Can someone explain what the "safe places" included in the PCA Strategic Plan is?

[Soonerborn]

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/p 347 Items for GA Approval - for Web.pdf

It appears this will be voted on at the upcoming GA. What exactly is this "Safe Places" about and what will it accomplish and why is it needed? Is this something that everyone in the PCA agrees needs to be in place?

It appears this will develop some sort of "Safe Harbor" for communications at GA without the threat of charges or otherwise? Is this really a good idea to give someone a venue that prohibits consequences for their words or ideas? Is this even biblical?

Maybe I am not understanding correctly?

 

[Theoretical]

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/p 347 Items for GA Approval - for Web.pdf

It appears this will be voted on at the upcoming GA. What exactly is this "Safe Places" about and what will it accomplish and why is it needed? Is this something that everyone in the PCA agrees needs to be in place?

It appears this will develop some sort of "Safe Harbor" for communications at GA without the threat of charges or otherwise? Is this really a good idea to give someone a venue that prohibits consequences for their words or ideas? Is this even biblical?

Maybe I am not understanding correctly?

Let's put it this way, would you ever see someone on the more conservative end of the spectrum in the PCA using the safe places? My concern is that the safe places become the new version of seminary professor tenure, which was the way liberalism seeped into the pulpits of neighborhood churches.

 

[Kevin]

Any place that allows you to discuss the historic &/or the broader reformed view on any subject, without some 17 yo TR wannabe with DSL & a quart of beer calling you an "advocate of the FV" or "contrary to the historic reformed confessionlism".

(my opinion)

 

[Scott1]

This is one of many problems with the proposed Strategic Plan- it uses vague terms, and does not specifically define outcomes (or process) except for a mandatory three part funding mechanism.

One hopes this somehow is intended to further the peace and purity of the church, centered around confessed doctrine and polity, which grounds unity in reformed theology.

By the way, the "S" curve in the report, given as a basis for numerical decline in the denomination, and as basis for the vaguely described changes- may not be accurate at all. Some technical analysis shows no "S."
http://www.puritanboard.com/f109/no-s-curve-pca-strategic-plan-61465/

 

[Jack K]

Quoting the plan:
THEME #1: SAFE PLACES – How to provide safe places to talk about new ideas to advance the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry and mission
Goal: Establish safe places to talk about ways to advance Biblical Belief, Ministry & Mission
Means #1: Public forums at GA to test ideas without vote or risk
Means #2: Encourage similar forums in the presbyteries (possibly continuing discussion from each year’s GA)
Means #3: Encourage gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves to discuss major denomination-changing or culture-changing ideas, and how to live together with differences

Proposals like this usually have their root in anecdotal accounts from people who've felt the system let them down. Most likely, there've been elders and pastors who came up with ideas they were excited about only to be shot down by an accusation they felt was unfair. Or such people have been too scared to bring up ideas for fear they'd be unfairly accused of non-confessionalism, just because their ideas were something new.

Seems to me, this shows that while we must continue to defend docrinal orthodoxy, we must also be sure not to simply make doctrinal accusations in cases where it is merely tradition or how-we've-always-done-it that's being challenged. Such accusations do happen within the PCA. So, while I'm concerned that the "safe places" idea could open a window to discussions of bad doctrine, I also see the need for it. In some PCA settings, suggesting anything innovative will get you unfairly branded as non-confessional. It's a cheap, easy stone for traditionalists to throw at innovators.

 

[Scott1]

Quoting the plan:
THEME #1: SAFE PLACES – How to provide safe places to talk about new ideas to advance the PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry and mission
Goal: Establish safe places to talk about ways to advance Biblical Belief, Ministry & Mission
Means #1: Public forums at GA to test ideas without vote or risk
Means #2: Encourage similar forums in the presbyteries (possibly continuing discussion from each year’s GA)
Means #3: Encourage gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves to discuss major denomination-changing or culture-changing ideas, and how to live together with differences

Proposals like this usually have their root in anecdotal accounts from people who've felt the system let them down. Most likely, there've been elders and pastors who came up with ideas they were excited about only to be shot down by an accusation they felt was unfair. Or such people have been too scared to bring up ideas for fear they'd be unfairly accused of non-confessionalism, just because their ideas were something new.

Seems to me, this shows that while we must continue to defend docrinal orthodoxy, we must also be sure not to simply make doctrinal accusations in cases where it is merely tradition or how-we've-always-done-it that's being challenged. Such accusations do happen within the PCA. So, while I'm concerned that the "safe places" idea could open a window to discussions of bad doctrine, I also see the need for it. In some PCA settings, suggesting anything innovative will get you unfairly branded as non-confessional. It's a cheap, easy stone for traditionalists to throw at innovators.

It's really hard to know what any of this means.

Most discussions go on within a group of individuals within a church, within the church generally, or maybe within the presbyteries. These vary tremendously from place to place, circumstance to circumstance- and are part of an ongoing process of sanctification in learning to get along with others. Some with people whom God has appointed as authority, e.g. ruling elders who shepherd, teaching elders who teach, sometimes who have to discipline.

Also within the context of family where there are authority relationships, ministry groups where disparate groups learn to get along.

Very little of this could even possibly by remedied by a top down structure, anyway.

If someone doesn't trust the brethren, covenant community, the officers whom God has appointed for them for a "safe place" then likely the person seeking that doesn't likely understand His place in the Body of Christ, the Kingdom.

General Assembly is a "court," very specific, expensive to maintain. It's not a "testing" ground. Not intended to be. One wonders to "test" what? The testing would start with a spiritually mature person in your congregation, an elder in confidence, your session, maybe a presbyteries.

There are all kinds of confidential matters tested regularly at the session and presbytery level. Very much time is expended on that as it is now, which can make it more difficult for people to participate as it is.

"Encouraging non-agreeing conclaves"- what does this mean? Non-agreeing about what? Is this a focus of the Body, to focus on non-agreeing conclaves?

Many think there is too much disagreement, too much self centeredness, too little submission to the brethren as it is.

These notions only make covenant life more difficult- and in the end, accomplish nothing.

 

[Jack K]

All good points, too, Scott. It would be nice if the reasons why this seemed necessary were spelled out. Clearly, someone somewhere feels it's not safe to bring up innovative ideas. But who feels that? When and where? Will the "safe places" undermine the church courts? Or will they protect them by taking some discussions into testing grounds outside the courts? Or is it intentionally vague, with these questions still to be answered?

 

[travstar]

I say we just have everyone videoconference into future GAs, presbytery and session meetings with said streaming video only showing a silhouette and the speaking party's voice digitally altered before voting on matters anonymously. Afterward, the worship team will lead everyone in a chorus of Men Without Hats' "Safety Dance."

 

[Willem van Oranje]

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/p 347 Items for GA Approval - for Web.pdf

It appears this will be voted on at the upcoming GA. What exactly is this "Safe Places" about and what will it accomplish and why is it needed? Is this something that everyone in the PCA agrees needs to be in place?

It appears this will develop some sort of "Safe Harbor" for communications at GA without the threat of charges or otherwise? Is this really a good idea to give someone a venue that prohibits consequences for their words or ideas? Is this even biblical?

Maybe I am not understanding correctly?

Isn't that like a "consequence-free lying, blaspheming, and idolatry-advocating zone"? Just trying to interpret what the SA says.

 

[Kevin]

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/p 347 Items for GA Approval - for Web.pdf

It appears this will be voted on at the upcoming GA. What exactly is this "Safe Places" about and what will it accomplish and why is it needed? Is this something that everyone in the PCA agrees needs to be in place?

It appears this will develop some sort of "Safe Harbor" for communications at GA without the threat of charges or otherwise? Is this really a good idea to give someone a venue that prohibits consequences for their words or ideas? Is this even biblical?

Maybe I am not understanding correctly?

Isn't that like a "consequence-free lying, blaspheming, and idolatry-advocating zone"? Just trying to interpret what the SA says.

No.

 

[Scott1]

All good points, too, Scott. It would be nice if the reasons why this seemed necessary were spelled out. Clearly, someone somewhere feels it's not safe to bring up innovative ideas. But who feels that? When and where? Will the "safe places" undermine the church courts? Or will they protect them by taking some discussions into testing grounds outside the courts? Or is it intentionally vague, with these questions still to be answered?

The other difficulty is that the vague descriptions and remedies are apparently talking about polity. Polity, is based on doctrine. There are no specific polity changes proposed (other than mandatory funding mechanisms).

The historic Presbyterian system has many mechanisms for orderly resolution of conflict and differences. It is very presbyterian to appeal, and there are mechanisms for that. There is a sense that there is no fear to challenge or use these mechanisms, that God often clarifies His will through them.

In the end, if the appeals finish, then the person must abide by the decision and not cause dissension, slander, etc. There is also a notion that it is an obligation to bring something forward as a matter of biblical pattern. But not to complain, slander or place others in a false light outside of the process. The biblical objectives are ninth commandment, submission to the Lord through authority He has placed, humility, and suffering even to cover a "weak" brother.

The opposite is murmuring, seeking faction, ego, placing categories of other people, particularly leaders, in a false light. Saying they provide no "safe place" seems to imply all that- not anything biblical.

In the broadest sense, what biblical reformed churches need, counter to patterns of this world, is more discipline, not less. In this generation particularly, but also in any other.

 

[jwright82]

As a member of a PCA church I have no objections to this at all. These safe places don't give liscence to cause trouble or blasphemey because as soon as you leave the safe place and preach or encourage blasphemey you can be brought up on charges then. So it seems that they have broad mechanisms in place to prevent something like FV taking over in a sense.

 

[Mushroom]

It's a cheap, easy stone for traditionalists to throw at innovators.

Yeah. Those nasty traditionalists are ALWAYS throwing stones at innovators. So much for honor and submission among Elders, eh?

We did this in my High School. A group of ne'er-do-wells (myself included) was convened and consulted as to why we skipped class and smoked pot instead of taking school seriously. We told our very earnest counsellors that we needed more FREEDOM, MAN! We snookered them into shortening classes by 15 minutes to add a FREE period that everybody had together to 'socially interact' without repurcussions, which to us meant.... no class so we could smoke pot. We thought it was a great 'testing ground for innovation'.

How 'bout the 'innovators' read the Confession they claim to subscribe to, and if it ain't their bag, move on. I know the PCA pays pretty well, but I'm sure the EPC or even the PCUSA can get up off a few dimes, too. Or they could start their own little independent non-denom. After all, accountability's just another part of the Confession to dispense with, right?

 

[Kevin]

Brad, I have no idea what you are talking about.

But if this is your reaction to a question about "safe space" then I can see why they are needed. To claim that fraternal converstions among brothers in Christ is like smoking pot (!) and that anyone that wants to engage in a conversation rather then yelling slogans at each other should leave the church is obtuse to say the least. And sounds schismatic at worst.

 

[Grimmson]

It's a cheap, easy stone for traditionalists to throw at innovators.

Yeah. Those nasty traditionalists are ALWAYS throwing stones at innovators. So much for honor and submission among Elders, eh?

We did this in my High School. A group of ne'er-do-wells (myself included) was convened and consulted as to why we skipped class and smoked pot instead of taking school seriously. We told our very earnest counsellors that we needed more FREEDOM, MAN! We snookered them into shortening classes by 15 minutes to add a FREE period that everybody had together to 'socially interact' without repurcussions, which to us meant.... no class so we could smoke pot. We thought it was a great 'testing ground for innovation'.

How 'bout the 'innovators' read the Confession they claim to subscribe to, and if it ain't their bag, move on. I know the PCA pays pretty well, but I'm sure the EPC or even the PCUSA can get up off a few dimes, too. Or they could start their own little independent non-denom. After all, accountability's just another part of the Confession to dispense with, right?

You should consider that a confession is a collaborated consistence document that may have degrees of interpretative disagreement. It was the case when it was written and as equally as a case today. If there is a problem with the confession as reflected by scripture there should be an avenue allowed for discussion; otherwise the claim by some non-confessionalists of the confession being over scripture would be true, instead of the confession being the bounded summary of what scripture teaches to the people of God. Also one should consider that PCA and the OPC does allow for some level of minor disagreement or exception with the WCF on a couple of points, therefore 100% subscription is not required for making the subscription claim. This "safe place" could be a type of accountability against the fundies or a tradition, like dispensationalism, that has infected the denomination and can bring the conversation back to God's Word if used properly.

 

[lynnie]

Any place that allows you to discuss the historic &/or the broader reformed view on any subject, without some 17 yo TR wannabe with DSL & a quart of beer calling you an "advocate of the FV" or "contrary to the historic reformed confessionlism".

(my opinion)

We know a man, who shall go unnamed, who teaches at WTS, who told us a few years ago that a lot of students were coming into classes with recording devices, not to be able to relisten to a lecture but to witchhunt for heresy in the profs, and the formerly wonderful discussion atmosphere was clamming up as the profs were so afraid of making an off the cuff remark that would be taken out of context or the wrong way. (This was in the middle of the Enns fight, which might have been part of it.)

There is something about newly Reformed students coming into Seminary to valiantly be the next Machen that would make me want a safe place, and I am neither an elder or teacher or a guy

 

[Jack K]

It's a cheap, easy stone for traditionalists to throw at innovators.

Yeah. Those nasty traditionalists are ALWAYS throwing stones at innovators. So much for honor and submission among Elders, eh?

We did this in my High School. A group of ne'er-do-wells (myself included) was convened and consulted as to why we skipped class and smoked pot instead of taking school seriously. We told our very earnest counsellors that we needed more FREEDOM, MAN! We snookered them into shortening classes by 15 minutes to add a FREE period that everybody had together to 'socially interact' without repurcussions, which to us meant.... no class so we could smoke pot. We thought it was a great 'testing ground for innovation'.

How 'bout the 'innovators' read the Confession they claim to subscribe to, and if it ain't their bag, move on. I know the PCA pays pretty well, but I'm sure the EPC or even the PCUSA can get up off a few dimes, too. Or they could start their own little independent non-denom. After all, accountability's just another part of the Confession to dispense with, right?

I don't wish to be argumentative but this really is important: "Innovator" does not necessarily mean "advocate for changing doctrine." It can be about new, possibly better ways of doing things within confessional doctrine and lines of authority. It can even bring us back to confessional doctrine when we've strayed.

The fact that you read "innovator" and immediately make accusations about non-confessionalism, non-accountability and non-Christian behavior, without so much as an example of what sort of innovation we might be talking about, demonstrates exactly why this proposal for "safe places" has come up.

 

[Mushroom]

The fact that you read "innovator" and immediately make accusations about non-confessionalism, non-accountability and non-Christian behavior, without so much as an example of what sort of innovation we might be talking about, demonstrates exactly why this proposal for "safe places" has come up.

The fact that you portray traditionalists as stone throwers is where the accusations began, but in our post-modern mindset, that passes right by unnoticed.

Why would Christian men need any forum where they can speak without any accountability?

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

To claim that fraternal converstions among brothers in Christ is like smoking pot

Never said nor inferred. Apparently you missed my point. Which was that the desire for non-accountability is usually rooted in a desire to do something you know the authority set over you would view as wrong.

and that anyone that wants to engage in a conversation rather then yelling slogans at each other should leave the church is obtuse to say the least. And sounds schismatic at worst.

Boy, that's stretching what I said! Are you one of those stone throwing traditionalists?

 

[Jack K]

The fact that you read "innovator" and immediately make accusations about non-confessionalism, non-accountability and non-Christian behavior, without so much as an example of what sort of innovation we might be talking about, demonstrates exactly why this proposal for "safe places" has come up.

The fact that you portray traditionalists as stone throwers is where the accusations began, but in our post-modern mindset, that passes right by unnoticed.

Was I wrong to say that? I guess I might have been. But I didn't mean to imply traditionalists are less kind than innovators. Both can be ready stone throwers. It's just that the stategic plan in question specifically deals with safe places for "new ideas," so I figured it's the innovators who're feeling unsafe. I suppose it could go both ways, though I still think it's particularly easy to accuse innovators of being doctrinally lax. We must do so only with care. Our doctrines and standards are too important for us to be making such charges in knee-jerk fashion. There will be dangerous backlash if they are used to hammer people who don't deserve it.

 

[py3ak]

I wonder if the thread would advance a little more if people would not think that their concern is the only conceivable one?

I kind of thought it was part of the job requirements for a teaching elder to be able to put brash 17-year olds in their place. I also imagine few would disagree that if elders are characterized by thin-skinned cowardliness and inability to stand being disagreed with, even sharply, and called on the carpet for what they say, then really the denomination is in trouble. Furthermore, it would be criminally naive (we are commanded to exercise discernment, after all) to imagine that "safe places" where there would be no repercussions for your statements are not going to be abused. Is the PCA better than the church in Ephesus? Yet Paul knew that from their midst would arise men speaking perverse things; those men are not going to be stupid, they're going to get good at working the system. Again, elders are supposed to display "sound speech that cannot be condemned." It seems that Paul puts the onus on them to use their words properly and circumspectly. Of course it's a burden; but it's a burden you chose to accept when you desired the office of a bishop.

Of course a mob of people screaming slogans at the top of their lungs don't promote an exchange of views or give much leisure for clarifying misunderstandings; having things done decently and in order doesn't include character assassinations on blogs, or challenges to personal combat. But it seems that as we become increasingly hyper connected, the ability to ignore chatter is increasingly important. What if everyone rebuked people making accusations without following due process, and let people know that if they have an issue, and after making a personal appeal to the person in question, that there are church courts? Surely those courts have the option of refusing to hear frivolous cases and admonishing people for being litigious?

Ultimately, I think people used to call "safe places" friends - you know, someone who could be trusted to listen to you charitably and tell you straight if you need to start taking your meds again.

 

[fredtgreco]

I wonder if the thread would advance a little more if people would not think that their concern is the only conceivable one?

I kind of thought it was part of the job requirements for a teaching elder to be able to put brash 17-year olds in their place. I also imagine few would disagree that if elders are characterized by thin-skinned cowardliness and inability to stand being disagreed with, even sharply, and called on the carpet for what they say, then really the denomination is in trouble. Furthermore, it would be criminally naive (we are commanded to exercise discernment, after all) to imagine that "safe places" where there would be no repercussions for your statements are not going to be abused. Is the PCA better than the church in Ephesus? Yet Paul knew that from their midst would arise men speaking perverse things; those men are not going to be stupid, they're going to get good at working the system. Again, elders are supposed to display "sound speech that cannot be condemned." It seems that Paul puts the onus on them to use their words properly and circumspectly. Of course it's a burden; but it's a burden you chose to accept when you desired the office of a bishop.

Of course a mob of people screaming slogans at the top of their lungs don't promote an exchange of views or give much leisure for clarifying misunderstandings; having things done decently and in order doesn't include character assassinations on blogs, or challenges to personal combat. But it seems that as we become increasingly hyper connected, the ability to ignore chatter is increasingly important. What if everyone rebuked people making accusations without following due process, and let people know that if they have an issue, and after making a personal appeal to the person in question, that there are church courts? Surely those courts have the option of refusing to hear frivolous cases and admonishing people for being litigious?

Ultimately, I think people used to call "safe places" friends - you know, someone who could be trusted to listen to you charitably and tell you straight if you need to start taking your meds again.

Very true Ruben, especially the bolded part. Which shows that the safe places desire are not for rumination but for dissemination of potentially (very) harmful doctrines.

 

[jwright82]

I wonder if the thread would advance a little more if people would not think that their concern is the only conceivable one?

I kind of thought it was part of the job requirements for a teaching elder to be able to put brash 17-year olds in their place. I also imagine few would disagree that if elders are characterized by thin-skinned cowardliness and inability to stand being disagreed with, even sharply, and called on the carpet for what they say, then really the denomination is in trouble. Furthermore, it would be criminally naive (we are commanded to exercise discernment, after all) to imagine that "safe places" where there would be no repercussions for your statements are not going to be abused. Is the PCA better than the church in Ephesus? Yet Paul knew that from their midst would arise men speaking perverse things; those men are not going to be stupid, they're going to get good at working the system. Again, elders are supposed to display "sound speech that cannot be condemned." It seems that Paul puts the onus on them to use their words properly and circumspectly. Of course it's a burden; but it's a burden you chose to accept when you desired the office of a bishop.

Of course a mob of people screaming slogans at the top of their lungs don't promote an exchange of views or give much leisure for clarifying misunderstandings; having things done decently and in order doesn't include character assassinations on blogs, or challenges to personal combat. But it seems that as we become increasingly hyper connected, the ability to ignore chatter is increasingly important. What if everyone rebuked people making accusations without following due process, and let people know that if they have an issue, and after making a personal appeal to the person in question, that there are church courts? Surely those courts have the option of refusing to hear frivolous cases and admonishing people for being litigious?

Ultimately, I think people used to call "safe places" friends - you know, someone who could be trusted to listen to you charitably and tell you straight if you need to start taking your meds again.

Your absolutly right that these safe places run the risk of being abused. But if these absusers of safe places run around in reguler settings shouting their heresies then they are not safe from the church's rightful discipline. Your worry is well taken and provides much food for thought but the fact that these safe places don't allow for the whole denomination to be a safe place I feel takes a little of the power out of your sting here. Again I don't want to seem like you don't have a point but I feel the very idea as it is laid out of safe places comes with its own balances of power so to speak. Anyone who utilizes these safe places understands that they can be held accountable for preaching their views out side the safe places, that in my opinion provides as adequite protection for any absuses.

What is to stop a whole denomination from being taken over by a view that although it is withen the historic reformed tradition is not the only point of view on the matter. Lets take the whole Christ and culture question. Assume that either radical reconstructionists or radical 2 kingdom points of views take over the GA and try to force the opposing view out. Without these safe places to voice criticism of either view than such a wrong action would be almost impossible to stop. Now that is an extreme example I'll admit but surely you can see the benifit of safe places in such a situation. We are all sinners and therefore I feel that the notion of safe places as I understand it takes into account this fact very well.

 

[py3ak]

I think the problem I have with your statement, James, is that in the case of heretics you want to state that the safe places will be trivial - providing negligible protection; but in the case of valid viewpoints, you want to state that they will be powerful protectors of legitimate dissent. I simply don't see how both of those things could be the case: if they provide a potent platform for dissent, the abusers have access to it; if they are trivial, then they bring only trivial protection to legitimate viewpoints.

My other problem is that I don't think any place should be safe for heretics: of course, we can't stop them from forming their own groups or starting their own blogs; but why they should be enbosomed and given a permanent forum to vent their real opinions as long as they shut up when shepherding (!) the flock I don't know. If at a shepherd's conclave one of them gets outed as a wolf, I don't expect the shepherds to offer him a permanent role on the committee, or even a safe conduct back to the wilderness.

 

[Romans922]

According to the PCA admin committee safe places are not in the unsafe places. The unsafe places you can read about here: 2010StrategicPlanFrequentlyAskedQuestions

Yes, church courts are not safe...

 

[jwright82]

I think the problem I have with your statement, James, is that in the case of heretics you want to state that the safe places will be trivial - providing negligible protection; but in the case of valid viewpoints, you want to state that they will be powerful protectors of legitimate dissent. I simply don't see how both of those things could be the case: if they provide a potent platform for dissent, the abusers have access to it; if they are trivial, then they bring only trivial protection to legitimate viewpoints.

Well what heretics did you have in mind? Sure in such an extreme case yes I guess your right they will be able to voice their opinions just like any other person allowed to speak here. I would imagine though that these safe places will operate on a practical level more like the U.S. congress where you cannot get in trouble for slander, or that what you say cannot be used against you outside the congressional building. These safe places may alert the overall denomination to a heretic withen the denomination and he can be watched outside the safe place but what he said there cannot be used against him in a court of church so to speak. But that said I think such extreme situations will be few and far between. What I think will be more common will be possible innovative expansions of ideas that are not heresy, but because they may use slightly different language watchdogs for apparent heresy might jump all over them in anyother setting. Ideally I'm sure there will be some kind of restriction on what can be said, obviously you may not get up there and curse or deny Jesus as Lord.

Heresy can be a very subjective word, a Klinian may think that any position closer to theonomy is heresy so how do we reconcile that sort of situation? Again I think that such an extreme situation will be few and far between but the safe places do reflect the recognition of our sinful natures and componsate for that. Do I believe that heresy should be tolerated withen the church, no, but we have to be very careful what we label as heresy. Any point of view can be labeled heresy from another point of view. I'm not saying that the church is completly intolerent of legitamate points of views only that the concerns you have, though valid, may not out way the benefits of such safe places. There will be mechanisms in place to try to prevent your worries so I still think that although your right and such freedom comes with this possible con, the pros are worth thinking about too.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

I would just like to point out though that one rule that should be in affect for these safe places is that no point of view that has been ruled to be heresy by the PCA should have a hearing in these safe places. Now if someone tries to implicitly teach some heresy than obviously they should be watched outside the safe places but if anyone tries to explicitly teach something already condemed by the PCA than they should not be allowed to utilize the safe places.

 

[Christusregnat]

Modern man is loathe to commit himself to anything (as a general rule), and we are not immune to such cultural influences.

Innovations in theology are not to be safeguarded. If a man has something new to say, it should be VERY good, and he should have the (ehem!) intestinal fortitude to study well, and defend his thesis. If he doesn't have this, he might as well become a youth pastor.

Cheers,

 

[Mushroom]

If he doesn't have this, he might as well become a youth pastor.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/p 347 Items for GA Approval - for Web.pdf

It appears this will be voted on at the upcoming GA. What exactly is this "Safe Places" about and what will it accomplish and why is it needed? Is this something that everyone in the PCA agrees needs to be in place?

It appears this will develop some sort of "Safe Harbor" for communications at GA without the threat of charges or otherwise? Is this really a good idea to give someone a venue that prohibits consequences for their words or ideas? Is this even biblical?

Maybe I am not understanding correctly?

Isn't that like a "consequence-free lying, blaspheming, and idolatry-advocating zone"? Just trying to interpret what the SA says.

No.

I'm glad you see it that way, but how is a place which is a "safe" space to commit otherwise chargeable offences not this? The only offences which are chargeable under the PCA BCO are actual sins. So how is a "safe place" not a "free sinning" zone?

---------- Post added at 04:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 AM ----------

Any place that allows you to discuss the historic &/or the broader reformed view on any subject, without some 17 yo TR wannabe with DSL & a quart of beer calling you an "advocate of the FV" or "contrary to the historic reformed confessionlism".

(my opinion)

We know a man, who shall go unnamed, who teaches at WTS, who told us a few years ago that a lot of students were coming into classes with recording devices, not to be able to relisten to a lecture but to witchhunt for heresy in the profs, and the formerly wonderful discussion atmosphere was clamming up as the profs were so afraid of making an off the cuff remark that would be taken out of context or the wrong way. (This was in the middle of the Enns fight, which might have been part of it.)

There is something about newly Reformed students coming into Seminary to valiantly be the next Machen that would make me want a safe place, and I am neither an elder or teacher or a guy

It is stuff like this that is truly heartening, when looking at the younger generation of upcoming leaders in the reformed churches. We are in fact in the midst of battle with bitter heresy. It won't do to let your guard down in times like these.

 

[Scott1]

According to By Faith on-line, byFaith Magazine - PCA News - AC Takes Revised Plan to Committee of Commissioners , there has been a major last minute re-write of the proposed Strategic Plan.

It's difficult to evaluate in such short time, and without the new text release. But it does indicate recognition has set in that the tone, and perhaps assumptions and substantive proposals were not quite right here.

This would not seem to bode well for something presented as a fundamental plan, to be changed substantially at the last moment.

This really needs to be re-done, another year, with a specific and practical mandate, and with broader participation.

Part of the mandate needs to be to fix the Administrative Committees real need for stable funding for its vital work. It ought also include practical efficiencies in denomination operations, especially technology.

The denomination would benefit from that kind of broadly drawn, specifically focused plan.

 

[jwright82]

GA is this week are they voting on it this week and all?