Study Committees

Discussion in 'Church Order' started by A.Joseph, Aug 2, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    In light of Pastor Johnson’s recent tweet, I wonder who determines what matters are going to be taken up? Do church members have a say? Who is best represented by these committees? How transparent are they? Are the individual leanings of committee members taken into consideration.... by those who accept their recommendations ? How has Pastor Johnson not been removed?
  2. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    Why doesn’t Johnson just join a liberal denomination? This is merely incrementalism. Instead of dragging the PCA there, why not just leave for one that has already arrived?
  3. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Moving to polity. In future, and reminder to all, don't simply post in the general forum when as here clearly there are seveal appropriate forums for it. Also please provide context to those not up on an issue, as here with the latest PCA controversy.
  4. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

  5. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    So like the CrossPolitic guys said, the same case can be made for pedophilia as acknowledged identity and not something deeply shameful to be delivered from and put to death. What is there to study?
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  6. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Well, since that exact topic is not covered in the confessions, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide some responses that are grounded in the confessions and scripture, like the ARP I am hoping someone is able to provide analysis on the study committee to get a sense of the direction it will go. Kevin DeYoung is on it, and so that is a positive; I think he speaks/writes clearly and his speech on the Nashville statement was pretty clear where he stand (). You also have a study committee in his presbytery that already tackled this topic
  7. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    Ok, thanks! My final question, why does Johnson believe a committee legitimizes his side of the debate to the point of acceptance of gay Christianity?
  8. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    So gay pastors are acceptable, despite that previous committees concern regarding minimizing the effects of sin? Do they now need another committee for a stronger condemnation of gay Christianity including the disqualification of church leaders who label themselves thus? Why does the women in leadership issue keep coming up? How binding are these committee determinations? It seems like a slow wearing down process of coming at these issue from different angles...

    Nobody is seeking to throw Pastor Johnson out in the cold. PCA and the Lord claims him, but he must step down and be restored, if the church truly loves him they will be clear and continue to counsel him.

    Is DeYoung’s statement really that earth shattering. That’s been the Church’s position all along.... hasn’t it?
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  9. Ryan&Amber2013

    Ryan&Amber2013 Puritan Board Junior

    Did I hear that right? John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John Frame, etc., struggle with same sex attraction? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's true, it sounds like homosexual struggles may be more common than I thought.
  10. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Which committee is that?

    Maybe someone who is better versed in presbyterian polity can speak to the best recourse. I hope discipline steps are taken, but I could see there being some benefit to have a report that the GA, churches, presbytery could also look to. That may just be my ignorance in the nuances of the PCA polities.

    I certainly agree that we can't just speak (aka approve overtures, create reports), without action (aka discipline procedures). Some on this board have argued that the allowance of loose subscription to the confessions is a problem in the PCA. It seems like loose subscription makes it more challenging for discipline with the death by a thousand nuances.

    I do not think they are binding. Wouldn't you need to go through the process of amending the BCO or confession, which is a much harder task (see below). I couldn't find an answer in the BCO to your question on binding.

  11. Ryan&Amber2013

    Ryan&Amber2013 Puritan Board Junior

    Kevin Deyoung straight up says it in the video clip. Start at 3 minutes.
  12. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    My guess is that that statement applies to the second group including Mrs. Butterfield. There was a pause or something after the first group which was a list of famous folks who signed the Nashville statement. He was up against the clock and I guess rushed the two together?
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    In theory reports are not binding. In practice less than confessional reports set precedent. :rolleyes: The commenting I've heard third hand is that there are several solid men on the committee like DeYoung who would at least ensure a minority report; but that is not a good outcome; needs to be unanimous and biblical.
  14. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Got it. I agree with @NaphtaliPress to the extent that generally these all had signed the Nashville statement. The first group, he bracketed with "these are not extreme men", the second group was the people who "struggle with same sex attraction", so two categories of people who thought the statement worthwhile.

    Aka women study report. I do not know anything about the [other] members, but the way you state it ("several solid men"), doesn't lend much confidence in this study committee.
  15. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Let's see what happens. Frankly, we need revival and reformation to turn back this decline/compromise with the fast declining culture. If the report does not come back next year at Birmingham, but is pushed off a year to the St Louis GA, politics is at play as that is of course the center of where much of this comes from.
  16. Backwoods Presbyterian

    Backwoods Presbyterian Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Just a polity clarification for others, but ARP Position Statements (the Aquila Report story referenced above, better link here ) are binding in our denomination.
  17. RWD

    RWD Puritan Board Freshman

    I think he was referring to the second list of relatively unknowns. But yeah, that gave me occasion for pause too.
  18. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    I believe somebody recently mentioned Trueman on another thread, but yes, he basically makes the case that the Westminster Standards basically covers the majority of the issues (taken up by these committees/& statements) by their positive positions on marriage, manhood, womanhood, treating fellow man, men in leadership, etc... If an issue wasn’t addressed it is because it is so far out of bounds and we live in a day of normalization and acceptance of sin and sinful desire (in opposition to Gods ordinance and design) when in reality it cuts deep into our very core. The way is truly narrow. I fear we keep forgetting.

    He promotes study reports via the RPC
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
  19. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    Pastor Greg Johnson says he knew he was gay at age 11, and yet he kept this knowledge hidden...

    Isn’t this also a problem? If he knew acknowledging sin identity was wrong, when did he change his mind? There is too much missing to his story. He seems to have too much crusader in him for this position not to be a strategic play with years of preparation and willful theological ignorance...

    I think he could have been a help to those who struggle, but he’s obviously doing it wrong...

    It seems like he’d prefer the limelight.

    If he is sincere, what good does acknowledgement of a perverted, corrupted identity and identification do him? It would only bring further shame. He is free to admit his struggles but he is not free to be identified by them. That is too much to ask of his faithful brethren and of His Lord. I don’t see a Godly priority or sanctified mindset in his thought process which is alarming for a Reformed pastor.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
  20. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Sophomore

    At Reformed Forum, “Daniel Schrock speaks about self-conception in light of the Revoice movement and the Nashville Statement. Looking to the believers’ union with Christ in his death and resurrection, Schrock provides a way to answer questions such as, “Is it proper to speak of being gay as a Christian’s identity?” The basis of this episode is Schrock’s article, “The Gospel and Self-Conception: A Defense of Article 7 of the Nashville Statement.”
  21. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    Just to be clear, DeYoung was not saying that these signatories were all gay.

    The context of Kevin's remarks needs to be kept in mind. There was a contingent boh in Overtures and on the floor of GA arguing that this was some sort of theologically imbalanced or harmful or extreme statement.

    DeYoung is basically "naming names" to demonstrate: "Look these people I'm naming are not extreme individuals who have signed this statement."
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page