Overtures from PCA GA 2021 have failed to pass 2/3rds of the presbyteries.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think that such remarkable declension like this is a judgment of the Lord for significant prior decline in worship, 2nd commandment, and especially the Lord's Day.

I agree. The visible church is undergoing a great sifting. This issue, CRT, covid, are all being used to test and sift the church. Of course we would also add, along with the weakness on sodomy, the embrace of feminism and female teachers (in and out of the pulpit). The wolves are amongst us and they are tearing the Bride of Christ apart. And instead of speaking out against what is happening, many ministers and elders are protecting the wolves and taking aim at the faithful watchmen. Scripture is clear: when women take places of authority that is judgment in itself and further judgment will come. As the female "teachers" and their effeminate male followers now launch an attack on the doctrine of inerrancy will others finally see what is happening? I pray they will. This is surely the greatest crisis for the visible church in a hundred years.
 
I agree. The visible church is undergoing a great sifting. This issue, CRT, covid, are all being used to test and sift the church. Of course we would also add, along with the weakness on sodomy, the embrace of feminism and female teachers (in and out of the pulpit). The wolves are amongst us and they are tearing the Bride of Christ apart. And instead of speaking out against what is happening, many ministers and elders are protecting the wolves and taking aim at the faithful watchmen. Scripture is clear: when women take places of authority that is judgment in itself and further judgment will come. As the female "teachers" and their effeminate male followers now launch an attack on the doctrine of inerrancy will others finally see what is happening? I pray they will. This is surely the greatest crisis for the visible church in a hundred years.

Agreed on all points but one. Brother I don't mean to be argumentative or be a contrarian , but the wolves can't lay a finger on Christ's bride. She is and forever will be covered by her Husband, her Bridegroom. The sheep will forever know His voice, the voice of the Good Shepherd. Those who serve the King know His commandments and seek to please Him by bearing His insignia on their breastplate armor.

There will be chaff among the wheat and goats among the sheep. Yes, wolves and vultures are crouching in the dark waiting to devour us and steal our offering to the Lord. But rest assured that even in the darkest of times the Lord is faithful to deliver. We cannot lose hope in Him, for he is good:

"And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Genesis 15:7‭-‬21

Even in the midst of a great darkness, him falling asleep on guard, and dangerous predators surrounding him the Lord never left him nor forsook him. He really is mighty to save!

Understand that the Lord our God reigns as King NOW and has made the darkness and its inhabitants flee. Christs life, death, burial, and resurrection has destroyed the dominion of darkness and her minions have fled for short lived refuge. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. No matter how dark or how dangerous it may appear to be, our Lord reigns victorious and we are right alongside him!

"Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him."
Psalm 2:1‭-‬12

Be blessed and encouraged, brother. In the darkest of times is when the Lord shows his mighty hand and an outstretched arm to his people. He is good and his mercy endures forever!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
The PCA is not currently apostate; so, there is no necessity of departure laid on anyone currently. Neither is there some cowardice as some have implied if one determines it is time to leave. My personal opinion is that each church's session should judge whether they are in a strong enough position to remain and do good in their presbytery and at GA, whatever the state of their presbytery, or, if it is best on any number of arguments to guide the church to another *existing denomination. However, if there is a Disruption like mass departure, which would be hard to imagine, so it would be remarkable if that were to happen, strongly consider being a part of that.
*We don't need another new presbyterian denomination in my opinion, unless it is a strict no exceptions confessional old school southern presbyterian true succcessor to the PCUS.
 
This is the tally xl sheet I mentioned.
Thanks for posting that. Not many surprises there.

It was all the moderates/institutionalists
I call them the "go along get along crowd". They aren't part of the popular crowd, but they want to be accepted by the big men on campus. And they don't want to cross their "friends".

Best example was what happened in Louisiana Presbytery. Some of the folks knew right from wrong, but they weren't going to discipline their buddy or the big shot in the Presbyery.

I have more contempt for the "go along get alongs" than I do for the committed progressives. At least the progs are going to risk standing up for what they believe.
 
I'm seeing comments, and you can see them on the cited FB thread in the OP, that claims many of those who voted against the overtures are not for Revoice, but they simply were voting against these changes as believing them to be ineffectual to the goal. Isn't this tone deaf? Viewing this simply as a vote for the changes or against them is not all this was. It was a take a stand moment in the eyes of the turnout to GA last summer to address Revoice. This was a scandal when it began with those conferences, etc., and a vote against the overtures for that sort of reasoning ignores the scandal and the failing of these overtures is pouring gasoline on the fire. These sorts better have a plan and fast if they care about addressing the scandal and staving off churches beginning to leave, whether it's a slow drip here and there, or groups here and there, or a true PCA Disruption event of many of the conservatives leaving in a few years. When that occurs, and the rot accelerates, these folks can weigh whether their desire for a more perfect BCO and approach to this scandal was worth it. I think this is what the comment on the ninth commandment in the OP is sort of addressing. Those more connected to this or even were at the GA or in a presbytery vote on these, any thoughts?
 
I'm seeing comments, and you can see them on the cited FB thread in the OP, that claims many of those who voted against the overtures are not for Revoice, but they simply were voting against these changes as believing them to be ineffectual to the goal. Isn't this tone deaf? Viewing this simply as a vote for the changes or against them is not all this was. It was a take a stand moment in the eyes of the turnout to GA last summer to address Revoice. This was a scandal when it began with those conferences, etc., and a vote against the overtures for that sort of reasoning ignores the scandal and the failing of these overtures is pouring gasoline on the fire. These sorts better have a plan and fast if they care about addressing the scandal and staving off churches beginning to leave, whether it's a slow drip here and there, or groups here and there, or a true PCA Disruption event of many of the conservatives leaving in a few years. When that occurs, and the rot accelerates, these folks can weigh whether their desire for a more perfect BCO and approach to this scandal was worth it. I think this is what the comment on the ninth commandment in the OP is sort of addressing. Those more connected to this or even were at the GA or in a presbytery vote on these, any thoughts?
This was what I experienced at the PCA presbytery meeting I went to, which I mentioned above. The interesting thing about it all is that all these men who were making this type of objection were offering no positive alternative. This is just the same old deconstructionism we've been seeing for years now—tear down everything, yet never offer to build anything.

But even then, I'm not convinced that many of those men actually believe these changes would "be ineffectual to the goal." I've been to enough presbytery meetings to know how often substantial, deep-seated disagreement is couched in a supposed, more superficial scruple about process, wording, outcome, or whatever. The reality, I believe, is that these men just flat-out disagree with the theology behind the amendments, but because they are moderates and men-pleasers, they are afraid to come out and say frankly, "I disagree with this," and so instead they use rhetoric and word-salads to conceal their heartfelt liberalism.

The same thing happens in the OPC, by the way.

"His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords" (Psalm 55:21).
 
Thanks for posting that. Not many surprises there.


I call them the "go along get along crowd". They aren't part of the popular crowd, but they want to be accepted by the big men on campus. And they don't want to cross their "friends".

Best example was what happened in Louisiana Presbytery. Some of the folks knew right from wrong, but they weren't going to discipline their buddy or the big shot in the Presbyery.

I have more contempt for the "go along get alongs" than I do for the committed progressives. At least the progs are going to risk standing up for what they believe.
Sadly it doesn’t seem progs, secular or religious, have any temporal risk for their causes.
 
while this is extremely tragic, I think we can take comfort in the fact that this has happened before. For example, J. Gresham Machen started an entirely new denomination because of the rise of liberalism in the church, as did many other godly men. While this does not take away the pain, we can know the the Lord is sovereign and will not let any in his true church go astray. Let us continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in the PCA that they would have wisdom and be comforted.
 
There are not enough progressives to have done this. It was all the moderates/institutionalists who for various reasons voted against these overtures that created this outcome.
Erdman and McCartney did more to lose the Old PCUSA than Fosdick or Van Dyke did. Had they stood with Machen the liberal cause would have lost hard.
 
Sadly it doesn’t seem progs, secular or religious, have any temporal risk for their causes.

It is a sight to behold, no? Liberals-progressives-modernists everywhere, in all walks of life, church, state, society.... behave the same because their religion is really about worldly power, reshaping the world according to its fads and fashions, all under the guise of peace, love, tolerance, inclusion, in order to pave the way for their desired one-world worldly utopia.

Sadly, their opponents, who (at least claim to) want to defend and conserve the faith, are too comfortable in the world and don't want to "rock the boat", as it were, lest their comfort and status be jeopardized. "Can't we just get along? Can't we just put this behind us and move forward?", they ask. They certainly don't want to risk being seen as "homophobic" or whatever other ghastly worldly slurs their opponents will hurl at them. Oh, heavens no! Not that!! In today's society, you'd better not even THINK about there being something not-quite-right about homosexuality. Instead, you'd BETTER believe that it's something to be cherished and celebrated! Hence, the spinelessness we see amongst so many today who should be defending the faith.
 
I don’t want to target the man, but there is something strange in Pastor Johnson’s story about knowing he was gay at a young age, (along with being an atheist). So he dropped the atheism but kept the gay? Maybe he’s a practical atheist….
I was just wondering if this ever came up before he was ordained? This almost comes across as a strategic coup with GJ as a sleeper agent. If there is political manipulation happening on various levels along with the complicity of the sending seminaries…. ?

I agree with the person who claims that the culture prevails…. and it’s a very calculated development.
 
Erdman and McCartney did more to lose the Old PCUSA than Fosdick or Van Dyke did. Had they stood with Machen the liberal cause would have lost hard.

Maybe...or maybe not. Warfield told Machen in 1921 that any split in the mainline Presbyterian church, even with conservatives in the majority, would not save the church, because, in his words, the rottenness of the wood had already progressed too far because modernism had already set in throughout the church and modernists were largely in control by that time. Seems action against the modernists needed to be taken at least a generation earlier, around the turn of the century, but those conservatives who wanted to defend the faith back then did not do so. From 1893 onward, the modernists were already starting their long march through the institution, under the rhetorical guise of being the defenders of the peace. By 1921, it was already too late to stop them.
 
Last edited:
“Very few laymen are aware of the fact that over the last 15 years there has been a secret organization in our Church working quietly behind the scenes to gain control of the political machinery of our denomination”

 
I'm seeing comments, and you can see them on the cited FB thread in the OP, that claims many of those who voted against the overtures are not for Revoice, but they simply were voting against these changes as believing them to be ineffectual to the goal. Isn't this tone deaf? Viewing this simply as a vote for the changes or against them is not all this was. It was a take a stand moment in the eyes of the turnout to GA last summer to address Revoice. This was a scandal when it began with those conferences, etc., and a vote against the overtures for that sort of reasoning ignores the scandal and the failing of these overtures is pouring gasoline on the fire. These sorts better have a plan and fast if they care about addressing the scandal and staving off churches beginning to leave, whether it's a slow drip here and there, or groups here and there, or a true PCA Disruption event of many of the conservatives leaving in a few years. When that occurs, and the rot accelerates, these folks can weigh whether their desire for a more perfect BCO and approach to this scandal was worth it. I think this is what the comment on the ninth commandment in the OP is sort of addressing. Those more connected to this or even were at the GA or in a presbytery vote on these, any thoughts?
Tim Kelleresque
 
while this is extremely tragic, I think we can take comfort in the fact that this has happened before. For example, J. Gresham Machen started an entirely new denomination because of the rise of liberalism in the church, as did many other godly men. While this does not take away the pain, we can know the the Lord is sovereign and will not let any in his true church go astray. Let us continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in the PCA that they would have wisdom and be comforted.

Yep, and the two denominations that came out of that split are still around - OPC and BPC. And, in the last couple of years, another one has been added to the mix: Vanguard Presbytery, which has already picked up about 17 churches which broke off from the PCA.

In my corner of the state, the OPC and BPC churches are doing well and have seen growth in the past couple of years precisely because the rest of the Presbyterian churches have become increasingly liberal and, at a minimum, refuse to take a stand against things which should unquestionably be opposed. This trend will probably continue, but it does give one pause. Is having individual churches in the PCA saying "enough is enough we're outta here!" and splitting off to join Vanguard, OPC, or BPC, the answer? How would one really know if/when it's too late and the PCA is beyond saving?
 
that claims many of those who voted against the overtures are not for Revoice, but they simply were voting against these changes as believing them to be ineffectual to the goal.
That seems to be incosistent with the general patterns seen. The liberal presbyteries - the "Metros" (except Metro Houston, the liberals appear to be in the remnant South Texas from that split), St. Louis, NorCal, PNW voted voted in lock step. The conservatives also voted at expected. We don't see Westminster or the two splits from Atlanta, or Mississippi Valley or Heartland showing Red. So those of us who have spent time around horses are able to classify those claims.
 
I know a few guys who went RPCNA. Frank Smith for one. We are the second oldest denomination in America outside of the Anglicans from what I understand. We have largely kept close to our Confession and Testimony concerning it.
 
I was NOT trolling AB…. I did, however, take a glance at GJ’s Twitter, and stumbled upon this RT….


Language matters. There is often intentionality in the words we choose. Just like the symbols and acronyms. …. Take back the rainbow!

They can keep the lgbtq…..or (LGBTQIA+ which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual, etc…)
 
Last edited:
I was NOT trolling AB…. I did, however, take a glance at GJ’s Twitter, and stumbled upon this RT….


Language matters. There is often intentionality in the words we choose. Just like the symbols and acronyms. …. Take back the rainbow!

They can keep the lgbtq…..or (LGBTQIA+ which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual, etc…)

Yep, there it is right there. "Caring!" along with "peace", "love", "tolerance", "empathy." All part of the liberal-progressive's subversive rhetoric to undermine the institutions they target.

But watch what happens to all that caring, peace, love, tolerance, and empathy when you stand in their way, however. There'll be none of that! They'll sooner curb-stomp you.

Maybe if more conservatives saw them as the wolves-in-sheep's clothing that they really are, they'd treat them more appropriately instead of allowing them to fester and eventually thrive?
 
I do think GJ may have accidentally tapped into an important truth. The Church has lost its heaven mindedness. The answer is not conservatism, theonomy or denominational pride. It’s a reflection on what we are and what’s He’s done. We are too earthly minded.

Here’s a good reminder https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1128211618531688

I think too many are caught up in earthly idols and earthly concerns. We are all caught up in our earthly identities and relationships. I am prone to place all that before my relationship with my savior, opportunities to worship with others who are also properly focused, and above all a desire to be eternally united with Him. I think if the Body of Christ were properly focused, none of us would be overcome with individual estrangement and/or self serving philosophies. That’s why the culture war has its grip on us. It’s easier to identify with an earthly side than the Only Truly Righteous One.

Unfortunately, Pastor Johnson’s remedy is even more culture-driven than his affliction. He’s moving further away and taking many with him I reckon.
 
Last edited:
I know a few guys who went RPCNA. Frank Smith for one. We are the second oldest denomination in America outside of the Anglicans from what I understand. We have largely kept close to our Confession and Testimony concerning it.
How is it in the RPCNA? You guys doing OK? I don't hear much about it, which is a good thing if you ask me [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
It’s interesting to see how we may have gotten here in the first place….

“The imprudent aristocrats encouraging these medical innovations changed the measure of public morality, substituting religiously colored human nature with the secularly safer option of individual passion. In doing so, they were forced also to trade the robust natural law tradition for the recently constructed standard of “psychiatric normality,” with “heterosexuality” serving as the new normal for human sexuality. Such a vague standard of normality, unsurprisingly, offered far flimsier support for sexual ethics than did the classical natural law tradition.

But emphasizing this new standard did succeed in cementing these categories of hetero- and homosexuality in the popular imagination. “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality,” Foucault writes, “when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.” Sexual orientation, then, is nothing more than a fragile social construct, and one constructed terribly recently.”


I don’t understand enough of this article to say I agree with everything the author says, but he seems to pick up on a lot of insightful history… https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
 
How is it in the RPCNA? You guys doing OK? I don't hear much about it, which is a good thing if you ask me
emoji846.png
Okay I guess. Every Church has it growing and living phase. It is made up of humans. I do think God is really honored here in the hearts of our Eldership. I love my Church despite her flaws because She loves me even in my flaws. My Church Loves the Law of God.
 
Last edited:
I'm seeing comments, and you can see them on the cited FB thread in the OP, that claims many of those who voted against the overtures are not for Revoice, but they simply were voting against these changes as believing them to be ineffectual to the goal. Isn't this tone deaf? Viewing this simply as a vote for the changes or against them is not all this was. It was a take a stand moment in the eyes of the turnout to GA last summer to address Revoice. This was a scandal when it began with those conferences, etc., and a vote against the overtures for that sort of reasoning ignores the scandal and the failing of these overtures is pouring gasoline on the fire. These sorts better have a plan and fast if they care about addressing the scandal and staving off churches beginning to leave, whether it's a slow drip here and there, or groups here and there, or a true PCA Disruption event of many of the conservatives leaving in a few years. When that occurs, and the rot accelerates, these folks can weigh whether their desire for a more perfect BCO and approach to this scandal was worth it. I think this is what the comment on the ninth commandment in the OP is sort of addressing. Those more connected to this or even were at the GA or in a presbytery vote on these, any thoughts?
I am an OPC elder who has recently moved to a region not blessed with the presence of OPC congregations, so my wife and I are preparing to apply for membership in a nearby PCA congregation. I have followed the “Side-B” controversy with interest.

I can understand the frustration and grief of righteousness-loving churchmen at this turn of events, motivating some kind of counteraction. I certainly do not intend to rouse anger or to cause discouragement. Even so, I wonder whether it might be for the better that Overtures 23 and 37 failed passage:

1) They strike me as intrinsically weak, not addressing the systemic underlying problem.
a) If a presbytery requires direction from the denomination to take definitive action to screen ministerial candidates for unrepented, scandalous sin, then that presbytery is thereby giving strong signs that she is radically inadequate to her mission, falling short of one of her central functions. No legislation will adequately rectify that failure.
b) To list certain labels as non grata is to invite the opposition to simply change the labels, which process is continually underway in modern progressivism. The target sins are clearly and forcefully forbidden in the Westminster standards, which should be viewed as the primary permanent systematic barrier to the encroachment of worldliness. This disease requires a judicial remedy (trials, complaints); legislative action cannot cure it.

2) The failure of these overtures to pass presbytery muster is serving to galvanize the conservative portion of the denomination, and that of sister denominations, into awareness of the shocking extent of a grievous problem.

My prayers are with the denomination as she considers how to respond: firm against temptation, gentle towards repentance, ever confident in the purpose of the sovereign Hand.
 
I am an OPC elder who has recently moved to a region not blessed with the presence of OPC congregations, so my wife and I are preparing to apply for membership in a nearby PCA congregation. I have followed the “Side-B” controversy with interest.

I can understand the frustration and grief of righteousness-loving churchmen at this turn of events, motivating some kind of counteraction. I certainly do not intend to rouse anger or to cause discouragement. Even so, I wonder whether it might be for the better that Overtures 23 and 37 failed passage:

1) They strike me as intrinsically weak, not addressing the systemic underlying problem.
a) If a presbytery requires direction from the denomination to take definitive action to screen ministerial candidates for unrepented, scandalous sin, then that presbytery is thereby giving strong signs that she is radically inadequate to her mission, falling short of one of her central functions. No legislation will adequately rectify that failure.
b) To list certain labels as non grata is to invite the opposition to simply change the labels, which process is continually underway in modern progressivism. The target sins are clearly and forcefully forbidden in the Westminster standards, which should be viewed as the primary permanent systematic barrier to the encroachment of worldliness. This disease requires a judicial remedy (trials, complaints); legislative action cannot cure it.

2) The failure of these overtures to pass presbytery muster is serving to galvanize the conservative portion of the denomination, and that of sister denominations, into awareness of the shocking extent of a grievous problem.

My prayers are with the denomination as she considers how to respond: firm against temptation, gentle towards repentance, ever confident in the purpose of the sovereign Hand.
I think a natural consequence is that faithful men will become daunted and discouraged, and although rightly wanting to stay faithful to their local jurisdictions and congregations that are maintaining orthodoxy, will tire of a wavering brand (denomination). I think splits will come.

I also wonder if a calculated mass exodus could be a nuclear option that could squash such shifts in their tracks. Would probably be a huge undertaking requiring much funding and organization though.
 
Last edited:
so my wife and I are preparing to apply for membership in a nearby PCA congregation.
I would urge discernment at both the presbytery and congregation level. In some cases, an EPC church might be a safer bet. There are, however, a number of good PCA churches still out there. And I do realize folks sometimes have to settle for the best of a bad lot.

As for Presbyteries, Chris's color coded list linked above should be helpful.
 
I know things look really weird and bad but is it really time to consider losing the PCA? I just wonder what God is doing?
 
I know things look really weird and bad but is it really time to consider losing the PCA? I just wonder what God is doing?
I have feelings and thoughts but I'm not in charge. Is it bad. Yes, it's bad. A minority thinks it is lost already. But I've heard that from people in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and now in the 2020s. Of course each time how bad it is gets worse. Those outside looking in should pray for and give space to those who will mainly be organizing any effort of where the conservatives go from here after the overtures failing to pass 2/3rds of the presbyteries. It will be hard enough without also having a raucous chorus from outside yelling flee, flee in their ears.
 
I am an OPC elder who has recently moved to a region not blessed with the presence of OPC congregations, so my wife and I are preparing to apply for membership in a nearby PCA congregation. I have followed the “Side-B” controversy with interest.

Hope you are having a blessed Sabbath day brother. What does it mean to apply for membership? Is there an application you have to fill out or an interview process to undertake? Forgive me for ignorance, I don't know much about Presbyterian church membership [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top