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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Secret meetings? Creepy.

Private meetings. Biblical.

 

[Phil D.]

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]

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.

Private meetings. Biblical.