bit of this is subjective, most is objectively true.

However, this is why we have spiritual courts directed by counsels of elders such as annual general assembly, and presbyteries that meet frequently to address the condition and station of the church.

This does illustrate one problem with the strategic plan that passed, narrowly in some points, and the process that was used to get it passed-
some points were so vague that they might be thought by some, but perhaps not most, to allow for strategic direction of the spiritual direction of the denomination to come from outside of her courts, i.e. by denominational agency instead of from sessions, presbyteries and general assembly.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

There are some upcoming overtures that will help- requiring that more of this is clearly routed through the Bills and Overtures committee (representative of elders from each presbytery), and clarifying and limiting what individual agencies or committees can address within their sphere.

What is needed is a much more deliberative and broad based process for anything "strategic" for the denomination- as well as specificity as to that strategy, and accountability to the spiritual courts.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

> coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.



So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.


----------



## Kevin

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.
Click to expand...


Yes, I believe that you are reading him wrong.

I know that it has become popular to refer to each other in the PCA as "liberals" and "conservatives" and so your reading of Dr Taylor's remarks were from that perspective. Understandable, although incorrect. 

We (all of us in the PCA) when viewed within the spectrum of evangelicalism are "conservative". Extremely so. My PCUSA & PCC friends consider us "Fundamentalists".

I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.

With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.


----------



## Wayne

Kevin said:


> I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.



Agreed. That is the way Dr. Taylor meant to be understood, I think. Some might have more clearly understood his intent if he had said something like "We conservatives tend to keep splitting..."


----------



## Philip

Kevin said:


> I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.
> 
> With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.



This is the spirit in which I understood these remarks, and (for that matter) the original article.


----------



## jwright82

Kevin said:


> PointyHaired Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are reading him wrong.
> 
> I know that it has become popular to refer to each other in the PCA as "liberals" and "conservatives" and so your reading of Dr Taylor's remarks were from that perspective. Understandable, although incorrect.
> 
> We (all of us in the PCA) when viewed within the spectrum of evangelicalism are "conservative". Extremely so. My PCUSA & PCC friends consider us "Fundamentalists".
> 
> I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.
> 
> With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.
Click to expand...


I see your point but I still feel that they could have shed more light on what "theological precision" really means? Which doctrines are we being overly precise about? It is clarity that is needed. The original article did seem to be onesided for that point alone. It spoke of bringing both sides together but only mentioned the one sides views. I still don't even know if any "theological precisionists" were even present at this meeting, they could have been. But they definantly didn't get any "airtime" from the article or the subsequent explinations of it.


----------



## Jack K

Putting on my journalist cap, I doubt the original article was written by a denominational "official." It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules. When I worked as a denominational reporter, it was absolutely unthinkable to have denominational higher-ups approve or even see a news story before it was published. There were battles over this, of course, and subtle pressures. But the editors held very firmly to their independence.

So the original article may be one-sided. Or the reporting incomplete. Or, as many have mentioned, the less conservative voices at the meeting may have simply been more eager to speak up. But to suggest the original article reflects the thinking of any denominational officials beyond the reporter (and maybe an editor or two) at byFaith does not fit the way journalism is done.


----------



## jwright82

Jack K said:


> Putting on my journalist cap, I doubt the original article was written by a denominational "official." It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules. When I worked as a denominational reporter, it was absolutely unthinkable to have denominational higher-ups approve or even see a news story before it was published. There were battles over this, of course, and subtle pressures. But the editors held very firmly to their independence.
> 
> So the original article may be one-sided. Or the reporting incomplete. Or, as many have mentioned, the less conservative voices at the meeting may have simply been more eager to speak up. But to suggest the original article reflects the thinking of any denominational officials beyond the reporter (and maybe an editor or two) at byFaith does not fit the way journalism is done.



You raise a good point. Yes we cannot associate the article with officials' opinions. But I read the explinations of this meeting and still saw no clarification, I may have missed something of course, of what a "precionist" is and whether or not they were even present at this meeting. Officials have not answered these questions and for me at least that is the problem.


----------



## Edward

Jack K said:


> It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules.



I just don't see that at the present byFaith. I did at the old Messenger. ByFaith seems to be very much an organ of the church bureaucrats. Which is, in context, fine for what is a public relations tool of an organization.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see that at the present byFaith. I did at the old Messenger. ByFaith seems to be very much an organ of the church bureaucrats. Which is, in context, fine for what is a public relations tool of an organization.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't give them that much credit. They operate in the red every year (thus subsidised heavily by the PCA) and have an abysmally small subscription base for good reason.


----------



## SRoper

Blog post by Sean Lucas (who was present):

I believe in the Church


----------



## Zach

Rick Phillips wrote a very good blog post on this meeting here that Reformation 21 shared. I thought it was very helpful.


----------



## Reformed Musings

Rick's essay is outstanding! He puts it all into proper perspective.


----------



## Edward

Zach said:


> I thought it was very helpful.



Very well done.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Rick Phillips once again proves he is the man.


----------

