PCA Strategic Plan proposes withdrawing from NAPARC...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be charitable and take the document that suggested this at its word. It specifically mentions the reason being differing ministry goals and priorities. So to accuse the writer of having doctrinal problems with other NAPARC denominations seems to be unfair speculation. It's not hard to imagine that the PCA, as a larger denomination with many more large churches including several prominent urban ones, might have different ministry priorities that have nothing to do with doctrinal differences.

That said, I would think the PCA ought to stay affiliated for doctrinal and accountability reasons.
 
What's the problem with the PCA withdrawing from the NAPARC? What does the PCA gain from the affiliation?

"gain"? Why must such affiliations be put in terms of profit and loss?

I'm not speaking in financial terms. I'm just curious why the PCA need be a part of such an organization? If the PCA can reach its goals better without the NAPARC, then why stay?

I'm also not speaking in financial terms. I mean why does the association have to "give" the PCA something? Quite frankly, "need" language isn't very useful either.

The reason one stays in NAPARC is the theological and ecclesiological affinity one has with the sister denominations.... but if the perception is that the scope of NAPARC is too theologically binding or narrow, I suppose I can see why one would want to leave. And that is a great shame.

I disagree. If the PCA has certain goals and objectives it believes would be better accomplished by leaving the NAPARC, they should leave. The PCA owes nothing to the NAPARC, regardless of their theological affinity. Now, whether or not NAPARC actually hinders the PCA from reaching its goals is a different question altogether. I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but if the denomination feels it is better off apart from the NAPARC, they are under no obligation to stay.
 
In my opinion the big deal is that NAPARC churches share our theology and ecclesiology and general ethos, while something like the NAE does not. I see no reason why we are in the NAE, and I just may move to amend the document to strike NAPARC and add NAE.

A proposal to leave the NAE instead of NAPARC could get very interesting, if the powers-that-be allow it to come to the GA floor.

My personal guess is that the report contains some "throwaway language" that the authors intend to negotiate away in committees in return for getting their main goals adopted. This NAPARC proposal could be one of them -- in reality NAPARC membership does little or nothing to control the PCA's less-Reformed elements, but proposing to leave NAPARC is a powerful symbol that could gauge the strength of the respective camps in the PCA.

On the other hand, a serious proposal to leave the NAE instead of NAPARC could make life miserable for a lot of people in the PCA leadership since there is just enough fundamentalism and separatism left in the PCA that it might turn into a winning coalition between the PCA's non-Reformed or semi-Reformed conservatives and the TRs.

Look at Marvin Olasky's discussion of "triangulation" strategies. They work.

Now personally, when I look at stuff like this debate over NAPARC, I remember all my bad memories of covering church politics as a reporter for a decade, watching the Christian Reformed Church destroy itself. Now that I report on secular politics rather than church politics, I've rarely seen members of city councils, school boards, county commissions, and state legislatures who are as venal and vicious as what I routinely saw in denominational politics.

I'm certainly not saying all denominational bureaucrats are evil men, but too many of them lack the most basic concepts of accountability that are standard in secular politics.

There are many reasons for that, but one of them seems to be that ecclesiastical politics tends to attract people whose goal is not the mission of the church but rather whose talents lie elsewhere than preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. That means ecclesiastical bureaucrats tend to be the type of people who do not become successful pastors, while the men who love the church the most often don't have time for church politics.

By contrast, elected officials usually start out as people who deliberately sought public office because they want to help people, and unlike church bureaucrats, most of them fully understand that they need to give answers to the taxpayers about how they spend taxpayer's money. Far too many church leaders seem to prefer deep darkness as a standard way of doing the business of the church, and that means even if their motives are okay, there's a lack of accountability that can lead to major problems.
 
As one leaving the PCA, for geographical reasons, I am happy to be joining our brothers in the URC. I have a question for some learned PCA leaders here. Why is the PCA a member of NAE? I agree also, leave NAE not NAPARC.
 
Why is the PCA a member of NAE? I agree also, leave NAE not NAPARC.

Why would many want to be in a Reformed fellowship rather than an Evangleical fellowship?
What I write I write as my own opinion... based upon what I've seen of our denominational seminary, our denomination's byFaith magazine, the few "big-n-hip" churches I've attended, etc...

Isn't it obvious? To a great many, in the PCA.... they would rather the PCA be more Evangelical than Reformed!
 
What's the problem with the PCA withdrawing from the NAPARC? What does the PCA gain from the affiliation?

This sounds like a divorce argument.

I am sorry if I am entering into this too late. What goals do the PCA have outside of Confessional Christianity? True Christianity?

Go ahead and file for a divorce.
 
Last edited:
Scott,

Did you see the video?

I want the Fred Greco's, the Andy Webb's, the RC Sproul's, the Joey Pipa's, The Ligon Duncan's, The Wes White's, etc. to stay in NAPARC.
 
I did see the video. What I would much prefer to see, and pray that happens, over that kind of split would be for the PCA as a whole to start moving in the direction of those men, much more than I'd rather see them have to leave the PCA. While a split may be likely to eventually happen, given the wildly different theological perspectives in the PCA, even a necessary break-away of the sounder wing is no cause for celebration, but rather mourning.

That's one reason I like Rev. Greco's idea to swap NAPARC with NAE for the organizations to cut. Otherwise, the proposal to "look to like-minded Reformed bodies" sounds a lot like the CRC and EPC.
 
Jessi,

I have it on good authority that Bryan Chapell wrote most of it.

---------- Post added at 12:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

I had a conversation with a URC minister this evening who is a good friend. His perspective was interesting.

"From the outside, it looks like the PCA only wants to be involved in things it can control."

He may be on to something. To have the same vote as the ERQ or the other "mircodenominations" could offend the pride of some, I suppose.
 
It is a disappointment to see the focus of this plan so off base.

It should have been focused on ways for denominational structure to:

1) facilitate ministry of the local church, looking toward efficiency, cost saving, and unifying
2) encouraging local churches, presbyteries and those with whom we have high level fraternal relations


It would be helpful to have specific recommendations to do that, especially in this time of economic downturn.

Disappointingly, there are none of those.

Instead, the tone sounds more of a way to build centralized control of denomination infrastructure. The tone for mandatory funding is going to turn many off, especially in this time of economic downturn.

It focuses on "abstract" differences, and gives mostly vague recommendations that cannot really be applied or measured (except the funding mechanisms for denomination infrastructure).

I doubt that was the intention in creating this Plan, but that is what has come out of it.

It also seems to misunderstand the very basis of NAPARC, which is to eventually unify several denominations that confess very similar doctrines:

From Presbyterian International News Service, November 1999

NAPARC Vote Takes Small Step Toward Possible Organic Union
Flat Rock, North Carolina (November 17, 1999)-The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) today voted to explore the differences of the member denominations with a view toward organic union among them. The vote was unanimous.
As adopted by the Council, the motion reads: "We are grateful for the bonds of the gospel and the Reformed faith that unite us. In light of the 'II. Basis of the Council' (Constitution of NAPARC) and in order that all NAPARC member churches may be more fully aware of the unique characteristics of each member Church, we recommend that each member Church discern and enumerate those issues of belief, practice and government that to the best of their knowledge, distinguish them from other NAPARC churches so that NAPARC may evaluate the Biblical and confessional bases for such distinctive positions and the degree to which these issues necessitate continued separation, and submit a report to NAPARC, no later than October 3, 2000."
There was no disagreement as to whether this was a good idea. The only discussion revolved around how explicit the motion should be.

The purpose of NAPARC is greater unity and cooperation without compromising confession. The report does not seem to understand that. It ought be looking for ways to strengthen that, not cause the division it is causing by suggesting otherwise.

From both a budget, work efficiency and theological standpoint, it would be quite appropriate to withdraw membership from NAE, and look at ways to encourage and strengthen relationship with NAPARC.

I'm not sure how these Plans are funded. But, in a year where many are facing shortfalls and limitations of funding, it is disappointing that funds, time and effort was expended on a report which is so off the focus of broadly helping the churches in the denomination, and encouraging those with whom we have high level fraternal relationships.
 
Last edited:
NAPARC may not do much on a national level; but here in Boise, the NAPARC congregations (PCA, OPC, URC) have a great relationship and work together, respectfully within out conscientious distinctives, as part of the one Church of Jesus Christ.

Out in Sheffield, we likewise have a great relationship in this way. Our pastor fills in for the OPC pastor when necessary, and we enjoy a close relationship with each other. How we would in any way "hindered" by our joint affiliation in NAPARC is beyond me.
 
Watching the video of Chappell speaking about the strategic plan makes me think we're Christ's business model, not his bride : (
 
What's the problem with the PCA withdrawing from the NAPARC? What does the PCA gain from the affiliation?

This sounds like a divorce argument.

I am sorry if I am entering into this too late. What goals do the PCA have outside of Confessional Christianity? True Christianity?

Go ahead and file for a divorce.

I'm not speaking in financial terms. I'm just curious why the PCA need be a part of such an organization? If the PCA can reach its goals better without the NAPARC, then why stay?

Still, sounding like a modern day divorce case to me..

Randy,

Thanks for deleting your earlier, much harsher posts. I appreciate that.

I'm not saying the PCA should leave the NAPARC - frankly I would like to see them stay. But I disagree that their relationship is something akin to a marriage. There has been no covenant, no life-long vows (at least as far as I know). The PCA may not have any goals that would be unattainable by staying with the NAPARC, but if they do then I have no problem with them leaving. I suppose I don't view the NAPARC-PCA relationship as important or unwavering as others here do.
 
I would actually agree with Mason. The divorce analogy should be saved and used (if at all) for complete union (i.e. denominational union) not association (i.e. different unions associating together). But even leaving the denomination should not be compared to divorce in the PCA's case, since that right is enshrined in the BCO.
 
I would actually agree with Mason. The divorce analogy should be saved and used (if at all) for complete union (i.e. denominational union) not association (i.e. different unions associating together). But even leaving the denomination should not be compared to divorce in the PCA's case, since that right is enshrined in the BCO.

Yes,

We don't want to overstate this.

It would seem that our particular churches are related by covenant, through a constitution, that is organic

whereas

NAPARC is an association of high level fraternal relationships (not organic as are particular churches)

NAE is an association with mid level fraternal relations ("mid" not "low" only because we have key denomination officials on their governing board).
 
I think it's interesting that the problem Chapell cites with our NAPARC affiliation is that small denominations have the same vote as us and are keeping us from doing what we want to do.

First, I'd like an example of what "we" want to do that we're being prevented from doing.

Second, I'd like to know why it matters that the denominations who are ostensibly keeping us from doing anything are "microdenominations." The ERQ, for instance is small and is likely to remain so for the forseeable future. It is a recently constituted denomination which is turning away from its gospel heritage just as America is. It exists in a heavily Roman Catholic area of a moderately progressive/liberal and secular nation. We should not be surprised that it is small. In other words, their size is not a judgment on them for something they've done wrong as near as I can tell.

I'm beginning to think that this infatuation with bigness and success as the world defines it is our besetting sin in the PCA. It will lead us to go places and do things which are not in accord with our stated beliefs.
As a member of ther ERQ, let me just give a brief response. Less than .5 of 1% of Québec habitans are protestant of any sort and less than 4 percent go to any sort of church on even a semi-regular basis, so I don't think its completely fair to say its dominated by Catholicism (Histoircally that is true but that influence in the two main cities is pretty much gone). Second, I am sympathetic to the PCA's posistion. They have taken a complimentarian stance when it was hard and have fought the hard battles. They did not compromise like the EPCA and at the last NAPARC (which I attended) the PCA wasn't even put on the commitee formed for innerchurch relations (a bit ironic given you could fit all of NAPARC sever times over in it) and they were not given time to consult with one and another as they requested. They of course reserve the right to work with whom they wish and share ''Missional goals'' and I'm more than sure they have the ERQ in mind (they sent representives from Maine to our synode last month... I translated for them) and the PCA does have an interest. One of the problems is that because NAPARC wants to help the ERQ, some other denominations could try to influence it (and of course where there is money, there is an obligation on our part to at least listen and discuss more so than would ideally would) in matters polity and doctrine. Also, even with in the ERQ, a denomination of 5 churchs (4 in all likelyhood next year), there is much division and diversity... you have men who are maybe more like Tim Keller and others are more OPC and others more at the conservative end of the Canadian Reformed. Also I would just point out that this is in the narrative part of the plan and those plans are not being asked to be adopted. But it is something to walk and dialogue with the PCA about in the future. NAPARC is a good idea, but there are elements in it that in all honesty would be content to just guard the status quo, never doing outreach (preaching= the only form of legtimate outreach) and in the name of covenant theology call having big families and in the name of church planting spliting sending their children to the same schools, and hanging out just with church friends. That kind of mentality has always existed in Reformed Churches and it always will and I'm sure they consider that faithfulness but they will never have any the same kind of impact the PCA wants (nor certain elements in the ERQ).
 
What's the problem with the PCA withdrawing from the NAPARC? What does the PCA gain from the affiliation?

This sounds like a divorce argument.

I am sorry if I am entering into this too late. What goals do the PCA have outside of Confessional Christianity? True Christianity?

Go ahead and file for a divorce.

I'm not speaking in financial terms. I'm just curious why the PCA need be a part of such an organization? If the PCA can reach its goals better without the NAPARC, then why stay?

Still, sounding like a modern day divorce case to me..

Randy,

Thanks for deleting your earlier, much harsher posts. I appreciate that.

I'm not saying the PCA should leave the NAPARC - frankly I would like to see them stay. But I disagree that their relationship is something akin to a marriage. There has been no covenant, no life-long vows (at least as far as I know). The PCA may not have any goals that would be unattainable by staying with the NAPARC, but if they do then I have no problem with them leaving. I suppose I don't view the NAPARC-PCA relationship as important or unwavering as others here do.

Yeah, I was overboard. And way to harsh and I am truly sorry Mason. I have just seen the PCA go through so much these past years concerning doctrinal issues. I also know that NAPARC was a great success story (In my humble opinion) in helping out to combat unbiblical theology. Their support for each other in the Federal Vision controversy was immensely beneficial in my estimation.

I am also rather perplexed about how the church in a whole is so disjointed. We are suppose to have a bit more Union and attachment to each other than what is exhibited.

(Joh 17:9) I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

(Joh 17:10) And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

(Joh 17:11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are....

(Joh 17:20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

(Joh 17:21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(Joh 17:22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

(Joh 17:23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

If we are to be one then there does seem to some kind of union and not just some concept of unity. That is why the divorce language seems appropriate to me. After all they (the NAPARC Churches) do hold to confessional standards that are extremely close.

Can you guys tell me what is imposed on the PCA by NAPARC that would cause the PCA or anyone that is associated with them to want to Pull out. What do you guys see for this reason? My denomination pulled out of NAE this past year. That is very understandable to me. Especially since there are denominations associated with NAE that do not hold to the gospel in my opinion. There can not be a oneness with those who hold to a different gospel.
 
Last edited:
What was said on the videos about being "missional" is right in-line with what mainline evangelicalism is doing now (just do something, forget about doctrine). It seems as though the PCA is confused on the purpose of the church - to preach the gospel. Why is the PCA leadership talking like mainline baptists?
 
He insinuated that we have come to agreement about doctrine, now we should move on. He frankly creeped me out.
 
One other thing that seems to be settling in about the timing of this "Strategic Report"-

it comes at a time when it appears many, if not most particular churches are cutting back drastically on their support to denominational agencies.

While the authors have put a lot of hard work into this, I would expect that calls for more funding, minimum funding, a "head" tax on elders, etc. is not going to be well received in this climate. It may not even sound relevant.

The tone of the report comes off as focusing on differences, almost complaining in vague and generalized ways, with a heavy handed approach to asking churches, most of which are struggling to make their own church budgets, to have mandatory increased giving to centralized denomination agencies.

I'm sure that's not the way it is intended, the authors are trying to address real concerns, but that is how the tone sounds.

My sense is, with greatest respect toward those who worked hard on this, that the report ought not be received by General Assembly- if for no other reason than this economic downturn is not a time to be demanding more for denominational agencies, worthy though they may be.

This report ought not dominate General Assembly.

A new report ought be instructed, one with a broader based participation that focuses on two key objectives:

1) how denominational mechanisms can best facilitate local churches and presbyteries doing ministry,
2) how denominational infrastructure can do more with less

The times call for such a strategic plan.

The report ought set a tone of:

1) unity
2) efficiency
3) new technology that can help this happen

That kind of Plan would be well received, especially at this time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top