ByFaith is reporting that a meeting called by Dr. Roy Taylor and other “denomninational leaders” met this past Tuesday in order to “discuss charitably and forthrightly the cause for conflicts in the PCA that hamper our ministry and unity.” The meeting was held under Chatham House rules, which means that you can mention what was said but not who said it. Here is the article:
A “Meeting of Understanding,” was held in Atlanta Tuesday, January 17. Some 50 PCA pastors as well as coordinators and presidents of the PCA’s permanent committees and agencies attended. Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the PCA’s General Assembly, in collaboration with other denominational leaders, called the meeting.
“One of the themes of the 2010 PCA Strategic Plan was the necessity for civil conversation,” Taylor said. There’s stress within the denomination, he continued, and there are arguments and rhetoric that may be more divisive than unifying. As stated clerk, Taylor noted that he serves the whole of the denomination. Given the tension within the PCA, he and others believed some civil conversation was needed.
The meeting had two specific goals: “To discuss charitably and forthrightly the causes for conflicts in the PCA that hamper our ministry and unity.” And to discuss solutions to those conflicts. The meeting was conducted under Chatham House Rules, meaning that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant may be revealed.”
Three of the participants—older men who had been in the denomination for many years–believed the PCA is healthy, that elders were generally united, that our system of government works well and as intended, and that the denomination is less politicized today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
And while nearly all agreed that more unites the denomination than divides it, many saw deep rifts and simmering tensions.
Civility and Theological Precision
The PCA has set the bar too low, one man said. I’ve seen [ordination candidates] eaten alive at presbytery because they didn’t give the exact right answer; because their response to certain questions weren’t precise enough. Is that what we’re after, he wondered. Is that kind of precision—that level of exactness—a healthy goal?
In this man’s view such strictness leads to idolatry. The proper goal, he stressed—rather than that level of precision—should be love. If the goal isn’t love we don’t have a vehicle for patience and we get scared. If our goal is precision, he told the group, then our goal is too low.A teaching elder who had come into the PCA from another Reformed denomination, agreed. We exploit some of the vulnerabilities in our [presbytery] system, he believed. At the presbytery level, pockets of the PCA have become overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy. We’ve reduced ourselves to a measuring stick, the speaker said. As a result, nothing gets built. Men are leaving the denomination, which means we’re limiting our tools for building the kingdom. This, he said, is what’s destroying our harmony. We don’t trust each other any more.
Blogs and Protecting Reputations
A number of men believed that online publications have hurt. They steal face-to-face time in dealing with one another, one said. The speaker alluded to younger men who have left the denomination, feeling as though they’d been “shut down” and branded as heretics. It’s not right to rejoice when brothers are excoriated online, he said. If we can’t disagree graciously…we don’t deserve a denomination.Another told the group of a survey he’d made of various PCA-related blogs. Men in the PCA, he reported, have called others apostate, heretics, damnable heretics, and witch hunters. One blogger wrote that a man in the denomination made him “want to throw up,” presbyteries have been characterized as “feminized,” and one blogger referred to his brother as a “purple robed, miter-wearing papist.”
A third speaker talked about leaders who have made comments on blogs and in emails. It’s not just what we say about people, the man said, it’s how we’re arguing. [It’s] how we’re talking about issues and how we’re talking about each other. This is affecting the ethos of the denomination.
An older, long-time member of the PCA suggested that we refuse to have discussions on the Internet. It distorts the message, he said, and does a lot of damage. It’s easy to ruin someone’s reputation with a “send” stroke. This man expressed deep concern about some of the views he had heard regarding inerrancy, justification, law, and the role of women. But these won’t be solved by name-calling, he said. We should be on our knees and talking with one another.
Can We Still Champion One Another’s Ministry?
When I first came into the denomination, one man told the group, I found a church and people who championed the ministry of others. We’ve lost that, he said. I don’t hear us celebrating what God has done through the ministry of others. He went on to express his fear that, if we’re not careful, “our camps” won’t allow us to support others.Such comments resonated with another man who said he had grown weary of being told, “who I’m supposed to hate. I’m tired,” he said, “of wondering who’s a part of what team.”
Yet another man believed the PCA was a place where he could discuss and argue “robustly,” but now, on occasion, fears a “witch hunt” atmosphere. This, he said, could undermine a church culture that should long to be open and teachable.
Loving One Another and Matthew 18
According to one participant, there’s not much wrong that the consistent application of Matthew 18 won’t fix. The issues, as they’re so often debated, become caricatures, he said. We might make progress if those of us who are perceived as leaders would challenge our own folk; if we’d point out that certain assertions were unproven, unfair, or uncharitable. It might also help, he said, if the blogs established a code of ethics; if publishing standards were held up to biblical criteria.Another PCA veteran suggested that there’s nothing a glass of wine and a good cigar won’t help. We need to maintain Christian fellowship, he told the men around him, and we need to pray together. There’s a place to criticize, but it’s within the bounds of Matthew 18.
A long-time PCA leader closed the meeting talking about the importance “for those of us who are older to listen to the younger elders.” These men believe there are problems, he said. We need to hear what they’re telling us.
The group then broke into groups of five or six and, together, prayed for the ministry of the PCA, and for unity.
The section on the problems with “precision” is bothersome to me. It is like reading the minutes of the 1950′s PCUS. (which yes I have done, long story).
As someone who greatly benefited from the necessary precision of loving Reformed men I thank the Lord each day that precision was the order of the day.
So many things wrong with this story:
1. “Denominational leaders”? What was this, a conclave of bishops in the PCA? As Presbyterians, the place to discuss issues concerning the church are: Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies.
2. “50 PCA pastors as well as coordinators and presidents of the PCA’s permanent committees and agencies attended.” I assume the 50 people present were males, but what is being reported is not office bearers executing their office like men (1 Cor. 16:13). It sounds like a bunch of whiny girls complaining that they are called names on the playground. Don’t like being called a heretic? Don’t preach or practice heresy! Don’t like theological precision? Go find a denomination that isn’t theologically precise (http://www.ucc.org/)!
3. “It might also help, he said, if the blogs established a code of ethics; if publishing standards were held up to biblical criteria.” And what is the biblical criteria for enforcing a code of ethics or publishing standards on blogs? Where is that authority given to the church? Should individuals be held accountable for what they write? Yes! But, that’s what most of these blogs are doing in the first place: holding pastors in the PCA accountable for the false teaching/practice they post online!
Overall, this article read like a group of men who are in “leadership” positions in the PCA that desire less theological precision when pastors are examined at Presbytery, and less attention be called to false teaching once said men are admitted to Presbytery. If this represents the thinking of the leadership of the PCA, then the denomination is in a very bad place.
I think the meeting itself is a symptom of the biggest problem facing the PCA, namely the breakdown of confessional Presbyterian polity. From what was reported, it seems to me nothing is being said that hasn’t been said before. The old school-new school debate comes to mind, particularly with regard to the false dichotomy set up between theological precision and experience (read: love).
The gentleman who said he has heard disturbing things on the role of women, inerrancy, justification, and law reflected my concerns precisely.
I think the main problem we have as a denomination is that we have no real agreement about how closely we are going to adhere to the Westminster Standards. Until we decide that, we’re going to have arguments.
The main argument I’ve heard from the other side on a looser adherence to the Standards all seem to boil down to one thing: size. We will have a bigger denomination if we have a smaller list of non-negotiables. Usually the idea that “good men can disagree over these things” is also brought up.
Well of course good men can disagree over these things. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether a man can disagree and be an officer in the PCA. For myself, I am afraid of the trajectory that these ideas will set us upon if they are accepted. And as for a bigger, more influential denomination, for myself, this isn’t really a motivating goal.
I fell in love with the Reformed faith 14 years ago, and I haven’t gotten over that love. The richness of these doctrines helps me live my life, raise my children, love my wife, forgive my enemies, evangelize the lost, shepherd my flock, and worship my God in Spirit and in truth.
When the latest evangelical fads have had their moment in the sun, failed to fulfill their promises, and left disillusionment and even heresy in their wake, the Reformed expression of the Christian faith will still endure because it is true.
Instead of ‘secret meetings’ why don’t we spend a day or more at GA to pray and talk about the tensions that exist?
Also, this is why we should discuss the issues at a court level (presbytery/GA) because it doesn’t seem like a few men talking can ease the tension of a whole denomination? Rather, we need to be all pointed back to the Gospel and the truth of His Word.
Great Idea: G.A. is a time to pray, discuss difficulties/problems in denomination, and hear biblical preaching addressing the issues calling us to hear Jesus, be taught, corrected, rebuked, and trained for righteousness!
Brian,
We already decided how closely we are going to adhere to the Standards when we allowed for exceptions to the Confession. No longer are we a denomination that is reformed, but reformed-esque. The point of the Confession and adherence to it is that we would all agree and be united, but now we are divided because we don’t agree on the Standards anymore (i.e. the word STANDARD). We don’t have a standard anymore. When Presbyterians, Independents, Episcopalians, and Erastians can agree on the Westminster Standards and unite around it as a summary of Scripture and we cannot, we are divided and not reformed.
It sounds like a pity party to me …
I do not know if you know, my denomination (GKSA = Reformed Churches in South Africa) now have sister relations (ecumenical ties?) with the PCA (both denominations positively decided on this, we did it last week at our Synod 2012), and therefore I am interested in what is happening in the PCA.
I find it very interesting that at our Synod last week, there was placed on our synod table also a call to develop a ‘Strategic Plan’, called a ‘Omkeerstrategie’ (Eng: ‘Turn around Strategy’). This strategic plan (developing one in the next 3 years) was also emphazised at a important event/issue during our Synod: our synod had 8 complaints on its table to address, 7 for women in all offices, 1 against women deacons (in 2009 our synod voted that women cannot be allowed as pastors and elders, but they can be deaconess, as I think is the current policy also in the PCA?).
Synod then decided not to address those complaints but to only do it in 2015. Now, they say we must focus on the ‘Strategic Plan’ to help solve our differences of viewpoints and practices in our denomination.
But I agree with Seth’s views: stop preaching and teaching wrong doctrines and views, such as women in office, then more peace will come.
“The proper goal, rather than that level of precision—should be love.”
“At the presbytery level, pockets of the PCA have become overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy. We’ve reduced ourselves to a measuring stick, the speaker said.”
Compare the statements made by some of these anonymous men with statements in the Auburn Affirmation. There is an uncanny sense of déjà vu here.
There is simply no excuse — period — for the stuff I’m hearing that public discussion of the church’s problems is somehow bad. That is offensive in the extreme. We’re Reformed, not Roman Catholic. Yes, the church is ruled by elders, not laypeople — the church is not a democracy — but the elders need information to make their decisions, not just blindly obey bishops.
When reading things like this, I can’t help but wonder if these people have any understanding of their own ecclesiastical history in the PCA, or that of the Southern Baptist Convention. Have these people who think blogs are bad read copies of the old Presbyterian Guardian or Southern Presbyterian Journal? Or, for that matter, do they pay attention to the work in the PC(USA) of the Presbyterian Lay Committee?
If we really believe we’re in spiritual warfare against Satan, being “nice” is not the answer — being vigilant is, against enemies both “foreign and domestic,” i.e., both inside and outside the church.
What frustrates me the most when reading things like this is that I know many of these ministers have lots of laymen in their churches who are strong advocates of conservative politics. The PCA is centered is some of the most conservative parts of the United States, and one would hope that the PCA membership would be to the right of the secular audience in their states, not a collection of moderates.
I am increasingly beginning to wonder if the solution for the PCA’s problems is to get some of the elders who are part of the more conservative wing of the Republican Party to get involved in church politics. After all, the PCA’s membership does include the former head of the Republican National Committee who is a governor, and all kinds of officials at local and state levels who are very good at fighting against liberal nonsense. They may not always be very Reformed, but they are definitely anti-liberal. Education could go a long way in explaining to politically conservative elders why the moderates in the PCA are opening the door for outright liberalism. For those elders who are deeper thinkers, perhaps it can be explained to them that they need to demand that ecclesiastical officials apply the same standards of original intent to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms that they are used to demanding that Supreme Court judges and congressmen apply to original intent of the United States Constitution.
I grew up in a politician’s home in Grand Rapids and was converted to the Reformed faith as an adult. The general consensus I heard in the CRC from people I had known years earlier in secular politics was that they didn’t give a rat’s rear end (blue language changed for a family audience) what the synod did because the people who run the church were a bunch of feminized wimps who wouldn’t last ten minutes in the real world of secular politics or capitalist business. More than a few of them told me I was wasting my time dealing with the CRC and said the denomination wasn’t worth saving and the only reason they remained members was because either 1) their local church was okay, or 2) leaving the CRC would cause too many problems for them in business or political life.
There’s a lot of truth to the statement that denominations start ordaining women when the men in office are already acting like women. There’s a huge difference between viewing the church as needing leaders who are nuturing and loving mothers caring for sometimes frustrating children and viewing the church as soldiers of the Lord fighting against Satan and his minions. The talents and experience needed to be a nurturing mother, while certainly important, simply are not those needed to run a church.
The reality is that many seminaries tend to feminize potential ministers. That may be unavoidable in our current ecclesiastical environment. But what about the elders? Is perhaps a major part of the PCA’s problem that most churches don’t have elders who care enough to attend general assembly? Is it possible that elders conferences calculated to get elders involved in the ecclesiastical battles are the key to solving a problem that the ministers simply cannot solve given the current “culture of niceness” that prevails in too many church circles?
I have no answers to that question, but I think it deserves a hard look.
The big problem is that standards for eldership vary widely from church to church. I personally know officebearers in the PCA who have never heard of the Westminater Standards. (I know because I have them copies.) Many others may identify themselves as Calvinists, but because they don’t believe in
Actively involving the elders means enlisting the aid of men in many churches who are not well-trained theologically and may not be very Reformed.
it may end up making the PCA. Obviously the fight to save the CRC failed. I would hate to see the same thing happen in the PCA.
Wow, talk about “safe places”! This is gotta be just about the safest place of all. The rest of us out here among the Great Unwashed get to know what was said (according to official denominational reporting, of course) but not who said it. I wish I had that benefit at home, at work, in church. No, wait — I don’t. Wouldn’t be good for my sanctification (which does require effort, by the way.)
Anonymous people concerned about hinted-at-but-not-named other anonymous people doing things?
Men who won’t stand behind their words because they might have to suffer for their Lord?
What kind of faith is this?
Seth makes some excellent points on which I agree with him. I find a number of things problematic and concerning about this meeting. Why was it called? Does the Stated Clerk have the authority to call a meeting of this kind? Why was this not discussed in the court of the church? Why was it limited to “denominational leaders?” Who was in attendance? We are not told who the leaders or Pastors were that attended this meeting. I would be curious to find out if certain pastors were selected for this meeting or whether Presbyteries were notified about this meeting. I am certain that many of the Teaching Elders who follow this blog were not aware of this meeting. If you read the article it seems like the finger is really pointed at certain bloggers (I will follow the Chatham House Rules) for disruppting the peace and unity of the church. I do not want to sound like a broken record but the rules of ethics regarding the internet apply to all forms of communication. If someone violates the law of God in his conversation or dialog than address it. The Reformation begun with the posting of 95 Thesis on the door of Wittenburg Castle. That posting was not received well and caused a great stir across Europe. The gentleman who raised the issue of eliminating discussions on the internet needs to be prepared to eliminate his comments and discussion in every other venue. I have witnessed as much damage done with letter writters and emailers as internet bloggers. Much of this discussion (no pun intended) related to blogging are the same issues coming from our culture, such as the bill in congress to control internet activity. As a Presbyterian system of government every pastor and elder should have been in Atlanta on Tueday. Those who addressed the need for charity and unity are absolutely correct, but this kind of meeting will not promote that unity if we exclude others who should be part of the discussion.
I may never have read a statement more dripping with irony than the followiing:
“An older, long-time member of the PCA suggested that we refuse to have discussions on the Internet. It distorts the message, he said, and does a lot of damage.”
So, this patriarchal brother is able-anonymously-to slam those of us who reveal our names-publicly-every time we post on a blog.
Do you think the old cliche, “It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad” applies here?
–Frank Aderholdt, 2309 Arcadia Street, Hattiesburg, MS 39402, Ruling Elder, First Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, Grace Presbytery (PCA).
“The proper goal, rather than that level of precision—should be love.”
Falce dichotomy. Scripture teach us to speak the truth (doctrinal precision) in love, not sacrifice precision in the name of ‘love’ (Eph.4:15).
Bernard Cottret (a french biographer of Calvin) said it well:
“Heresy is never anything but a question of grammar”
Paul would agree: Gal.3:16.
By the way ironically the lastest PC(USA) renewal movement is meeting this week in Orlando.
They are calling themselves the “Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians”.
For their “theological” outlook you can find it here:
http://www.fellowship-pres.org/wp-content/uploads/Theology.pdf
Some text got deleted from my last post. Here’s what I intended to say:
“…The big problem is that standards for eldership vary widely from church to church. I personally know officebearers in the PCA who have never heard of the Westminater Standards. (I know because I have them copies.) Many others may identify themselves as Calvinists, but define that not in terms of confessions but rather see themselves as five-point or four-point Calvinists who are not charismatic and believe babies should be baptized.
Actively involving the elders means enlisting the aid of men in many churches who are not well-trained theologically and may not be very Reformed. However, think what would happen if many more churches in the PCA started sending at least one elder to General Assembly. The reality is that small rural churches are still a large majority of the PCA — and each one of them has the right to send at least one elder to GA.
Beyond that, think what would happen if some of the elders who are aggressive businessmen or lawyers with a background in secular politics started organizing for battles in the church they way they organize battles against secular liberals. Elders often have talents for organization that greatly exceed those of ministers — and I believe there are businessmen in the PCA who have management skills learned while running organizations with budgets and employee lists far exceeding those of even the largest agencies in the PCA.
Granted, involving the elders more actively it may end up making the PCA more broadly evangelical and less Reformed. Equally obviously, however, the fight to save the CRC failed and the CRC is headed into full-blown liberalism. I would hate to see the same thing happen in the PCA.”
Just saw Frank’s comment, but think of the hypocrisy here:
It’s wrong for men to call people names on the internet (usually with an attached signature).
But it’s okay to anonymously call people tool-limiting, harmony-destroying, heretic-branding, vulnerability expoiting, unloving, impatient, scared, mean, man-eating, witch-hunting, excoriating, borderline idolaters who don’t build anything.
Today’s definition of “witch hunt,” which seems to have infected the PCA as well: “Anyone who disagrees with my view, and believes that something should be done about it.”
Brother Darrell, can you please send me your email address here: proregno@gmail.com
Thanks.
Am I the only one who would like to know who the leaders were?
So, as long as we make sure no one says the Emperor has no clothes, then we will have harmony. The Emperor will still be naked, but we can all continue to ignore that.
No, Brian you are not the only one who would like to know their names. I addressed that issue in my earlier comment. They should identify themselves if this is an open meeting of the church.
If you want to know who was there, then why don’t you ask?
You can find the contact information here.
“The proper goal…should be love.” What a remarkably adolescent statement, particularly in light of the fact that “love” is then contrasted with requirements of precision (by which I can only assume he meant accuracy, sometimes referred to by the hairy unwashed as the truth). In the land of the annointed, love apparently embraces nothing more than non-confrontational niceness; the problem with us internet peons is that we thought love (and life and people and people interacting in large groups with multiple conflicting duties to other people) was more complicated than that.
Requiring a pastoral candidate to be precise in his knowledge of theology is not unloving any more than requiring a doctor or lawyer to take an examination and prove a certain “critical mass” of knowledge related to his profession is “unloving.” It is not loving to give someone a job for which you know he is not prepared; it’s cruel, to him and his unwitting guinea pig flock.
I noted that in virtually all the listed comments, the annointed were completely unconcerned with the truth or falsity of any accusations, merely saddened by the tone. I’m sorry, but if the guy wears a purple robe and a pointy hat and embraces Roman Catholic soteriology, I’m not sure the internet peasant who pointed these things out is the one with the problem.
When truth confronts error, there will always be tension and division. I have yet to see in this life a wolf and a sheep lie down together in peace. A “glass of wine and a cigar” might work for political expediency but they don’t change the nature of the devouring wolf.
When a secondary source (Westminster Standards) replaces the primary source (the Bible) as the final authority on denominational practice and doctrine, then error gets easily diguised as just another accepted interpretation.
You guys who are talking about the list of attendees are hitting up against the Chatham House Rules. They can’t tell you who was there:
See the rule here.
Jerry~ I believe that if each person chose to disclose that they were there (only that, not who else was there) that is allowed.
But, is it this rule commonly used within PCA meetings?
“. . . another man . . . said he had grown weary of being told, ‘who I’m supposed to hate. I’m tired,’ he said, ‘of wondering who’s a part of what team.’”
Not once during the past forty-two years, since I entered RTS Jackson in 1970, have I heard any brother tell me “who I’m supposed to hate.” Nor have I ever heard one report of such a statement.
This all sounds suspiciously like an encounter I had at work a couple of years ago. When I expressed my displeasure at the President of the United States bowing before a foreign leader, a very politically liberally school superintendent told me, “Don’t hate, Frank.” There you have it: Disagreement = hate.
I’m looking forward to D. A. Carson’s forthcoming book “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” The title alone speaks volumes.
Gentlemen and ladies, please disregard my previous comment. I did not realize that according to Chatham House Rules it was not permitted to reveal who was at the meeting.
In light of that, I think it’s wrong to ask who the attendees were, since they have already agreed not to reveal who was there.
Lauren wrote: “When a secondary source (Westminster Standards) replaces the primary source (the Bible) as the final authority on denominational practice and doctrine, then error gets easily diguised as just another accepted interpretation.”
Clarification: I am not questioning the validity of the conversion of these men. They may very well be sincere Christians. I’m not questioning whether they believe the Bible is the Word of God.
However, if you’re going to be an officebearer in a Bible-believing Presbyterian church, you need to adhere to the confessions of that church. There are lots of good men in office in Baptist, charismatic, or other churches. Some of them are even Reformed Baptists, or soteriologically Calvinist charismatics, or otherwise Reformed on matters which differ from the Westminster Standards.
But they don’t belong in office in a Presbyterian church.
By the way, I’m writing this as a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church who, because I disagree with parts of Chapter 30 and 31 of the WCF, knows I can never serve in office in the ARPs. Every Sunday, I drive a long distance to go to the ARP congregation I attend, rather than a much closer PCA whose pastor wanted to put me into office in the PCA and still asks me to come back.
I would not want to intrude myself into office in a denomination where I disagree with parts of the confessions of the church. It would be nice if these PCA leaders had similar convictions and joined churches where their disagreements with the confessions would not be a problem.
For the sake of correctness, all would be advised to drop the plural, “rules”.
There is only the one Rule, singular.
From the site referenced by Mr. Koerkenmeier:
Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?
A. There is only one Rule.
…Unless, of course, the first rule of Chatham House is that there is no Chatham House.
Hi, Wes. Your respondents have illustrated the problem in the PCA perfectly. They have expressed all kinds of criticism of this meeting. Not one of them has expressed concern that brothers treat other brothers uncharitably in public forums. In fact, many of the comments above are quite uncharitable. No one can question my conservative credentials, though many of your readers will not know me. I have stood for orthodoxy in every presbytery I have joined and alienated my share of brothers. I was on the Board of Greenville Seminary. But, brothers, anger will not accomplish the building of our Lord’s Kingdom. I’m not saying that, our Lord said it by inspiration, “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” James 1:19-20.
How slow have those writing above been to speak? They have jumped all over this meeting as soon as word of it got out. How slow have they been to anger and its rhetoric? Not slow at all. We have real problems in the PCA, but this kind of comment does nothing but satisfy the disaffected. I know I’ll take abuse for this, but brothers, I think it’s time to listen sympathetically and really try to be part of the solution rather than sniping from the web. Remember, Reformation rhetoric was acceptable in the 16th/17th centuries, but it is not any more. Our Lord deserves better.
Thanks for letting me say my piece, Wes. I appreciate you brother. Jim
In order to address concerns directly to a person, one would have to know who to address.
Jim,
You wrote, “Not one of them has expressed concern that brothers treat other brothers uncharitably in public forums.”
But some of us have. I said this earlier:
Perhaps you think my comment was uncharitable, but I do think this a real example of anonymous brothers treating brothers uncharitably in a public forum (byfaithonline.com is public).
Is it uncharitable for you to call others uncharitable? Was it uncharitable for the anonymous men to call bloggers uncharitable? When does it end?
So, can some one point out where our BCO mentions a Chatham House Rule, including how and when it is permissible to use it?
As I commented over at ByFaith:
“I greatly respect Dr. Taylor, but this exercise was a mistake. As a once-popular rock group, Uriah Heap, once sang: “Secret hearts and sorry tales will never help love grow.”"
I also note the irony that I’m required to provide my name and town to post a comment at ByFaith, but apparently not when engaged in anonymous secret councils in the PCA. Interesting.
The biggest problem is the secrecy and the “official” nature of such meetings. The denominational magazine reports a meeting of prominent church leaders, publishes some of their comments, and informs us that the rest of us can’t know who was there. I’m at a loss to understand how all this squares with Presbyterian rule by Elders in a connectional church.
This was not the first such meeting, of course. It’s been going on for years. Yet, apparently none of those who attended can see that this practice may be viewed as “a church within a church,” or, if they do see, are concerned about it.
Why is something like this automatically suspect here? Shouldn’t people who share a denominational commitment gather to talk face to face? Shouldn’t folks who are potentially at odds check their thoughts and ideas against one another before they bring those concerns to a court like presbytery and GA? Not every conversation is a slippery slope to liberalism.
I think PCA pastor Craig Higgins, who was not operating under Chatham House Rules at the time, said it best when he argued for the following solution to what divides the PCA:
Perhaps this is an item that can be taken up at the next GA, or at least ya’ll could select who among you can serve as primus inter pares and stop all this unloving squabbling on the internet.
I had heard about this meeting earlier in the week and it was mentioned to me that people representative of the spectrum of opinion in the PCA would be in attendance, although no names were mentioned. I trust that this was true. As for secrecy, we do have, in Roberts’ Rules, executive session which provides for secret deliberations. But that is not really the point is it? The Chatham House rules were there so that men could speak freely without fear that comments attributed to them would be taken out of context and misused in other venues. Surely there is a place for such conversations. We have private conversations all the time in the family, church and workplace.
I certainly did not admire some of the comments that were reported, but their very anonymity allows me to discuss them on their merits without involving personalities. I think it is important that we have men with different concerns in the denomination. We need men who care about theological precision. When I was on the Examinations Committee of my present presbytery the great majority of men coming for licensure failed their first time before the Committee. I was usually instrumental in moving the Committee to deny them licensure. But, I and others also spent time outside the Committee working with the men to enable them to pass. We wanted precision while supporting the men who sought licensure. This is the union of truth and love. But some men will instinctively emphasize some things more than others. We need both kinds of men and we need all of us to value what the others bring, especially because it balances us out.
Sam, did you read the article? The way the article represents the meeting, it was not what you describe. Maybe the article misrepresents the meeting, but it is all the information that we have.
And what the article said is that the main problem in the PCA is people being too serious about sharing a Confessional commitment.
A denominational commitment isn’t organizational; it’s confessional. The very commitment that you are pleading for is what the article decries. So, forgive us for not having any more information to go on, please. Thank you very much.
At least this discussion is being held in the open, with accountability–unlike the one in which I have been anonymously accused as an idolater for caring intensely about doctrinal precision.
I am trying to imagine the shoe being on the other foot–i.e. if I were to call someone out here as “bordering on idolatry.” Perhaps that would earn me the status of intemperate or uncharitable? I don’t think the culture of suspicion is coming from people like Wes’s readers.
TE James Hakim, 607 Michigan Ave SW, Orange City, IA 51041, 712-395-0983, Harvest Community Church, Iowa Presbytery.
Sean,
My question to you is: “What denomination are you a part of? You aren’t in the PCA are you?”
I ask because, you said on your blog, speaking of PCA TE Craig Higgins,
“Yet, while the vast majority of FV and No Perspectives false teachers at least play the game of trying to appear as good P&R men in order to fool the feeble minded washcloths that make up the majority of femminized Presbyteries throughout the PCA, OPC and beyond, Otis came across one particular FV man complete with purple vestments and wearing a mitre.” here (2nd paragraph): http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/papists-in-pca-clothing/
Which this byFaith article of this meeting refers to when it says, “One blogger wrote that a man in the denomination made him “want to throw up,” presbyteries have been characterized as “feminized,” and one blogger referred to his brother as a “purple robed, miter-wearing papist.””
So at the meeting they said one blogger said these things. That one blogger we are led to assume is from the PCA, since the conversation was about the unity of the PCA (or disunity…). But Sean, you said them, and if I remember correctly you aren’t in the PCA.
So, thinking of Ron Paul here, are we in the PCA supposed to be the policeman of the univerisal church, the internet regulators of all who speaks critically of the PCA or someone in the PCA?
Sam, I think the issue(s) here are: 1) this is what we should be doing at Presbytery and GA because that’s what they did in Acts 15 when there was disunity. They came together and spoke God’s Word together. And then believed and followed God’s Word together.; 2) I’ll quote our fellow PCA RE Robert Berman who said, “Disunity can result when invitations to a unity conference are issued selectively.”; and 3) The big disunity problem in the PCA is doctrinal in nature (not that I think I know everything, but that’s what it all boils down to). It’s not our practice because practice follows the heart. The heart is filled with what you believe –> doctrine (out of the heart the mouth speaks). What needs to happen is for us to unite around a standard of doctrine which is the Word of God (True Doctrine), which as Presbyterians is supposed to be the Westminster Standards since it is a summary of Scripture. After all that is what united the Presbyterians, Independents, Erastians, and Episcopalians known as the Westminster Divines. They united their doctrine in what they could agree upon and that was the Westminster Standards. Yet, now we don’t even agree upon that, where does that put us? As Presbyterians we can’t even unite together. So unless we unite under a similar standard (doesn’t have to be the West. Standards I guess, but it has to be something) there will be disunity.
James, I went back and re-read the posting at ByFaith again just to make sure, but I didn’t hear it to say that the main problem was overly strict adherence to the confession. Since it was a discussion the reporter mentions that some were viewing the differences from that perspective. I also heard reports from attendees (who did adhere to the rules laid down) who reported a range of people sensing the tensions from various angles. Interestingly, it was both those on the — to use pejorative terms as non-pejoratively as possible — the right and the left who tended to agree that there were serious problems facing the denomination. It was those in the traditional middle that seemed to feel that things were by and large fine.
James I also agree that we all have to confess our intemperance and sinful characterizations of brothers. I, like you, have been so burned and the barbs of others can sink down deep. As I was reminded this past week from James 3 – the tongue is a fire and it’s taming is a task only the sanctifying of the Holy Spirit within us can obtain. I often feel the barb of other’s tongue without fully weighing the effects of mine on others.
Sean, I’ve always wondered why presbytery and GA use Acts 15 as a proof text since it was a one-time special meeting that in scripture is not repeated as a validation for our courts. I am very much concur that we are up against an Acts 15 type of situation in the PCA that has some parallels to the Hebrew/Greek divide in the church of that day. Perhaps you could help me make the connection you are making?
Sean, also you and others here speak of doctrinal fidelity to the WCF as the way through the issues facing us as a denomination, but what about the areas where the WCF does not address. Issues either deliberately tabled at the time (like ecclesiology) and issues that would not have even occurred to someone living in the 17th century (like non-traditional understandings of gender popular today). How would someone today who simply subscribes fully to the WCF have any ground for confidence to address such issues? How would strict subscription to the WCF be helpful for areas it does not address?
[...] [...]
@Andrew. Your memory is correct. My family and I left the PCA a couple of years ago after I became convinced over a number of years that the leadership in the PCA was philosophically ill equipped, unable, and unwilling to effectively deal with what ByFaith called “the issue for this generation.”
I outlined many of the reasons why I left and how I think the problem might be reversed, by God’s grace, in my little book, Can the PCA Be Saved? I still think that is an open question, despite secret meetings protecting men (and I say “men” reservedly) who hurl bombs at their Christian brothers while cowering in anonymity claiming “Chatham House Rules.”
Brother O’Brien:
While you and I are in different Reformed denominations, speaking as a person who sent a decade fighting Christian Reformed liberalism as the primary reporter for the CRC’s equivalent to the Presbyterian Layman newspaper, and who now has a student in my ARP church taking classes by correspondence with Greenville Seminary, I want to take a moment to respond to your post.
I truly do believe you have a valid point. There is a “root of bitterness” present in too many conservative circles, both ecclesiastical and secular, along with a tendency to major in the minors and separate over secondary issues. I have believed for a very long time that bitterness and nastiness in conservative circles is a major reason for the success of liberals.
I have a decades-long history of arguing in the Christian Reformed Church that we must distinguish between people who are deceptively cunning and people who are honestly confused, and that we must distinguish between people who are liberal heretics and people who are evangelical brothers, even though they may be in serious docrine error. I reminded people many times during fights in the CRC that I was baptized in the United Church of Christ, and I know true liberalism in its baldest and most obnoxious forms, and while the denials of inerrancy and biblical authority which are happpening in the CRC will inexorably lead to full-blown liberalism if not stopped, the CRC isn’t there yet. People often are inconsistent in their beliefs, and while wrong beliefs have serious consequences, sincerely confused people often fail to take their beliefs to their logical conclusions, and we cannot accuse people of believing things they don’t believe.
Furthermore, if we believe God is sovereign, we should not act as if we deny the possibility of miracles in the lives of our enemies. Thirty years ago I was arguing that the church has a Christian imperative to work for the legalization of gay marriages. If God can convert someone like me out of that sort of wickedness of mind, He is perfectly capable of changing the minds of people in PCA leadership positions who probably don’t need to be converted but rather need to return to the confessions or have the integrity to leave the denomination.
When my local congregation in Springfield was dropped as a mission work by the United Reformed Churches in North America and decided it needed to seek a Southern denomination with which to affiliate that was not Dutch and would understand Southern culture, the PCA was the logical first choice. I argued long and strenuously against joining the PCA for numerous reasons, among them being that we would have been in the Missouri Presbytery. We’re now in the ARPs; if I wanted to be in the PCA I would still be in a PCA church near me which I attended for many years without joining. Let’s just say that while the pastor still wants me to come back to his church, neither he nor I would be happy if I joined the church because I would have to file protests with the presbytery as a matter of conscience. Most other people on this message board would be amazed I attended as long as I did.
I add this detail to make clear that I am not speaking merely as an outsider to the PCA’s issues. I am, however, saying that I understand there is a difference between being bitterly obnoxious and being biblically persistent. I also know from long firsthand experience that we need to treat evangelicals as Christian brothers. There’s a huge difference between a PCA man advocating tolerance for non-Reformed and unconfessional views and a PCUSA man advocating outright heresy. We need to show we understand that difference in how we deal with the two types of men.
[...] PCA “Meeting of Understanding” held in Atlanta [...]
Darrell, I attended Calvin Seminary in the early 80s. I went there straight from my studies at Pittsburgh Seminary (UPCUSA). I was astonished at how easily some of the faculty and students were moving away from inerrancy and had a disdain for orthodoxy. Like you, I told them, “I’ve been among people who went the path you are beginning to take and the end is apostasy.” But, as an outsider, (I wasn’t Dutch and they weren’t fooled when I tried to tell them my name was Jim VanBriensma) they did not believe me. I suspect that their belief in their historic soundness and confidence in the power of the covenant to keep them sound and, perhaps, pride in their traditions made them over confident that they could not go astray. But whatever the cause, it was sad to see. It will take another generation to see the consequences of what was being taught at Calvin in those days.
I appreciated the carefulness with which you discussed the challenge of talking with those with whom we disagree.
Sam Wheatley,
Your take is correct. Thank-you for your post.
I fear that I am prone to write too long, so I would like to say something as briefly as I can, even if it raises questions it doesn’t answer. Christ put two kinds of men in the PCA, men who are more confessionally oriented (MCO) and men who are less confessionally oriented (LCO). This is His will. Over many decades I have come to believe that He did so wisely. We need each other. Once we recognize this we will stop fighting each other, stop trying to persuade others to be like us, and we will be able to let each kind of man do what Christ has given him to do. LCO men don’t want the PCA to slip into apostasy, yet they don’t want to expend a lot of energy on defending orthodoxy. Great, don’t! You have men (MCO) who are glad to do it. We need such men. But we also need men who emphasize other things. Do LCO men warn us against intellectual pride? Well, I am glad for those warnings because I needed them (and still need them). Will orthodoxy alone build the Kingdom? No.
Frankly, I’m not a man who knows how to get things done, so I have come to admire and respect those who do. I need them even if they are LCO than I am.
The danger is that both kinds of men, LCO and MCO see the other as manifesting weakness. I don’t doubt that, because of indwelling sin, there is some truth in the concerns of each group about the other. But at a more fundamental level each group represents a strength that the other needs. Christ has apportioned his gifts in this way so that alone we are weak, but united in submission to him, his strength is manifested in us. If all PCA men could learn to appreciate the gifts they do not have and let those with such gifts operate without condemnation, the tensions among us would be vastly reduced.
What about apostasy? First let me say that not every departure from the Confession automatically leads to apostasy. It may unlock the door, but then we need brothers who will make sure that door isn’t opened. But if we cherish one another’s gifts, and emphases, then when someone comes along who tries to open the door dangerously, like a Peter Enns, the MCO men can cry out an alarm. Because they have cherished their LCO men, those brothers will be much more likely to listen and support efforts to remove really dangerous men from our midst. But MCO brothers cannot be like the boy who cried wolf. We cannot get up in arms over every departure.
Let MCO brothers not provoke their LCO brothers to wrath, and likewise, let LCO men cherish their MCO brothers, be grateful for their vigilance and not deride them for it. Let them do what they are gifted to do by our Lord.
Sometimes the system may fail and a man may be in a pulpit who doesn’t belong there. That’s not good, but it’s not fatal either, even in St. Louis! They key is to keep such men from spreading. If you cannot eliminate something, contain it. We are much more able to do that united than sniping at each other.
If you are still reading, thanks for your patience and forgive my inability to be more concise. (This is actually much condensed from the first couple of versions – lol) Do you think this is correct? I participate in such blogs so that my rusty iron can be sharpened by others, so sharpen away dear brothers!
Couple of things.
1. I just put this idea up on Andy Webb’s FB stream: I propose the following competition. Everyone interested starts posting the names of people they discovered were in attendance. So far we all know Roy Taylor, Dick Doster, and Ken Pierce were there. Let’s give it 72 hours (Monday at 10:00AM) and we’ll declar a winner. Post your entries at the end of this stream!! I wasn’t there (I wonder why I wasn’t invited?) so don’t put me on the list! (OK, maybe that’s a stupid idea, but sometimes stupid is fun).
2. For better or for worse, the PCA never wwas and never will be totally strict subscription. The Missouri-Virginia, good faith, subscription compromise is workable as long as Presbyteries are honest in recording exceptions. If they’re not honest, we are doomed for sure.
3. Did it ever occur to anyone that before blogs we had G. Aiken Taylor and the Presbyterian Journal? Of course, no one was ever called a name or maligned in that august professional news media.
4. Follow Bob Case’s articles on ‘Liar, Liar’ http://bit.ly/yUnEGU on Aquila – he is presenting some Biblical standards for standards.
5. Just for the record – and despite the practice of one very senior administrator in the PCA – TheAquilaReport.com is NOT Dominic’s blog – it is a aggregate web magazine!
Hi Ken & Sam,
So, what I understand you to be saying is that byFaith did not accurately report the meeting. If that is the case, then I think that you should contact byFaith and express your concerns, if you have not already. Hopefully, if this is the case, they will issue an apology. At this point, the article does not present the “meeting of understanding” as a meeting of understanding but rather as a group of men getting together secretly to express their concerns about internet communication and lambast those who would seek to be precise in theology.
While I do believe that conflict in the PCA is a concern for many elders and thus a legitimate topic of discussion, what is lacking in the meeting as presented in this article is the real concerns of the overwhelming majority of elders in the PCA, namely, fears that we will compromise with feminism and liberalism as expressed in the growing tide of theistic evolution as well as denials of inerrancy, concern over Federal Vision theology, concern over antinomianism, and concern that we would lose our Reformed witness by overly diluting it. Instead of these issues being addressed, I reckon that an elder who had such concerns that I have stated above would feel offended rather than helped by the reporting of this meeting.
Try to look at this from the standpoint of an elder who is concerned about orthodoxy and who reads this article without any further knowledge of what went on. I think you should be able to understand why people would have concern with this meeting as it was presented.
Thanks,
Wes
Don Clements, thank you for your suggestion. I think it is a great idea. We should publish those names for everyone to see.
Don, you mention an excellent point that the PCA historically has never held to a strict-subscriptionist position. I have stated in blogs previously that the PCA was formed as a response to the growing liberalism in the PCUS and was never intended to be a distinctly Reformed denomination. This may be why we see a number of divergent issues in the PCA. I for one am a strict-subscriptionist (original WCOF) and find the PCA’s historic position a serious problem, but it does explain alot of the issues we are battling. If you look at a number of Reformed groups that are strict-subscriptionists you do not see alot of this problem.
This is very confusing, and I really don’t understand how this kind of meeting is helpful when there are many diverse points of view and where there are apparent existing issues of trust on all sides. I’m not in the PCA but I am interested in many of the issues in dispute since they impact the Church as a whole.
In the context of Presbyterian polity, what is a “denominational leader?” How did certain leaders decide which other leaders to include and exclude in this discussion of perceived problems? What were the selection criteria? Were all TEs and REs given notice of this important denominational meeting and given an opportunity for input?
In the context of leadership in general, how do leaders Lead from Behind closed doors? How are these leaders proposing to lead those who don’t even know who the leaders are and what the leaders’ interests and agendas are? What do these leaders propose as solutions now that they have safely discussed the problems (at least as viewed by these select leaders) and had the problems published? Were the views which were published representative of the views expressed at the meeting? Why should the leaders suppose that any should follow the lead of anonymous leaders?
During the past two days, I’ve concluded that I will not support any non-official meeting, whatever euphemistic title it may be given, that is called by our chief administratiave official (the Stated Clerk) and “other denominational leaders” unless:
(1) The names of all attendees are revealed, and
(2) Complete transcripts of the proceedings are made available in a timely manner (one month or less)
(Exempted, of course, are meetings of the Permanent Committees and Agencies of the PCA, whose minutes are available and whose actions, plans, and budgets are subject to approval by the General Assembly.)
Jim,
Great comment – we do need all the gifts of the body in order to function (1 Cor. 12). And it’s incumbent upon each member to honor the gifts of the other. Thank the Lord that He binds us in union with those of differing gifts. As I’ve shared often the pursuit of truth builds a community that leads into mission. Then the process comes full circle when mission raises questions that need theological reflection. Segregating those concerns of truth/community and mission lead us away from the needed gifts of one another. Many of the issues Wes raises in his post above are issues that many are raising not to sink the church but to ask the church for some help in addressing as we engage the world in mission.
Grace and Peace,
Sam
Hi Sam,
I would still be interested in hearing your answer to my questions.
I can fully acknowledge the truth of what you say here about the occasion for questioning the existence of Adam and Eve, the inerrancy of Scripture, and male-only office bearers as well as the good intentions of those who bring up the issues. However, I don’t think the danger of feminism and the compromise of the doctrine of inerrancy becomes less simply because the goal of discussing those issues is mission. I’m sure you also realize that every single move toward liberalism in the past three centuries has been motivated (at least in the views of those who propagated those movements) not with a goal of sinking the church but in addressing the world as they engage in mission. When Friedrich Schleiermacher spoke to cultured despisers of Christianity, he was advancing what he thought was a mission to the world. However, his compromise of the doctrine of Scripture was not the less egregious or ultimately unhelpful for the church’s mission simply because he was trying to engage in mission.
At the time the UPUSA church imploded, my husband was just completing seminary and was planning to serve a UPUSA congregation. The direction of the denomination caused us to look elsewhere though we had been converted while in that denomination. The recent “meeting” of “church leaders” just held in the PCA brings back sad memories of that time. We watched a once strong church denomination begin its decent into the pit of liberal thinking and become weak and confused. Sadly, the pit for most in that denomination has only become deeper. Putting aside the Word of God as the governing foundation for the church concerning faith and life and putting aside the agreed upon standards of church government in presbyterian denominations is a first step toward growing confusion and the repetition of the mistakes of the past. I shudder to think that many local churches in my beloved PCA might follow the same path. It drives me to my knees. Lord God, protect and defend your church!
Wes,
I’d be happy to answer your question, I just don’t see one in your post. Please clarify and I’ll be happy to respond.
As far as the contention that you make about mission being the harbinger of liberalism or that liberalism has seemed to hide behind the mantle of mission. Is not mission a biblical category for the church? Are we not mandated to engage the world with the news of God’s redemption by the provision of a savior? I just don’t see how mission is automatically suspect. All kinds of good things are misused by evil (sex, power, music, culture, food, etc.), but the misuse of something can’t define the thing rather it proper definition comes from God through His word. Upon first blush you seem to be advocating a mission-less church; a church that doesn’t engage people in the marketplace and society. Surely I must be misunderstanding you because a church not engaging the world with the good news of God’s mercy in the face of our rebellion would be something I couldn’t conceive of from the scriptures.
What I was ineptly trying to say in my comment concerning mission is that in our outreach the church encounters questions that need guidance from God’s word in order to correctly face. But when the church responds to those bringing the questions with stonewalling or refusal to dialogue, it short-circuits the process of maturity. For example, I live in Utah and in mission low and behold we encounter folks who raise all kinds of theological questions the WCF or our western Christian heritage has not dealt with before. Those missional encounters drives me to the Scriptures with renewed energy to figure out God’s point of view on these things. The parallel is that for the larger denomination there are issues arising from doing mission that need Biblical exegesis to clarify. Tarring and feathering those who raise the questions doesn’t lead to understanding or biblical fidelity.
Sam,
Please clarify for me before I respond. In your previous comment you referred to Wes’ post above, were you referring to the original post or to this comment here? I think this may be the confusion on both of our parts. I thought you were referring to this comment when you mentioned my name in your last comment. The comment to which I linked is also the comment that contains the question which I asked you.
Thanks, Wes
For further clarification, here’s how I was reading our conversation:
I wrote:
Then, you [Sam] wrote:
Then, I replied:
I think that you may have been referring to something else when you said “many of the issues . . .” But in this light, I find it hard to see why you would think I was opposed to mission. My thesis was simply that the goal of mission does not negate the dangers of the errors mentioned. I also noted that it has commonly been the case that the banner of missions has often been used to introduce dangerous compromises with the world in the past. The PCUSA still couches their advocacy of homosexuality in terms of mission. They are incorrect. This is not biblical missions.
Wes, you are right there was confusion in our interaction, my apologies. I’d love to be able to talk face to face about these issues so that we could reach a better understanding of one another. Look forward to perhaps meeting you at GA this year and talking face to face.
BTW I’m out the door in a few minutes and will be away from my computer for a couple of weeks. So please don’t think I’ve jumped in this conversation and then abandoned it. I’ll be back in February. Grace to you.
Sam, no need for an apology. I appreciate your willingness to interact on this site. I hope you have a good trip, and I wish you all the best. Perhaps, we can have our own meeting of understanding somewhere in between Utah and Western South Dakota!
Sincerely, Wes
Perhaps what we need is a few good blogs operating under Chatham House Rules? (jk)
Wes,
I have not yet commented on this, though I’ve sorely wanted to. The reason for my forebearing with respect to this is because I value ecumenical relations and do not want to be one of those OPCers always rushing, or appearing to, to tut-tut at the “goings-on” in the PCA.
Having said that, I cannot imagine our Stated Clerk doing this, and if he did, there would be no small uproar. We have the courts of the church, after all, and those courts, particularly the broadest, the GA, have agencies and committees (some with executive powers). If the GA wants a discussion about something among us, it can have it, appoint agencies to conduct such and report to it, or have some committee made recommendations and then debate those.
The Stated Clerk, on his own, inviting “leading” men (who have not been designated by a court, agency, or committee) would be seen among us as some sort of usurpation. Much of the commment has been about the content–we need more “love” and not more “doctrine.” I agree that such a sentiment is troubling for many reasons cited herein. The process, however, also troubles me a great deal: this does not bespeak submission to the brethren in the Lord but making an end run around them.
I do not deny the right, or even the wisdom, of brethren to get together, discuss, and pray about, church affairs. But when it’s reported on in an official church organ and done under the auspices of the Stated Clerk’s office, yet lacking warrant from a church court, that’s another matter altogether. This has a highly politicized feel to it and is not the way that we as Presbyterians ought to do things.
In the culture of suspicion and condemnation that afflicts parts of the PCA, a meeting like this may “feel highly politicized,” but that may tell us more about the one who feels this way than on those who organized and attended it. I hope some deeper understanding and appreciation of different viewpoints and some good ideas for how to address our differences came out of the meeting. I expect that if they did, we will see them come up at Presbyteries and make their way to the GA.
It occurred to me as I’ve followed this discussion that of one of his trips to Jerusalem the Apostle Paul wrote: “after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.”
Why would a Denominational Leader call a meeting where he determined the attendees, set the agenda, required anonymity for what participants said, and then have it reported in the official denominational news? How would this sort of procedure possibly help mend fences with those who have differences? Or, to paraphrase Paul, some things are permissible (not forbidden), but are not conductive towards building up the Brethren. I agree with Professor Strange in questioning the wisdom of the process, regardless of what some think that says about me;)
Of course, this type of thing is exactly what we decided to do at GA last year, or has everyone forgotten the “safe spaces” language in the Strategic Plan as originally presented?
Y’know what they say, Jim. It isn’t paranoia if someone is really out to get you.
And having once been a junior high girl, when all the other girls get together and don’t tell you about it, apparently talk about you, a lot, and then pass around what was said at school without attributing it…well, there’s really only one reasonable way to feel about that kind of behavior.
“Highly politicized” is by far the nicest way to describe this little gossip-fest amongst the denomination’s self-selected elites that got itself published in the denomination’s online magazine. Private communication, indeed.
Dear Kassandra,
Having talked with a person who was at the meeting, I was informed that representatives of different viewpoints were present. It would be wrong, therefore, to think that the meeting only reflected one viewpoint. What we know was what was reported in byFaith, but do we know if that was representative of all that was said?
Jim,
If byFaith misreported the story as badly as you suggest, it bears a great deal of responsibility for feeding the “culture of suspicion and condemnation.” Its portrayal of the unity of “denominational leaders” against the unloving, idolatrous, strict subscriptionist internet menace, if false (drastically incomplete counts as false), demonstrates a shocking lack of integrity.
If the meeting wasn’t this one-sided, where are all the outraged attendees nattering at byFaith for a correction or retraction? Unless the attendees can’t correct the record, because as Towne says, “the first rule of Chatham House is that there is no Chatham House.”
Of course, we’d know “all that was said” without relying on byFaith if this were an open meeting with minutes, conducted by our actual “denominational leaders,” the ones we elected.
I don’t know why some people don’t want to get involved in internet discussions, they seem so edifying! (lol) There are other, quieter ways to address things, if one wants to do so. But I trust the person with whom I spoke to have told me the truth. I shared it with you so that you would have a doorway through your concerns that the leadership was ripping conservatives. Frankly, I think they would love conservatives to stop ripping them. No one likes being condemned. The whole point of the meeting was to try to get people talking TO each other instead of about each other. That was a laudable goal, in my book. It was a first step in trying to foster unity. It saddened me greatly to see that those who feel left out, were condemning an effort to bring them inside. Now, I can just imagine the howls of derision that such an assessment will bring. But why else did Roy Taylor call such a meeting? Were you reading this blog when our esteemed host, Wes, was invited to Covenant Seminary and actually reported that the visit was positive? He was quickly lambasted for having been seduced and deceived. The PCA needs men and women who are very conservative who want to be part of this denomination, who want to love the brethren and who are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. There are so many commands in the N.T. to maintain unity and to bear patiently with one another. It really is profoundly sinful if we ignore them. I say that as one who has been profoundly sinful in much of my life.
Indwelling sin will prevent all of us from seeing eye to eye on everything, so we should not require that to maintain our unity. This is why I wrote about the importance of valuing those who come at things differently, so long as our system of doctrine is maintained (Charles Hodge’s view). No one has a corner on anything, therefore, we need each other to balance us out and in the whole church, with all of its divergent parts genuinely expressing love to each other, Christ will be glorified.
Jim,
I do appreciate your sentiments calling for unity and charity. I think they are a good addition to this thread. Thanks for continuing with it.
I would say, though, that I’m not sure your characterization of my post on Covenant Seminary is completely accurate. For the most part, people did not share the sentiments that you describe. One person suggested this could be “buying me off”; another denounced me as taking a place that was far above me (with which I actually somewhat agree! It did seem strange to me that I went there!).
I do think that the basis for much conflict and concern is not things like whether or not we should have drums, pictures of Christ, or recreation on the Sabbath. If it were, then the statements recorded in byFaith would be more understandable. These are not the issues today. I am probably as strict a sabbatarian as anyone, but I have recognized that the PCA as a whole is willing to grant an exception on the Sabbath issue for recreation and other things. I submit to that, and I think it would be wrong for me to make a big stink about it, even though I may still try to explain my views in a calm manner.
The primary issues of conflict over the past couple of years have been Federal Vision, theistic evolution, denial of inerrancy, antinomianism, and feminism. In light of the fact that this is at the center of the conflict, it is actually disconcerting to hear people say that our problem is being too strict and denouncing the idolatry of “boundaries” or even that it is uncivil talk on the internet where these matters have been discussed.
I am just trying to explain to you why people feel the way they do. People throughout the PCA are very concerned about the above issues, and when they hear of a relatively confidential meeting seeming to denounce their concerns and those who express their concerns, how could they not react in the way that things have unfolded over the past few days?
I think we also need to be charitable to the concerns of the majority of elders and the people in the PCA who are troubled by the issues above and feel sometimes that no one is listening to their concerns.
Thanks, Wes, for the clarification. I am equally concerned about the impact of the NPP, Federal Vision, evolutionary thinking, the denials of inerrancy, etc. that you mentioned. We see evangelicalism in theological free-fall and some of it is invading the PCA and OPC. My interest in charitably embracing brothers who emphasize different things is not meant to say we should be lax on issues that will undermine orthodoxy. I have half a manuscript written about Peter Enns’ departures from orthodoxy proving that much more than inerrancy is at stake. I also think that some of the serious deviations we are seeing have drawn encouragement from some of our 20th century Reformed novelties. One of the things I appreciate about you is your interest in classical Reformed thought. I see our OPC brethren in as much, if not greater danger than the PCA is in. But, more to the point of this discussion, I hope and pray that barriers between men who substantially agree can be broken down and that together they can maintain a united testimony against the errors you have identified. I found your post quite helpful and appreciate it.
I had to smile at one comment in the article that stated,
“Another PCA veteran suggested that there’s nothing a glass of wine and a good cigar won’t help”…
Well I am a veteran trained pca member also and used this exact phraseology as an offer to discuss a TEs’ (and long time friend) views which had changed due to the influence of NT Wright and NPP… result – all communication was cut off and others asking the questions became viewed as on a witch hunt mission for recommending he consider going to presbytery to have his changes examined. Other associate TEs offered the same advice …. response….. they no longer are serving at the church! Charity was not too abundant toward them. Why, because we sometimes allow our churches to be built around men instead of Christ…. unfortunately this is as old as “I am of Apollos, Paul or Peter, etc.,” I Co.3- 4
Love and trust has to go both ways. When someone raises a concern over the changed viewpoints of a fellow believer and it is met with distrust and avoidance who is to blame when these unanswered questions are not forthcoming or openly discussed? How ironic is it of those who cry “uncharitable” when they themselves are not charitable enough to live transparent, accountable relationships that could avoid escalated conflicts. Many feel this type of action can lead to the hi-jacking of the denomination that folks have witnessed time and time again in the past… that is the tension and fear brewing around us… that part is easy to figure out.
No one really picked up on Eileen’s excellent questions and observations. Too bad; those are the right questions to ask.