BGF
Puritan Board Sophomore
So this personal resolution was offered at the 43rd PCA General Assembly. Overtures sent it to the full assembly with the recommendation to refer the matter to the 44th assembly. I watched much of the hours long debate online and I am confident that the Committee was not just kicking the can down the road but felt it needed to be dealt with carefully, completely and in all wisdom. If you choose to read the personal resolution and are familiar with the debate (or even if you can imagine the various arguments that would arise in such a debate)I have several questions that I would love you all to interact with.
1. Has the PCA confessed and repented of these sins in the past?
2. What exactly must the PCA confess and repent of? I know the resolution states gives a brief statement of what is to be confessed, but this was partly born, apparently, out of historical research done by Sean Lucas. We have the resolution without any specifics. I, for one, would be interested to see the results of that research.
3. Should this be a call for the the entire denom., or for local bodies to confess and repent as necessary? What role does the connectional nature of the PCA play?
4. What responsibility does the PCA as a body have for the sins committed by churches that belonged to another body at the time the sins were committed? Is historical continuity relevant? By this I point out the fact that the PCA does not disavow Presbyterian history before its creation, but claims it as its own.
5. If confession is made, repentance expressed, and forgiveness sought, what responsibility does the offended party have?
The debate on whether to refer the resolution or to reconvene the committee to deal with it now was lengthy, periodically passionate, and probably frustrating to many of the commissioners. I commend all those present for wanting to seriously and honestly deal with it, even if there was disagreement.
1. Has the PCA confessed and repented of these sins in the past?
2. What exactly must the PCA confess and repent of? I know the resolution states gives a brief statement of what is to be confessed, but this was partly born, apparently, out of historical research done by Sean Lucas. We have the resolution without any specifics. I, for one, would be interested to see the results of that research.
3. Should this be a call for the the entire denom., or for local bodies to confess and repent as necessary? What role does the connectional nature of the PCA play?
4. What responsibility does the PCA as a body have for the sins committed by churches that belonged to another body at the time the sins were committed? Is historical continuity relevant? By this I point out the fact that the PCA does not disavow Presbyterian history before its creation, but claims it as its own.
5. If confession is made, repentance expressed, and forgiveness sought, what responsibility does the offended party have?
The debate on whether to refer the resolution or to reconvene the committee to deal with it now was lengthy, periodically passionate, and probably frustrating to many of the commissioners. I commend all those present for wanting to seriously and honestly deal with it, even if there was disagreement.