RIP PCA?

[NaphtaliPress]

It started immediately far as I recall. "Calvin held to a sort of deaconess as an office. You wouldn't want to call Calvin a liberal would you?"

It has only been 2 days since the decision to form a committee was made. Already I'm seeing FB posts in which various TEs are openly saying that the Bible permits deaconesses. This was never about studying an issue - as if this was an honest question, it was about obtaining legitimacy for un-confessional beliefs.

 

[Inactiver user19912]

Question: could an amendment not have been offered on the floor to strip some of that problematic wording, remove the question of ordination, and simply ask for a study committee helping to provide pastoral advice on how women can serve effectively within the confines of our Constitution? I know Confessionalists wouldn't have liked that, but surely it would have been better to answering the CMC's recommendations with the problematic language in the affirmative.

That never came up in the CoC meeting. The substitute motion was made to answer in the negative with grounds and debate went on from there.

 

[Covenant Joel]

That never came up in the CoC meeting. The substitute motion was made to answer in the negative with grounds and debate went on from there.

But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.

 

[Inactiver user19912]

But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.

I'm not sure about that. In God's Providence, the assembly dealt with the CoC recommendation as we sent it. In retrospect, I'm surprised that no one offered anything different to see if it was in order. I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

[AndyS]

Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?

That would be nice. Judging by the piece in the online version of By Faith, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Any chance this study committee will address the current practice at some PCA churches of installing women deacons using the same language as ordinaion?

That would be nice. Judging by the piece in the online version of By Faith, I won't hold my breath.

The PCA church I attended for 12 years used bizarre language when referring to WIC. They even had an pseudo ordination ceremony for them where they were brought in front of the church and the leaders prayed over them. They referred to them as leaders. It creeped me out.

 

[fredtgreco]

But would such an amendment have been allowable on the floor per RAO regulations? I think so, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying that once the substitute motion was defeated, proposing something like that might have been acceptable and perhaps been better.

I'm not sure about that. In God's Providence, the assembly dealt with the CoC recommendation as we sent it. In retrospect, I'm surprised that no one offered anything different to see if it was in order. I'm not sure what to make of that.

The only other thing that could have been done was to move to recommit to the CoC for the purpose of amending the recommendation. I rose immediately to do exactly that. I'm not sure if you can see it on the livestream. But I was not seen by the moderator, and instead others insisting on giving speeches that would not have changed the vote. I was very frustrated, as I hoped that the CoC could have done some good editing - including deleting the conclusions already put for the Pastoral Letter. Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.

 

[jwithnell]

I saw something like that for women deacons and was flabbergasted that the installation used the same wording as for ordination of officers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This does seem to be a problem (i.e never underestimate conservatives grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory, shooting themselves in the foot, etc). What is the solution; is "planning ahead" simply a dirty word for many conservatives?

Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.

 

[fredtgreco]

This does seem to be a problem (i.e never underestimate conservatives grasping defeat out of the jaws of victory, shooting themselves in the foot, etc). What is the solution; is "planning ahead" simply a dirty word for many conservatives?

Another piece of evidence that conservatives don't do their homework and understand how the Assembly works.

I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Often in church history the side that is right is not the lovable, eloquent or best acting side; that can be a judgment/trial of the Lord if He is determined to try His people by having those in error prevail. We cannot see what the Lord's aim is; and in any case still leaves us without excuse to be prepared and wise in our doings.

I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.

 

[Romans922]

Question: could an amendment not have been offered on the floor to strip some of that problematic wording, remove the question of ordination, and simply ask for a study committee helping to provide pastoral advice on how women can serve effectively within the confines of our Constitution? I know Confessionalists wouldn't have liked that, but surely it would have been better to answering the CMC's recommendations with the problematic language in the affirmative.

You can't do amendments from the floor due to the moving all of that to committee work in the last 15 years.

 

[Romans922]

I don't know, Chris. I have to admit that this annoys me to no end. I also believe that when conservatives get to the microphone, it appears to hurt rather than help. So many have lost the ability to give thoughtful, persuasive arguments. It is all shout and bluster.

I agree. Some OPC brethren commented as they watched that there seems to be no actually good logical biblical confessional arguments being made. Sad.

 

[Parakaleo]

In my mind, approving the committee to study the issue does represent a sort of straw-poll and a major lost battle. A study committee is formed, traditionally, to probe into areas of Scripture and theology that are somewhat grey or not completely settled. This unsettled quality is now what has been admitted regarding women's ordination and role in church leadership.

If the PCA is unsettled on a teaching as straightforward and clear in the Scripture as the role of women in the church, God help them. And us all.

 

[Parakaleo]

This now from Andy Webb, a PCA pastor in Fayetteville, NC:

Dear Confessional PCA Brothers, I have asked our session to consider hosting a convocation of sessions this fall, and we will officially vote on the matter on July 9th.
The aim of the convocation would be to gather theologically conservative PCA elders so that we might hear from leading lights on the Confessional side of the aisle and consider, discuss, and pray about the following question:
"In light of recent events in the PCA, should theologically conservative congregations:
1) Stay in the PCA and continue to fight for her theological integrity? (If so how?)
2) Break with the existing PCA and create a continuing PCA denomination? (if so how and when?)
3) Attempt to Join en masse with one of the more conservative Reformed denominations or join individually with whichever denomination would fit the theology of our congregation best? (If so, which option and which denomination?)"
While the final form of the question will be framed by our session, I imagine that we will ask speakers to choose and defend the option they support and recommend.
More details to follow...

 

[TylerRay]

Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?

 

[Covenant Joel]

Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?

I believe it is normally expected that Ad-Interim Committees report to the next Assembly, unless they request more time (as in the case of the recent Insider Movements committee, which submitted Part 1 in 2012, was recommitted in 2013, and then finally completed in 2014).

Dear Confessional PCA Brothers, I have asked our session to consider hosting a convocation of sessions this fall, and we will officially vote on the matter on July 9th. The aim of the convocation would be to gather theologically conservative PCA elders so that we might hear from leading lights on the Confessional side of the aisle and consider, discuss, and pray about the following question: "In light of recent events in the PCA, should theologically conservative congregations:

1) Stay in the PCA and continue to fight for her theological integrity? (If so how?)
2) Break with the existing PCA and create a continuing PCA denomination? (if so how and when?)
3) Attempt to Join en masse with one of the more conservative Reformed denominations or join individually with whichever denomination would fit the theology of our congregation best? (If so, which option and which denomination?)" While the final form of the question will be framed by our session, I imagine that we will ask speakers to choose and defend the option they support and recommend. More details to follow...

Regarding this idea, I would suggest a couple of things:

First, as noted above, I believe that the way commissioners have gone about arguing on the floor for some of these things has not been helpful or effective. So I think some soul-searching is in order before something like this should happen.

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.

Thirdly, what could be more effective than doing #1 (coordinating efforts to fight for the 'conservative' wing of the PCA)? Perhaps I am woefully uninformed, but I wonder if everyone who would attend that meeting would instead invite a 'progressive' brother out to lunch, or pick up the phone and call one of them, and seek to honestly listen and also convey his own concern. Would that help? What if instead of simply raising the specter of liberalism and accusing men of not caring about Scripture, we tried to develop genuine relationships and work through those?

It might not. But posting articles to the Aquila Report and our current speeches on the floor aren't working either. It certainly can't hurt.

 

[DMcFadden]

A question for my PCA friends:

There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).

Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?

 

[Romans922]

Am I correct in assuming that the committee will report to G.A. next year?

RAO 9-2. Only two (2) ad interim study committees may be appointed or continued in any given year, (with no committee continuing with undesignated Administrative Committee funding beyond the third year of its inception and no more than two [2] committees existing in any one [1] year), and any additional committees would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of commissioners, with financing provided from outside the Administrative Committee budget.

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.

This is not just because of a Study Committee being formed. It is due to the continual 'progressive' nature of the PCA.

Perhaps I am woefully uninformed, but I wonder if everyone who would attend that meeting would instead invite a 'progressive' brother out to lunch, or pick up the phone and call one of them, and seek to honestly listen and also convey his own concern. Would that help?

This has been done time and time again with generally no gain.

 

[Covenant Joel]

A question for my PCA friends:

There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).

Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?

I think a simple binary description like that cannot accurately describe something as complex as the PCA. Various attempts have been made to categorize the PCA (Keller, Chapell, Phillips) in the past, all more complex than that and yet all inadequate in various ways.

It may be interesting in light of this thread to read Richard Phillips assessment of General Assembly: PCA GA: Moving Forward Together.

For the 'other side' see Jon Price's comments: Who Decides Who's Confessional?

 

[Covenant Joel]

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.

This is not just because of a Study Committee being formed. It is due to the continual 'progressive' nature of the PCA.

I understand that and have sympathy with it. And yet the study committee formation seems like the precipitating event here. But to discuss leaving before the committee even reports seems premature.

This has been done time and time again with generally no gain.

I'll take your word for it that it has been done. I do know of one case in which it was done very intentionally, and it sure seems to have helped. I also wonder if this effort has been made with the founders of the NP? I.e., rather than open letters denouncing them, personal attempts to communicate?

Having said all this, would I be opposed to a gathering whose purpose was this: "Hey, we've not been very effective at communicating our concerns at the GA level. Let's meet and talk about how we can do that better." If that was the case, not to politic and stack committees, etc (which I know the NP has done unfortunately), and the focus was on how we can be more gracious and winsome and biblical and clear, then I'd be more interested.

But to say: "There's a study committee, so we should talk about whether we should stay or leave," seems premature to me. I think I'd roughly find myself where Rick Phillips in his assessment of GA that I linked to above.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here is another analysis of the recent PCA GA by Terry Johnson.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/a-troubling-turn-pca-general-a.php

 

[Edward]

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.

I would suggest that it is not premature.

1) the trajectory of the PCA has been clear for years.
2) the committee has already been told what the end result will be. Their only job will be to draw up the justification and wrap it in proof text.
3) waiting until a crisis has matured isn't prudent. It took over a decade from the time the initial steps were taken in the PCUS until the PCA was organized. Spontaneous actions take careful planning.

 

[lynnie]

That Terry Johnson article is good. I really liked this line:

I should have moved that we form a study committee to reexamine "the doctrine of the Trinity" or "the dual nature of Christ." What if we moved to form a study committee to reexamine the pros and cons of racial segregation. I trust that the point is obvious. Some issues are closed. Some issues have been studied, discussed, debated, and settled.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Secondly, it seems that making such a proposal as this before the committee reports back seems questionable.

I would suggest that it is not premature.

1) the trajectory of the PCA has been clear for years.
2) the committee has already been told what the end result will be. Their only job will be to draw up the justification and wrap it in proof text.
3) waiting until a crisis has matured isn't prudent. It took over a decade from the time the initial steps were taken in the PCUS until the PCA was organized. Spontaneous actions take careful planning.

Rick Phillips' assessment is different:

I am on record as opposing revisions to the PCA's polity when it comes to women in ordained office (e.g. see this post), and I voted against the study committee. I was also distressed to see a contentious matter like this come from the top in a denomination that has been committed to a bottom-up polity, and I signed the protest against the moderator's ruling. Yet, without wishing to prejudice the study committee's work, I will be astonished if it recommends the ordination of women to the office of deacon. This would be a truly divisive movement and I believe it is contrary to the majority view of our denomination. Moreover, the practice of some churches to install but not ordain women to diaconal service is already permitted by the language of our Book of Church Order (BCO) and churches have been practicing this in the PCA since its expansion in 1982. In short, churches on the left that demand women's ordination to office and those on the right who cannot tolerate women's non-ordained service with diaconates will have voted with their feet long before now. In my view, concerned PCA members should prayerfully support the work of this study committee, with what I think is a reasonable hope of a helpful and minimally provocative outcome.

I would basically agree with his assessment, and I, like him, would have voted against the study committee with the wording set up the way it was.

 

[Edward]

The best way to keep the denomination in the center is to push back as hard from the right as the other side is pushing from the left.

Remember, it took a presbytery threatening to pull out to get actual progress (as opposed to words) on the Louisiana situation.

 

[Covenant Joel]

The best way to keep the denomination in the center is to push back as hard from the right as the other side is pushing from the left.

Remember, it took a presbytery threatening to pull out to get actual progress (as opposed to words) on the Louisiana situation.

I highly doubt that a group threatening to leave would effect much change at this point, considering that it has been threatened for years. And particularly considering that many well known conservatives do not seem to be assessing the situation in the same way (see Phillips' quote above).

I do agree however that those who are concerned about these issues should push. But I believe they have been doing that, only very ineffectively. Doubling down on the current strategy seems unlikely to be effective going forward. Thus I suggest approaching it differently.

 

[DMcFadden]

A question for my PCA friends:

There are a number of conservative/confessional denominations in the US (both Reformed and Lutheran). Most of them have what might be called a "confessional" wing and a "missional" wing. The confessionalists hold to whatever confessional standards the denonmination claims (e.g., Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, Book of Concord). The other side tries to ape the broad evangelicals with all of the silly trendiness that applies there (e.g., flirting with church growth ideology, Big Box worship style, egalitarianism,and Biologos theistic evolution).

Does this typology apply to the PCA? And, how would you "wise heads" describe the percentages of pastors/churches on each end?

I think a simple binary description like that cannot accurately describe something as complex as the PCA. Various attempts have been made to categorize the PCA (Keller, Chapell, Phillips) in the past, all more complex than that and yet all inadequate in various ways.

It may be interesting in light of this thread to read Richard Phillips assessment of General Assembly: PCA GA: Moving Forward Together.

For the 'other side' see Jon Price's comments: Who Decides Who's Confessional?

OK, I get that you don't like my question or the continuum that is implied by a "left to right" typology. The same could be said about American politics categorized in terms of left and right. It will always be more complex than that. But, political scientists regularly speak of the percentages of people in America who self-identify as left, middle, and right. All I'm asking is that someone in the PCA who can speak knowledgeably (this does not mean authoritatively), could give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.

Thanks, btw, for the articles. They were quite helpful.

 

[Covenant Joel]

OK, I get that you don't like my question or the continuum that is implied by a "left to right" typology. The same could be said about American politics categorized in terms of left and right. It will always be more complex than that. But, political scientists regularly speak of the percentages of people in America who self-identify as left, middle, and right. All I'm asking is that someone in the PCA who can speak knowledgeably (this does not mean authoritatively), could give me an idea how the PCA distributes itself at present. That would help me (as an outsider) to understand the current debate more fully.

Thanks, btw, for the articles. They were quite helpful.

Fair enough. My own guess is that on the continuum, the far left side and far right side are actually both pretty small, not more than 10% each. So the middle is probably the largest section, with probably pretty even distribution on which side of the line they lean (if we were to use left and right in this way, which is not entirely fair I think). But considering that in 2015, only 1,400 commissioners attended (roughly 1000 of which were TEs), that leaves an awful lot of both TEs (I think they total over 4,000 if memory serves) and REs (way more) unrepresented. So even GA votes probably don't really tell us that much about the large majority of elders' views.

Perhaps more useful is comparing the different attempts that have been made:

Bryan Chapell: The State of the PCA (2015)
Rick Phillips: Dear Bryan: Replying to the State of the PCA (2015)
Dewey Roberts: Qualifying the State of the PCA (2015)
Tim Keller: What's so Great about the PCA (2010, long)

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I could locate quickly.

 

[Edward]

But I believe they have been doing that, only very ineffectively. Doubling down on the current strategy seems unlikely to be effective going forward. Thus I suggest approaching it differently.

And that is what the North Carolina folks are trying to do - brainstorm on what the response should be. While you seem to be arguing for the status quo.