PCA Meeting

[Jack K]

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.

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

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

 

[Reformed Musings]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

 

[Romans922]

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

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

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

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

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

Make an overture Bob!

 

[Jack K]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Musings]

Make an overture Bob!

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

 

[N. Eshelman]

We don't have secret societies in the RPCNA.

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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

 

[Reepicheep]

The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private.

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

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

 

[jwright82]

The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward]

The meeting was clearly no secret. It was private.

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

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[Reepicheep]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Musings]

Tony,

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

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

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

 

[Kevin]

One more time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[Jack K]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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

 

[lynnie]

Thanks for the replies and clarifications.

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

Is the poster who attended male or female?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

 

[Reformed Musings]

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

Amen, brother!

 

[Edward]

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

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