Can someone explain what the "safe places" included in the PCA Strategic Plan is?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I for one still like the idea, it only got better. Call it what you want to it is still a place to discuss, in supervised fashion, newer ideas. The PCA seems to be desiring to do this right so lets give them, us, the benifit of the doubt. If it becomes a means to propogate outright heresy I for one will publically, on here I mean, repent of my strong endorsment of the idea but lets wait and see, you never know it could be a blessing in disguise.
 
It looks like the original strategic plan has been divided up, some wording changed, and has been passed out of the Committee of Commissioners, but with substantial opposition. That does not seem right for a Strategic Plan- that it would have to have compromise wording and be so divisive.

The more one reads this, the more one gets the sense it may have been designed to empower the Seminary and College for experimentation with policy and doctrine.

I'm not sure this is good for the denomination, or has the feel of something that is really for the denomination.
 
Andrew, who is at General Assembly, has posted something on his blog about the amended Strategic Plan:

A Profitable Word

I don't have all the details on this, but I know in the past there was an unpopular effort by a few in the PCA to have a kind of elite leadership group that would exercise a lot of (political) influence in the denomination. It was called the "Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network" (PPLN) and it developed its own very narrow point of view. Not a grass roots or church or presbytery oriented grouping.

I wonder if somehow this is a continuation of these earlier efforts, because the Strategic Plan does not really seem to be based on Scriptural analysis or practical helps for the denomination- churches or presbyteries.

More-and-more, it seems best this compromised document not be passed.
 
I attended the seminar on the SP last evening.

The explanationgiven here was very satisfactory, in my opinion. The vote will be tomorrow afternoon. All indications are that it will pass. After hearing the first-hand explanation of the SP, I am surprised how far removed the internet version is from the real thing.
 
I attended the seminar on the SP last evening.

The explanationgiven here was very satisfactory, in my opinion. The vote will be tomorrow afternoon. All indications are that it will pass. After hearing the first-hand explanation of the SP, I am surprised how far removed the internet version is from the real thing.

That's valuable input, Kevin.

I did not like what I read in either tone or substance in the original, nor agree with all three specific mandatory funding mechanisms.

It seems curious that a strategic plan should have to be modified so many places to get passed, and that there would be such substantial opposition, e.g. 21-11, were it benign. The public explanation may be one thing, but the details seem to be vague and general in the report itself (except for the funding mechanisms).

It's hard to see how a confessional church could be governed by a strategy that focuses on cultural and business analysis (but not efficiency), rather than Scriptural analysis.

Here's just one part I don't like, and don't know what it will mean:

"Establish(ing) standards for voluntary certification of men and women for specific non-ordained vocational ministries"

There are sections of this that are vague, yet they may involve doctrine and polity. It almost seems to separately empower the seminary and college, as if they were not part from the denomination.

The tone of "safe places" and now, "civil discussion" implies the household of faith is unsafe or uncivil. That may not be the intention, but that is how it sounds. It may be code for watering down, which we see going on right now in churches that are falling away.

For example,

here's the nonsense the EPC used yesterday to rationalize in public its ordaining women as Pastors:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.ph...ors-&catid=93:epc-general-assembly&Itemid=145

Dixon continued, “We had egalitarians (those favoring women as pastors) among us and we had complementarians (those not favoring women as pastors) among us, and we still do. Both view men and women as created in the image of God, but gifted and called differently. Both believe in the authority and infallibility of Scripture. Both seek to do faithful exegesis, and yet arrive at equally faithful albeit different interpretations. We all seek to serve Christ together in the EPC so we regard this as a matter of freedom.”

No, those seeking to install and model women in ecclesiastical authority and teaching authority over men are not exegeting Scripture, they are disobeying it, or only using it out of context, as generalized background to fit their own ideas. This, of course, is a form of idolatry- prevalent in our age as in any other.
 
Last edited:
Mike, in my opinion, the "safe" places are intended to be places where new ideas can be tested (both doctrinal and practical) without any ramifications. In other words, it is intended to be a place where there is no real accountability. In my opinion, this is not a wise idea. We of the church, especially the officers, are always accountable for what we say to the church, and in the church. And if other people cannot recognize mistakes for what they are, and are instead too trigger-happy with heresy charges, then that's their problem. But neither should there be any forum in the church where heresy can be advocated without consequences. Personally, I thought there already was a safe place: talking to one's ministerial friends! That is the place to "experiment," if one simply HAS to do so. That way, a person can be told that something is a stupid idea before the originator of said stupid idea has to make it known generally to the entire world that it is a stupid idea by letting the idea see the light of day. We are always accountable for our words before God, and we should have maximum accountability in the church for one another, and all the more for church officers.
 
Tonight, one wonders where sessions and presbyteries can be "safe" from vague, arbitrary mandates of centralized denominational agencies.

Uncertainty, arbitrariness, experimentation promised- don't seem to promote a sense of clarity- or safety.
 
Lane, it is too bad you were not here, I think that you might feel bettwer after hearing the conversation. (plus I didn't get to meet you)

Scott, That provision failed. At the point that I left the floor that provision was the only one of the specific provisions that had failed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top