PCA Meeting

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

Indeed.

AMR

 

[Zenas]

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

As one who's coming into the PCA from the ARP, I'd rather have the PCA's problems.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

There has been an official explanation of the meeting of understanding as reported here.
Dr. Roy Taylor Explains the “Meeting of Understanding” « Johannes Weslianus

 

[Scott1]

The Honorable Stated Clerk
As quoted in ByFaith on-line

The world has changed since 1973. The PCA of today is not the PCA of 1973. We are more consciously and consistently Reformed in our theological understanding. The Lord has added to the number of our members, churches, and Presbyteries. We have more and a greater variety of ministries to work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission to make disciples of all peoples. The PCA, like North America, has become more ethnically diverse. We are no longer a southeastern denomination; we have churches across the USA and churches in Canada. Growth that has made us more diverse, coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.

Though a bit of this is subjective, most is objectively true.

However, this is why we have spiritual courts directed by counsels of elders such as annual general assembly, and presbyteries that meet frequently to address the condition and station of the church.

This does illustrate one problem with the strategic plan that passed, narrowly in some points, and the process that was used to get it passed-
some points were so vague that they might be thought by some, but perhaps not most, to allow for strategic direction of the spiritual direction of the denomination to come from outside of her courts, i.e. by denominational agency instead of from sessions, presbyteries and general assembly.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

There are some upcoming overtures that will help- requiring that more of this is clearly routed through the Bills and Overtures committee (representative of elders from each presbytery), and clarifying and limiting what individual agencies or committees can address within their sphere.

What is needed is a much more deliberative and broad based process for anything "strategic" for the denomination- as well as specificity as to that strategy, and accountability to the spiritual courts.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.

So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.

 

[Kevin]

coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.

So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.

Yes, I believe that you are reading him wrong.

I know that it has become popular to refer to each other in the PCA as "liberals" and "conservatives" and so your reading of Dr Taylor's remarks were from that perspective. Understandable, although incorrect.

We (all of us in the PCA) when viewed within the spectrum of evangelicalism are "conservative". Extremely so. My PCUSA & PCC friends consider us "Fundamentalists".

I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.

With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.

 

[Wayne]

I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.

Agreed. That is the way Dr. Taylor meant to be understood, I think. Some might have more clearly understood his intent if he had said something like "We conservatives tend to keep splitting..."

 

[Philip]

I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.

With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.

This is the spirit in which I understood these remarks, and (for that matter) the original article.

 

[jwright82]

coupled with the disconcerting tendency of conservatives who separate from mainline denominations to continue to divide, makes communication within the PCA all the more important and challenging.

So... we're the problem, or am I reading him wrong? Please clarify for me if I am.

Yes, I believe that you are reading him wrong.

I know that it has become popular to refer to each other in the PCA as "liberals" and "conservatives" and so your reading of Dr Taylor's remarks were from that perspective. Understandable, although incorrect.

We (all of us in the PCA) when viewed within the spectrum of evangelicalism are "conservative". Extremely so. My PCUSA & PCC friends consider us "Fundamentalists".

I think that the correct reading of Dr Taylor's remarks is to see that he is referring to us, the PCA as the "conservatives" that have separated from the mainline. History shows that denominations like like ours tend to keep splitting. Once we have fought the good fight once, we keep seeing the last war in every disagreement. This can lead to splits that are, in the light of history, unnecessary.

With this more charitable reading of his remarks we see, not a conspiracy against a faction within the PCA, but a love for the entire church. Both "conservative" and "liberal" wings are the objects of Dr Taylor's concern, as they should be of all of us.

I see your point but I still feel that they could have shed more light on what "theological precision" really means? Which doctrines are we being overly precise about? It is clarity that is needed. The original article did seem to be onesided for that point alone. It spoke of bringing both sides together but only mentioned the one sides views. I still don't even know if any "theological precisionists" were even present at this meeting, they could have been. But they definantly didn't get any "airtime" from the article or the subsequent explinations of it.

 

[Jack K]

Putting on my journalist cap, I doubt the original article was written by a denominational "official." It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules. When I worked as a denominational reporter, it was absolutely unthinkable to have denominational higher-ups approve or even see a news story before it was published. There were battles over this, of course, and subtle pressures. But the editors held very firmly to their independence.

So the original article may be one-sided. Or the reporting incomplete. Or, as many have mentioned, the less conservative voices at the meeting may have simply been more eager to speak up. But to suggest the original article reflects the thinking of any denominational officials beyond the reporter (and maybe an editor or two) at byFaith does not fit the way journalism is done.

 

[jwright82]

Putting on my journalist cap, I doubt the original article was written by a denominational "official." It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules. When I worked as a denominational reporter, it was absolutely unthinkable to have denominational higher-ups approve or even see a news story before it was published. There were battles over this, of course, and subtle pressures. But the editors held very firmly to their independence.

So the original article may be one-sided. Or the reporting incomplete. Or, as many have mentioned, the less conservative voices at the meeting may have simply been more eager to speak up. But to suggest the original article reflects the thinking of any denominational officials beyond the reporter (and maybe an editor or two) at byFaith does not fit the way journalism is done.

You raise a good point. Yes we cannot associate the article with officials' opinions. But I read the explinations of this meeting and still saw no clarification, I may have missed something of course, of what a "precionist" is and whether or not they were even present at this meeting. Officials have not answered these questions and for me at least that is the problem.

 

[Edward]

It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules.

I just don't see that at the present byFaith. I did at the old Messenger. ByFaith seems to be very much an organ of the church bureaucrats. Which is, in context, fine for what is a public relations tool of an organization.

 

[Reformed Musings]

It sounds like the work of a reporter, probably someone on the byFaith staff, where the "independent journalist" mindset rules.

I just don't see that at the present byFaith. I did at the old Messenger. ByFaith seems to be very much an organ of the church bureaucrats. Which is, in context, fine for what is a public relations tool of an organization.

I wouldn't give them that much credit. They operate in the red every year (thus subsidised heavily by the PCA) and have an abysmally small subscription base for good reason.

 

[SRoper]

Blog post by Sean Lucas (who was present):

I believe in the Church

 

[Zach]

Rick Phillips wrote a very good blog post on this meeting here that Reformation 21 shared. I thought it was very helpful.

 

[Reformed Musings]

Rick's essay is outstanding! He puts it all into proper perspective.

 

[Edward]

I thought it was very helpful.

Very well done.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Rick Phillips once again proves he is the man.