Reforming the three groups in the PCA?

[Brother John]

My questions deals specifically with the reported make up of the PCA membership in Dr Bryan Chapell's video Presbyterian Church in America2010StrategicPlan. For the sake of the thread let us use the three groups described in the video. The three groups outlined are "Hungry Progressives", "The Vast Middle" and "The Hold Fast Conservatives". These are the descriptions I got from the video.

"Hungry Progressives" - Involved in outreach and cultural transformation and this is where the PCA should be headed. PCA to narrow, inward backwards, regional, parochial and therefore not making the progress it should.

"The Vast Middle" - Proud to be PCA and love our commitments to Scripture and the Confession.

"Hold Fast Conservatives" - PCA is to broad, lax in its standards and becoming liberal. PCA not holding fast to the commitments of the church as a whole.

QUESTIONS
1) In the practice of biblical "Semper Reformanda" should we be looking to adopt the correct Biblical practices and beliefs of each of the three groups and abandon the non Biblical practices and beliefs of them?

2) If YES to the first question: For the individual Christian how do we go about accomplishing this. How do we get passed the three "groups" to be a Biblical Christian who is daily striving to "Semper Reformanda" in all areas? What would that look like?

3) Do you think the groups described in the videos are accurate?

I know the question seems self explanatory but if it is so simple than why does the PCA have these three groups.

 

[Scott1]

I wouldn't characterize my brethren is such a way and am not sure members themselves would even put themselves in such simplistic categories.

Is this even charitable, let alone fair characterization, or even helpful?

 

[Theoretical]

I wouldn't characterize my brethren is such a way and am not sure members themselves would even put themselves in such simplistic categories.

Is this even charitable, let alone fair characterization, or even helpful?

When Dr. Chapell was presenting it, it seemed patronizing to all three groups and also fit the modern fondness of "let's put people into disparaging categories so that everyone looks bad." Usually the strategy's done to try to make the presenter look above and more insightful than those placed into categories.

 

[Brother John]

I never said that I agree with the three groups. The first time I watched the video I was very disappointed by the treatment of the "groups". But apparently the leadership of the PCA does agree with these groups or they would not have posted such a video. Whatever we choose to "label" the divisions I do see that they exist, at least in my church and from the "prominent" churches I read about. I do think it is helpful to address this issue. If I worded my question incorrectly than forgive me but I still stand behind the worthiness of the question. There are different groups within the PCA, each group has things that are most important to them. Whether these things are Biblical or not is another question. So why can we not humbly look at the groups and accept where some brothers have been more Biblical than others and leave behind where we have all been non Biblical. I am more interested in being Biblical than defending a group. With that said I still struggle with how to achieve this and that is why I posted the question.

 

[Scott1]

The post is not the source,
the video is the source.

The video is alone responsible for that.

The difficulties remain with knowing even what is meant by such simplistic categories, let alone whether elders themselves would categorize themselves in such terms, whether they are accurate, complete, charitable, etc.

 

[Philip]

Personally, I prefer Tim Keller's characterization of Culturalists, Evangelicals, and Doctrinalists---for one thing, he himself admits that he himself generally falls into a culturalist mindset. For another, it's a useful tool for understanding how we can learn from past mistakes where one or two groups kicked another out or ignored others and ended up poorer for it.

My take here is that whatever overly-simplistic grouping you use, it is important to realize that these are less defined positions and more emphases which various individuals stress. All of these things are important, even if we can't always agree on what the proper balance should be. It's important to go ahead and acknowledge the differences and try to learn from one another. I freely acknowledge that I fall into something of a progressive/culturalist category, which is why I need good solid doctrinalist/conservative folks influencing me.

 

[Jack K]

No individual likes to be categorized. But sometimes labels, when applied charitably to general strains of thought rather than to individuals, do help us understand what's going on.

This reminds me of Keller's talk at the Genreal Assembly in which he identified "doctrinal," "pietist," and "culture-engaging" wings of the PCA. I think Keller's talk holds deeper insights in that he includes the "pietists" and does not necessarly put everyone on a continuum with two ends, in opposition. It's more like three circles that intersect in places. Keller was also careful to speak positively about each wing's important contributions. His talk resonated with me because I feel I've seen each of these wings in the PCA.

In the practice of biblical "Semper Reformanda" should we be looking to adopt the correct Biblical practices and beliefs of each of the three groups and abandon the non Biblical practices and beliefs of them?

Exactly! All wings need to be repenting and reforming. In addition, they need to be humble enough to learn from each other. I've particularly seen hard-core "doctrinal" folks who're so irked with those who aren't as doctrinal as they are that they cannot learn anything from those people. And equally, I've seen hard-core "cultural-engaging" folks or "pietist" folks who're so irked with those who spout doctrine that they're missing good doctrine.

 

[greenbaggins]

I also have some problems with the categorizing. For instance, if one is using the old definition of "evangelical," would cheerfully acknowledge that I belong in that category. Most people would regard me as a doctrinalist. However, I also love engaging culture. So which category do I fall into? I'm sure that Keller and Chapell would acknowledge some "soft boundaries" among these three categories, but it is difficult to pigeonhole people.

If I had to do so, I would use four categories, not three, and would root them to how close they stick to the standards of the church. So, you have strong confessionalists, who believe that very few (if any) exceptions should be allowed (I would put myself here); moderate confessionalists, who mostly adhere to the standards, but are willing to allow more broad types in the Presbytery; broadly evangelical, who are themselves not excessively concerned about the standards, and are willing also to have significant non-confessional teaching in their Presbytery; and lastly, the liberal-progressives, who believe that we should rid ourselves of the standards.

Now, did you all notice how I prejudiced the discussion by slanting it in favor of the one issue-fidelity to the confession?

 

[Philip]

Lane, your categorization is exactly why I dislike Chappel's. It puts things on a scale, whereas Keller's is more about emphasis (Jack, thanks for your correction of my badly-remembered terminology). Most on this board tend to be doctrinalist, putting confessional adherence as the primary focus, whereas a pietist would emphasize personal sanctity and relationship with God, while a culturalist will be more interested in issues like social action, the arts, and in church may focus on a richer liturgy (within the bounds of the confession, which is rather a broad interpretation in the PCA).

I think it's also right to say that these wings obviously blend into one another. Kuyper, for instance, was a culturalist with strong doctrinalist leanings. Finney, though, was such a pietist and culturalist that he forgot his doctrine. Old Princeton, in contrast, put so much emphasis on doctrine that they've sometimes been labelled rationalist.

I agree with Jack that we all have something to learn from one another, which is precisely why I joined this board in the first place.

 

[TimV]

Hows this:

1: People who believe in their vows
2: People who didn't know what they were vowing
3: People who believe vows are non binding, since they're beyond primitive concepts like good and evil

 

[Jack K]

If I had to do so, I would use four categories, not three, and would root them to how close they stick to the standards of the church. So, you have strong confessionalists, who believe that very few (if any) exceptions should be allowed (I would put myself here); moderate confessionalists, who mostly adhere to the standards, but are willing to allow more broad types in the Presbytery; broadly evangelical, who are themselves not excessively concerned about the standards, and are willing also to have significant non-confessional teaching in their Presbytery; and lastly, the liberal-progressives, who believe that we should rid ourselves of the standards.

Now, did you all notice how I prejudiced the discussion by slanting it in favor of the one issue-fidelity to the confession?

Yes, with a sly smile I would agree that your proclivity to categorize things based on the confession puts you solidly in the "doctrinal," or "confessional" if you prefer, camp.

More important is your helpful observation that being "doctrinal" in orientation doesn't mean you aren't evangelical or that you have no interest at all in piety or in engaging the culture. Likewise, the fact that some other person doesn't first think in doctrinal terms doesn't necessarily mean his doctrine is lax or the confessions not precious to him. The boundaries are indeed soft, as they should be.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

Hows this:

1: People who believe in their vows
2: People who didn't know what they were vowing
3: People who believe vows are non binding, since they're beyond primitive concepts like good and evil

Uh-huh. Spoken like a very good doctrinalist.

 

[py3ak]

Originally Posted by TimV
Hows this:

1: People who believe in their vows
2: People who didn't know what they were vowing
3: People who believe vows are non binding, since they're beyond primitive concepts like good and evil
Uh-huh. Spoken like a very good doctrinalist.

I don't know: you could argue that makes him a pietist, since he cares about matters of personal piety, such as honesty.