PCA vs. OPC

Status
Not open for further replies.
The proposed mergers went:

PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).

Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).

The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and rejected the OPC. This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.

At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.

Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.

When I first joined the OPC in 1996, I was regaled with lots of stories about the "joining and receiving" efforts between the OPC and the PCA of 20 years before. To a man, all those who told me this history were greatly relieved that it didn't happen. They all felt it was a case of the 800-pound gorilla (the PCA) swallowing the OPC whole, then spitting out the bones. Dark stories were told to me about OPC churches that had been lured into the PCA with promises of big $$ for ministry, etc., only to find that, after joining the PCA, they found themselves, in time, with their OPC guys replaced by PCA guys, and being told, in effect, "You belong to us, now, boy!"

Don't know if any of those latter "dark stories" are actually true. But I can say that my general impression is OPC people believe that the OPC "dodged a bullet" by not accepting the "joining and receiving" efforts, and are very glad that it didn't happen.
 
Adam,

Any chance you could email me a copy of the paper? (Even better if you have the material from your interaction with that Session. :)

No problem, it'll just have to wait until after I get back in town on the 9th. I don't have anything written by that session, but I'll speak with them again to make sure that I correctly understood their additional point.
 
This is not a criticism, but an observation. Over the years I've noticed that the most assertive elders I've known have been OP. My guess is that they may be a little better trained (partly because of the homogeneity, size, and relatively stronger emphasis on the confessions etc) in the OP.

As a matter of praxis, I don't see a lot of difference between the two-office PCA and the three-office OPs or URCs for that matter.

In most of the assemblies (classes, presbyteries, synods, and GAs) I've attended, the ministers did most of the talking and most of the committee work.

That's natural. The ministers are usually the only persons who are employed full-time by most of our congregations. Most REs bring wisdom and experience and piety (as they should) but they don't usually bring as much specialized training.

rsc

Bruce,

I agree with your criticisms of the PCA, but many REs I have met would object to the thought that the OPC is free of clericalism. In fact, many that I know have basically given up on being able to do anything or have any influence in Presbytery or GA. At the higher courts, only the TEs really matter.
 
No problem, it'll just have to wait until after I get back in town on the 9th. I don't have anything written by that session, but I'll speak with them again to make sure that I correctly understood their additional point.

Adam,

Please post that in the Journal section of the Theology forum...
 
Also if the PCA merges with the EPC then that may close all chances of an OPC merger.

I don't think there needs to be a merger, or even talk of merger. I've been a member in both the PCA and OPC. After growing up in the OPC, I spent many years in the PCA as a young adult. My wife and I left the PCA for the OPC purposely. We find the OPC to be much more conservative.

And I like the name "Orthodox Presbyterian"; for people looking for a church, it causes one to think that there may be something different about this church, as opposed to PCUSA PCA etc. etc. and there certainly is.

Just my :2cents:
 
The PCA is broader than the OP, no doubt, but there are Warfieldians, Klineans (including Meredith himself!), as well as followers of Hoeksema et al in the OPC.

rsc

I have no doubt the membership of the OPC is broadly reformed. How many teaching elders would we find that are agree with Warfield, or Hoeksema or Gerstner?

When Dr. Gerstner finally left the old liberal Presbyterian Church could he have been received into the OPC the way he was in the PCA?
 
I think the difference between the OPC & the PCA depends on what part of the country you live in. I was a member of the PCA for many years until they decided they'd like to emulate Willow Creek. I've found that many of the PCA churches "in our area" are very much like "evangelical free churches" rather than Presbyterian. There is very little emphasis on the sacraments & worship is more like a rock concert geared toward the "seeker friendly". I could never understand why so many renegade churches are tolerated in the PCA but my understanding is that it's not that way in all parts of the country.

I love & pray for the PCA but I would not like to see a merger with the OPC until or unless the renegade churches were brought back to Presbyterian standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top