PCA Strategic Plan proposes withdrawing from NAPARC...

Status
Not open for further replies.
a. Seek union or appropriate levels of cooperation with Reformed movements making Gospel progress and in harmony with our ethos & goals
b. Withdraw from organizations with whom we share doctrinal history, but not ministry priorities currently draining our ministry energies (e.g. NAPARC)
That's a disturbing duo of propositions right next to each other. I really hope a withdrawal does not happen, but I suspect that proposition would get a lot of opposition from the PCA's more confessional wing. I think it would be bad for the PCA in pulling it sharply broad evangelical and bad for the rest of NAPARC simply by dramatically reducing conservative Reformed unity.
 
A safe haven is like one day a week when you can cheat on your wife.

Just more desperation from the liberals who don't like the direction the winds are blowing.
 
I posted this earlier today on the OPC and URC message boards.

I watched the conduct of the PCA delegates to NAPARC for a number of years. I cannot say what they are doing recently but let's just say that I learned a great deal about the PCA by observing how they acted at NAPARC. That isn't even necessarily an attack on the PCA, but they live and move in the "big steeple" world, not the world in which most Reformed pastors, elders and members live.

______

I just learned today that a proposed PCA strategic plan proposes withdrawal from the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. I read the document and forwarded it to my local elders and deacons for their review.

I have seen nothing about this on the OPC or URC lists. Perhaps I've missed it. I'm posting this on both lists since I think it will be of considerable interest to both denominations as well as the broader conservative Reformed world.

Read page 26 of this plan in the fine print:

http://www.pcaac.org/2010StrategicPlanDocuments/Strategic Planning Narrative\ Analysis.pdf

As a reporter, I covered the NAPARC fight over whether or not to expel the Christian Reformed Church and watched the PCA leadership defend the CRC up until they realized the CRC wasn't an ally in fighting the "TRs" and "tiny churches," but rather a denomination well down the road to liberalism. I also watched the PCA push to support the EPC as a NAPARC member. Whatever NAPARC's problems may be, for the PCA to cut itself off from the conservative Reformed denominations that make up NAPARC is not a good sign.

Regards,
Darrell Todd Maurina
Attending, Gospel of Grace Church, Springfield, MO
Member, Neighborhood (Congregational) Church of Greenwich Village, New York
______

Key language: "THEME 3: IN GOD'S GLOBAL MISSION
Goal: Participate in God's Global Mission with Exemplary Unity, Humility &
Effectiveness
Means (Specific #4): Partner with national & international ministries with whom
we can most effectively participate in God's global mission
a. Seek union or appropriate levels of cooperation with Reformed movements
making Gospel progress and in harmony with our ethos & goals
b. Withdraw from organizations with whom we share doctrinal history, but not
ministry priorities currently draining our ministry energies (e.g. NAPARC)
c. Find new ways to give away our knowledge & resources to bodies of believers
being spiritually blessed
 
One parenthetical comment does not a withdrawal from NAPARC make.

Let's cool our jets just a bit on that, shall we?
 
One parenthetical comment does not a withdrawal from NAPARC make.

Let's cool our jets just a bit on that, shall we?

It is certainly true that a proposal does not mean it's been adopted.

But watch this video by Dr. Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary. Withdrawing from NAPARC is not a minor parenthesis, but rather part-and-parcel of a broader plan (presented in five YouTube videos) to refocus the PCA's outreach efforts.

YouTube - Proposed PCA strategic plan 2010 Pt. 5
 
Enlighten an interested outsider . . . I thought that the NAPARC denominations were relatively unified. Is that not true?
 
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.
 
Ben,

I don't know if that's what he wants or not, but the funny thing is that the Seven Sisters are collapsing in on themselves.
 
The question I guess is Mason is what "goals" does the PCA have that would put it in conflict with the other members of NAPARC?

Because it seems to me that already there exists quite a plethora of differences in philosophy within NAPARC.
 
So do you need a good reason to leave an organization, or a good reason to stay with an organization?
 
The question I guess is Mason is what "goals" does the PCA have that would put it in conflict with the other members of NAPARC?

Because it seems to me that already there exists quite a plethora of differences in philosophy within NAPARC.

I dunno. There seems to be a lot of concern over the possibility of the PCA leaving the NAPARC. My question is, what's the big deal?
 
The question I guess is Mason is what "goals" does the PCA have that would put it in conflict with the other members of NAPARC?

Because it seems to me that already there exists quite a plethora of differences in philosophy within NAPARC.

I dunno. There seems to be a lot of concern over the possibility of the PCA leaving the NAPARC. My question is, what's the big deal?
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.
 
What I want to know has already been asked: What is NAPARC "preventing" the PCA from doing? I know a hot topic in the PCA right now is deaconesses, but I don't see NAPARC being anti-deaconess. Both the ARP and the RPCNA allow for women deacons and they are members of NAPARC. I wonder if this desire to leave NAPARC is more a result of NAPARC's recent adoption of their "Comity Agreement."? Perhaps the PCA doesn't like being told where to plant churches?

There are many other reasons some folks in the PCA could want out of NAPARC, but that is the most charitable I can think of.
 
Seth:

Haven't been keeping up with NAPARC of late. Could you clarify please? I thought the comity agreement went back pretty much to day 1 of NAPARC.
 
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.
 
As a Baptist weary of the needless separation between innumerable Baptist bodies (I don't remember any Baptist forefather being promised that his eccelesiastical seed would lead to more denominations than the sands of the sea) AND the drift among the mainline Baptists into heresy (making some kinds of unity flat out wrong), I was kindof impressed that the Reformed had an organization joining all of the orthodox Presbyterians into one fellowship. It seems a little sad that the strategic planning team of the largest conservative Presbyterian body is proposing one more separation.
 
NAPARC may have its limits. Too often one denomination plants a church next to a struggling NAPARC sister denomination’s struggling work without any real consultation. One can not assume members moving from one NAPARC congregation to another town will find a compatible NAPARC body to which they will transfer.

However, NAPARC is the best expression of organic unity we have within the confessional Reformed community in North America. To abandon it is to say such unity is unimportant.

The only advantage I can imagine for he PCA leaving NAPARC would be a less restricted relationship with the EPC. The EPC is a denomination where around 60 percent of their members are in congregations of 1000 or more. That may look like success to some. There are some great folk in the EPC, where I served for 17 years, some solidly Reformed. But, the EPC is a bridge denomination where many might move in a more confessional direction, while others will move more toward broad Evangelicalism.

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.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

I’d like to know the criterion for determining or recognizing “bodies of believers being spiritually blessed..”
 
I had the privilege of sitting in on some NAPARC meetings this past fall, and was impressed by the spirit of unity that was clearly linked to a common doctrinal foundation, and which overflowed in a unified desire to further the Kingdom of Christ. There were significant evidences of cooperation and accountability on both practical and spiritual levels between the denominations.

It is completely beyond me why any confessional denomination would want to leave this behind.

It seems that they feel that they are giving more than they are receiving, which is not a problem but rather a blessing. (Acts 20:35) Smaller denominations like ours genuinely appreciate and benefit from teaching and other contributions that larger denominations make to the Reformed world.

The question that nags at me... are the conservative, smaller denominations an anchor that they would rather shed?
 
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?

One thing that members of denominations in NAPARC "gain" is the freedom to visit other denominations more freely. I know when I attend some RPCNA churches I can take communion there because I am a member of a NAPARC church. This is a very good "gain" because I don't like to be excommunicated, even briefly during a visit to a church. I'm not saying that the church HAS to have that as a requirement, but some do (or at least used to when I have visited in the past).

Another gain is we are more presbyterian then. Although I think it is an impossible goal to have this side of glory because of many incompatible beliefs, I personally don't like to see divisions in the Church at all (even broad ones like Presbyterian/Baptist, etc). We, despite what the phone book looks like under "churches," are ONE BODY. NAPARC allows us to be sort of consistent with that belief while allowing freedom for incompatible doctrines to still exist. For example, some believe that we are supposed to sing hymns and not just Psalms, whereas others believe we are to sing only Psalms. It is impossible to reconcile these beliefs under one roof, so there is room for both churches to exist, inter- and intra-denominationally, and NAPARC helps to unify those beliefs that are held in common.

The question I guess is Mason is what "goals" does the PCA have that would put it in conflict with the other members of NAPARC?

Because it seems to me that already there exists quite a plethora of differences in philosophy within NAPARC.

I dunno. There seems to be a lot of concern over the possibility of the PCA leaving the NAPARC. My question is, what's the big deal?
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.

Pastor Greco, That is a great idea and I think would bring comfort to many of us in the PCA.

Because I do not understand the politics of this, just who exactly suggested this? Who is in charge of the strategic plan? And what does it even mean?
 
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?

One thing that members of denominations in NAPARC "gain" is the freedom to visit other denominations more freely. I know when I attend some RPCNA churches I can take communion there because I am a member of a NAPARC church. This is a very good "gain" because I don't like to be excommunicated, even briefly during a visit to a church. I'm not saying that the church HAS to have that as a requirement, but some do (or at least used to when I have visited in the past).

Another gain is we are more presbyterian then. Although I think it is an impossible goal to have this side of glory because of many incompatible beliefs, I personally don't like to see divisions in the Church at all (even broad ones like Presbyterian/Baptist, etc). We, despite what the phone book looks like under "churches," are ONE BODY. NAPARC allows us to be sort of consistent with that belief while allowing freedom for incompatible doctrines to still exist. For example, some believe that we are supposed to sing hymns and not just Psalms, whereas others believe we are to sing only Psalms. It is impossible to reconcile these beliefs under one roof, so there is room for both churches to exist, inter- and intra-denominationally, and NAPARC helps to unify those beliefs that are held in common.

Your post reminds me of this article by Dr. Godfrey: Modern Reformation - Articles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top