# Leaving the PCA



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 17, 2018)

Saw this on the AR, thoughts?

https://www.theaquilareport.com/why-we-left-the-pca-and-joined-the-bible-presbyterian-church/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 17, 2018)

I read the article a few days ago. While we may debate whether or not they should have left, at least they decided to join another existing denomination rather than start a new one.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 17, 2018)

Funny--I was just looking at this church's website yesterday. A couple of their members visited our congregation this past Lord's Day while they were travelling in the area. They seem like a strong group.

I was surprised to read this statement:


> Like the PCA [the Bible Presbyterian Church] welcome men of all historical eschatological persuasions (Post-mil, A-mil, and Historic Pre-mil) to enter the denomination, and like the PCA, they allow them to teach their various eschatological positions.



I thought that the BPC only allowed premillennial views.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 17, 2018)

Yes, I was surprised by that bit as well; I thought that is why the BPs left the OPC along with teetotalism.


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 17, 2018)

I'm a neophyte in matters such as this, but the 7 concerns that they presented certainly would have influenced me to find another place to hang my hat.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2018)

Jimmy,
I agree with your assessment. If more leave, possibly they will re-look at their moves.


----------



## Edward (Apr 17, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I thought that the BPC only allowed premillennial views.



I thought so, as well.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 17, 2018)

North Texas PCA has this year so far had two churches leave or rumored to be in process of, one a small church for treatment of a confessional pastor they called and one rumored because of the recent direction on things which would be considered a decent size as far as averages, from the liturgical end of the conservatives.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 17, 2018)

Edward said:


> I thought so, as well.



Yup, I thought that was a BPC distinctive.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 17, 2018)

SRoper said:


> Yup, I thought that was a BPC distinctive.



Hasn't been for quite some time. I attended some classes at Western Reformed Seminary in Tacoma some 10 or 12 years ago, and even then there were prominent BP pastors who were postmil or amil.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 18, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> Hasn't been for quite some time. I attended some classes at Western Reformed Seminary in Tacoma some 10 or 12 years ago, and even then there were prominent BP pastors who were postmil or amil.



Not only this, Vic, but the other matters that led to the OPC/BPS split at the third GA in 1937.

I'll never forget the 1994 General Assembly of the OPC in which Kevin Backus, representing the BPC, stood before us and said, respecting the 1937 walkout, "We were wrong." Seldom does one here such an admission of this sort. There was not a dry eye in the house. 

Saying that cost our BP brethren among some of the old guard. Last year, in another beautiful day (like the 1994 GA), at the 2017 GA, Kevin Backus and others of us there celebrated the restoration of full fraternal relations between the OP and the BP. 

Yes, things have changed for the better, in my view, in the BPC and we rejoice to see it!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 7 | Edifying 2


----------



## Jake (Apr 18, 2018)

I did not know the BPC had a position on YEC, which the article on the Aquila Report seemed to imply. I found these notes: http://wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Courses/Theology_2/Chapter_6--Creation.pdf

"At its inception in 1938, and through most of its history, the Bible Presbyterian Church did not have a stated policy on this matter. Ministers and churches taught different views, including the gap theory, the day-age theory, and the 24-hour day theory. The denominational seminary, Faith Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, gave reasons for the various views, with a preponderance of the faculty favoring the day-age view. 

However, with the popularization of the flood geology model of earth history during and after the 1960s, the recent creation position gained more adherents in the Bible Presbyterian Church, and that view now has become the preponderant view of the Synod."

It's not clear to me based on the professor's interpretations of synod statements in 1999 and 2004 what the position of the BPC is today, but it's clearly weighted in favor of YEC.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 18, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Last year, in another beautiful day (like the 1994 GA), at the 2017 GA, Kevin Backus and others of us there celebrated the restoration of full fraternal relations between the OP and the BP.
> 
> Yes, things have changed for the better, in my view, in the BPC and we rejoice to see it!



Thank you for that, Alan. I was very pleased to see that occur, too.

I have much affection and love for BPC brothers and sisters I met through WRS.


----------



## Myson (Apr 19, 2018)

Maybe I'm unlearned, but what really is the problem with social justice? I've yet to hear anyone from the PCA advocate loving others as somehow more important than loving God, or that they are somehow in conflict. I also am not quite sure what they mean by "politically correct." In America, this is such a charged statement, and is pretty broad. Shouldn't we all go out of our way to be kind to others and let the gospel be our only offense? As a youngblood, when I hear that phrase, all that comes to mind is Trump and is usually lumped in with "fake news." I'm not trying to be political, I'm just trying to understand - shouldn't we want to be civil? And if being civil is too oppressive, then doesn't that say more about us? I've yet to hear of anyone within the PCA be so afraid of being "politically correct" that they fudge on biblical truth. What is a "liberal agenda?" Who defines what it is? The critics? This sounds an awful lot like a type of conservative conspiracy theory that I would hear on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh than a serious charge against the church of God (I say that being fully open to needing correction and understanding. Honestly, maybe I just don't understand any of these issues).

Also, what's so wrong about asking women's input into church matters if they have no ordination or authority? Or asking others to be involved in the God they worship such as collection plates or setting out flowers? Again, maybe I'm not fully versed in the issues, but it doesn't quite seem as problematic as the hand wringing in this post might suggest. Simply incorporating every member of the church into serving, whether that is on Sundays in a limited, non-ordained capacity, or throughout the week, seems pretty benign.

Lastly, the authors are certainly open to their opinions on how safe the PCA is for FV folks, but in practice, it's significantly less so than the official documents might suggest.

If a church wants to leave they certainly have the right to do so, and if they are convicted then who can blame them? I just wonder if they have the same cultural and political blinders on that they accuse the PCA of having, just in the opposite direction. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and if I'm ignorant, I'm more than open to having my mind changed. But I love my denomination and the work it has been doing. We can have discussions about more Biblical issues like Creation, Homosexuality, Scriptural Inerrancy, or RPW, but the article only mentions one, (and it's one that the PCA have loudly spoken on already regarding the ordination of ministers who do not value a 6 day creation) and the rest seem to be cultural and political preferences from an older generation. That's not to say they aren't legitimate, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they are right in leaving for those reasons.

That's just me though!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 19, 2018)

Myson said:


> what really is the problem with social justice?



Past experience shows us that social justice is great as a fruit, but bad as the root.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 19, 2018)

Myson said:


> Maybe I'm unlearned, but what really is the problem with social justice? I've yet to hear anyone from the PCA advocate loving others as somehow more important than loving God, or that they are somehow in conflict. I also am not quite sure what they mean by "politically correct." In America, this is such a charged statement, and is pretty broad. Shouldn't we all go out of our way to be kind to others and let the gospel be our only offense? As a youngblood, when I hear that phrase, all that comes to mind is Trump and is usually lumped in with "fake news." I'm not trying to be political, I'm just trying to understand - shouldn't we want to be civil? And if being civil is too oppressive, then doesn't that say more about us? I've yet to hear of anyone within the PCA be so afraid of being "politically correct" that they fudge on biblical truth. What is a "liberal agenda?" Who defines what it is? The critics? This sounds an awful lot like a type of conservative conspiracy theory that I would hear on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh than a serious charge against the church of God (I say that being fully open to needing correction and understanding. Honestly, maybe I just don't understand any of these issues).
> 
> Also, what's so wrong about asking women's input into church matters if they have no ordination or authority? Or asking others to be involved in the God they worship such as collection plates or setting out flowers? Again, maybe I'm not fully versed in the issues, but it doesn't quite seem as problematic as the hand wringing in this post might suggest. Simply incorporating every member of the church into serving, whether that is on Sundays in a limited, non-ordained capacity, or throughout the week, seems pretty benign.
> 
> ...



I can’t speak for the PCA from experience, but from what I know they have a history with these issues.

As for political correctness, one has to define what they mean. For example, Hitler used political correctness as a tool to silence opposing voices, which would eventually end in prison or death. To my knowledge, we are the only country with a first amendment type right in our constitution. Whether you agree with people or not, they have a right to voice their opinion. The consequences are of a different matter.

I have no problem asking my wife for advice on particular matters. The issue comes in when elder’s wives or minister’s wives function as an elder (I think of Tim keller’s Experience here).

There are many issues involved with he PCA. Two major issues, in my opinion: 1) that they have too many people taking exceptions to their standards (e.g. sabbath). 2) They also have inter-organizations acting as church courts (e.g. National Partnership). These things alone are contrary to biblical standards and very contra-Presbyterian.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2018)

Myson said:


> Maybe I'm unlearned, but what really is the problem with social justice?



It addresses sins that it doesn't want full repentance on. If I've sinned, and my brother forgives me. That's it. I've turned from the sin. I've been reconciled. Great.

Social Justice warriors will never let matter end. After you've addressed the sin, they keep extorting you for more "feel bads" or "systemic racism is still there," or whatever the golden cow is today.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2018)

How likely is this actually? If this came about, it would be a formal rejection of jus divinum Presbyterianism. It seems too extreme to me to make it through the process.

That the PCA begin the process of creating an office that everyone agrees is not to be found anywhere in Scripture, namely that of “commissioned church worker.” When we do, we will no longer be able to say that our polity is derived solely from the principles found in Scripture;

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Myson (Apr 19, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It addresses sins that it doesn't want full repentance on. If I've sinned, and my brother forgives me. That's it. I've turned from the sin. I've been reconciled. Great.
> 
> Social Justice warriors will never let matter end. After you've addressed the sin, they keep extorting you for more "feel bads" or "systemic racism is still there," or whatever the golden cow is today.



I think you may be lumping in a political term to a social action. God in the OT and the NT is a social justice God. He is concerned with the wellfare of the widow and the orphan. James tells us that we must provide for others. Caring for the stranger within our gates and feeding the hungry are all things that are required for our faith that brought condemnation on those who refused to do them. What's wrong with the PCA taking this seriously _in light of _the Gospel as proclaimed through the Scriptures and Confession? Doing "social justice" and making it a priority can actually be biblical, and need not be lumped in with neo-socialist political progressivism as displayed through American politics. It can simply be caring for the "least of these," so that when we are before Christ on the last day, he will say, "When I was hungry, you fed me."


----------



## Myson (Apr 19, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> As for political correctness, one has to define what they mean.



I think that's the rub for me. "Political correctness" ironically, is a useless term because there is no agreed-upon use of it. If could mean, "doing no harm to others in our words," but could also mean "neo-fascism." I highly doubt that the church in this post felt that the PCA was leaning towards the latter. Furthermore, I don't really see how they can accuse the denomination as a whole as fudging on Biblical truth in order to be "relevant" or "not offend others." And if so, I'd like to see some hard evidence for it. And, this is just a personal preference, but I would like to see a church wrestle with, "Where are we blind and need correction from others in these issues," rather than assume a place of superiority. Who knows, maybe the church did do this and asked guidance from others and we're unaware of it. But that wasn't the impression I got from the post and I think that a hearty dose of humility and openness to how our history, emotions, and politics guide our thinking would honor Christ in making big decisions like this. 

As for the rest of your points such as Sabbath keeping and NP, I'm either unlearned or agree to some extent so I won't comment further. I'll only say that those reasons are probably more legitimate than "Social justice," "Political correctness," etc, and should have probably just ended there, in my opinion. It might have given more weight to their argument.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2018)

Myson said:


> I think you may be lumping in a political term to a social action. God in the OT and the NT is a social justice God. He is concerned with the wellfare of the widow and the orphan. James tells us that we must provide for others. Caring for the stranger within our gates and feeding the hungry are all things that are required for our faith that brought condemnation on those who refused to do them. What's wrong with the PCA taking this seriously _in light of _the Gospel as proclaimed through the Scriptures and Confession? Doing "social justice" and making it a priority can actually be biblical, and need not be lumped in with neo-socialist political progressivism as displayed through American politics. It can simply be caring for the "least of these," so that when we are before Christ on the last day, he will say, "When I was hungry, you fed me."



That's not what the current agitators mean by "social justice." No one is saying you shouldn't feed the hungry. We are saying that we shouldn't be guilted for things we didn't do. Or at least if we are going to be guilted, at least let us know when we have sufficiently atoned for sins we didn't commit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Apr 19, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not what the current agitators mean by "social justice." No one is saying you shouldn't feed the hungry. We are saying that we shouldn't be guilted for things we didn't do. Or at least if we are going to be guilted, at least let us know when we have sufficiently atoned for sins we didn't commit.


Sure, but what is the evidence that the PCA as a whole denomination is guilty of that kind of "social justice" mentality that you're referring to? And who do you mean by "agitators?" Are these Christians within the Reformed tradition or political enemies?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2018)

Myson said:


> Sure, but what is the evidence that the PCA as a whole denomination is guilty of that kind of "social justice" mentality that you're referring to? And who do you mean by "agitators?" Are these Christians within the Reformed tradition or political enemies?



As to evidence, that's available on the board. There are several discussions current on it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 29, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jimmy,
> I agree with your assessment. If more leave, possibly they will re-look at their moves.



I am not so sanguine. I've seen vicious behavior on Facebook from some of the National Partnership men and their followers in their interactions with men like Todd Pruitt and Andy Webb. They'd generally be overjoyed if confessionalist gadflies like that left the PCA tomorrow since they'd then be assured of having their way without any voices raised in opposition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 29, 2018)

From the article: 



> The Session of GRPC took solace that Westminster Presbytery was all we needed to maintain our sense of being “connectional.” Westminster Presbytery had become our “safe harbor” in the storm of conflict that we saw raging at GA level. We sensed that our closest brothers are right here in Westminster Presbytery. It was our sense that we didn’t have to attend or participate in GA; we could just ignore what was going on there and maintain our healthy relationship in the Presbytery.
> 
> However, this kind of reasoning had become a problem for our Session. First, *by ignoring and intentionally not participating in GA we realized that we had already left the PCA.* Secondly, our church was still identified as being in the PCA. Although we were not obligated to put into practice everything that the GA adopted, nevertheless, we realized that the actions and practices of the GA were also the actions of Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church.



A year or two ago, in a confessional Facebook group, I made pretty much the same point that I've bolded, but found little to no agreement. My argument was that if you write off GA (which an increasing number of confessional men seem to be doing since they don't seem to be able to make an impact there with the NP, etc.) and figure you can just stop bad stuff at Presbytery, you've sort of left Presbyterianism. There is more to Presbyterianism than the presbytery. This church agrees and joined with another Presbyterian church with which they could identify wholeheartedly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 29, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> National Partnership


??


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 29, 2018)

I don't know how prevalent this is, but what kind of presbyterian will such who give over their duty in this set of circumstances, make it in any other body?


Pilgrim said:


> if you write off GA (which an increasing number of confessional men seem to be doing since they don't seem to be able to make an impact there with the NP, ...


----------



## Parakaleo (Apr 29, 2018)

This discussion helps to demonstrate why the presbytery is to be seen as the radical court of the church.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 29, 2018)

Social plus anything related to the church comes out of a late 1800s optimism that man can improve himself and the world if he tries hard enough. At its root, it dispenses with the fall and elevates moralism (be good for goodness sake) apart from the radical work of God replacing a heart of stone with one of flesh.

Some of the work in and of itself -- prison reform, privately-funded charitable health care -- was not bad. But to replace the life- saving work of the gospel with social work has a devastating effect on the individual, society, and the church.

Eugenics was a logical outcome. The ruination of the mainline churches was another. When the civil rights movement defended the dignity of man as created in God's image, it had a platform to lead a people out of exile at all levels. When it asked people to repent of sin they had not personally committed or protected sinful lifestyle choices, it killed the souls of individuals and churches.

Like so many lies, it can be defended by a partial truth: but God said to protect (the widow, the orphan...) True enough, but that was a call for repentance among God's people for violating his law to the harm of the weakest. It was often an example of a systematic violation of the law, not a call to fix all the world's problems without offending anyone with the painful message that man is fallen and in desperate need of a savior.


----------



## Ray (Apr 30, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Saw this on the AR, thoughts?
> 
> https://www.theaquilareport.com/why-we-left-the-pca-and-joined-the-bible-presbyterian-church/


Good For Them. GRPC seems like a pretty solid Church. Seems like they incorporate plenty of Psalms in their Worship too  not like most Presbyterian Churches these days.


----------



## Myson (May 1, 2018)

I feel this is a healthy understanding of what it may look like to have an understanding of the gospel that leads to action.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-stethoscopes-one-churchs-significant-switch/


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 1, 2018)

Myson said:


> I feel this is a healthy understanding of what it may look like to have an understanding of the gospel that leads to action.
> 
> https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-stethoscopes-one-churchs-significant-switch/



Is this meant for this thread?


----------



## Myson (May 1, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Is this meant for this thread?



The conversation just veered a little to social action and how that might derail the mission of the church. I felt it helpful to see where they can work together in a positive way while maintaining the centrality of the gospel message. If it wasn't entirely appropriate I can take it down.


----------

