When does the Big Tent become too Big, article series on PCA by Ron Gleason

[NaphtaliPress]

Interesting article series. Thoughts?

In this series of articles (Part I), we are asking a question that it seems few in the PCA wish to address, namely, within the context of a “big tent” mentality where more and more is becoming accepted and acceptable, when does the “big tent” become too big? We would also like to know who makes that decision and how it is decided, because currently it seems that no one is willing to tackle those questions.
​

When Does the “Big Tent” Become “Too” Big? A Look at the PCA Prior to General Assembly (Part I)

When Does the “Big Tent” Become “Too” Big? A Look at the PCA Prior to General Assembly (Part II)

When Does the “Big Tent” Become “Too” Big? A Look at the PCA Prior to General Assembly (Part III)

 

[Kevin]

i posted some thought over at Vintage73

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So?

 

[Romans922]

I posted a comment about Kevin's post but it was deleted by the moderators.

Tim had just said the following so you get the context of what I am responding to:

I don't want to get sidetracked on this, so I'll just say this and move on: Kevin took issue with Ron's views (not ad hominem). Ron responded with sarcasm, accusing Kevin of being intolerant and judgmental (definitely ad hominem).

Now let's get back to substance.
​

I responded with the following which was deleted by moderation:

I say the following in a calm tone, but with zeal as well without any unjust malice or slander per the commenting regulations of this blog. Tim, I don't want to get sidetracked either, which is why this is on topic. Bottom line is this: TE Rogers said something very ridiculous and uncharitable about Dr. Gleason - that his worship views are made up in part of "Semper Fi, Texas GOP, Americanism." That's quite an insult, and an unsubstantiated one. Most of the response, if not all of it, is a straw man and red herring. Maybe it isn’t ad hominem, but it is uncharitable and judgmental as Dr. Gleason himself pointed out. There were only a few statements about American politics in all three of Dr. Gleason’s articles combined; all of which didn’t make up the main point of the articles. Yet that’s what makes up the substance of TE Rogers’ post. There is really nothing of substance from Dr. Gleason’s articles that are dealt with by TE Rogers. It seems like the attempt in this post is to dismiss Dr. Gleason’s articles because it is supposedly about things unique to Americans. Instead of doing that, why are we not interacting with the substance of his articles? The only thing of substance that is addressed is alone in this one sentence of opinion, “And yes I am glad that we do not suffer from a uniformity of style or expression of worship."

Needless to say, I agree with Dr. Gleason. To answer Chris' question, the tent becomes too big when we start misusing Scripture and casting out the foundational doctrines of inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture all in the name of 'good faith' subscription. In the PCA, when we are knowingly break the agreed upon church polity of the BCO, and shoving our rebellion in the PCA's face.

Who makes the decision? The Lord alone is Lord of the conscience. So Scripture does. We could limit this strictly to a 'worship' conversation, and we see some/much (however you want to describe it) as already breaking Deut. 12 and the Regulative Principle of Worship. When we do that knowingly and desirously, the tent has become too big.

Dr. Gleason addresses this in the second article when he says,

What I am saying is that many of our current controversies are not based on questions of biblical exegesis. In fact, in many of these attempts at change, biblical exegesis is nowhere to be found. As often as not, the arguments are almost purely arguments from culture.

Dr. Gleason then expounds heavily upon this in the third article.

This is a good quote from William Brenton Greene Jr.,

"Broad Churchism…in all of its forms, is characterized by more or less of indifference to truth. It is ecclesiastical utilitarianism. Distinctions in polity and in doctrine it would overlook or ignore or deny because of the greater efficiency which it is supposed that organic union would secure.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

How about we start this fresh; the thread is about Gleason's series, not what has unfolded at another commentator's spot. Posts here within the rules will not be deleted.

 

[Rufus]

My heart is grieved right now. Joy is away at the moment and I just called her and asked how her Lord’s Day worship was. She visited another PCA church and what she described made me incredibly sad. Church calendar traditions, stations of the cross, copious apologies for supernaturalism, a muddled message with no clear Gospel proclamation, kneeling to receive communion, children invited to come up and partake.

I didn't know it was that bad. Although in reality how often does such stuff happen?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It has been my long held belief that all of the NAPARC churches (and those in non-NAPARC denominations that can and want to join in) should hold a grand Synod where we join together in a honest and real discussion about many of these issues Dr. Gleason brings up. The current pamphlet war going in Reformed circles (especially with the mock outrage over "tone" and "sarcasm") is frankly becoming immature and wasteful.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What the series misses in my opinion is the oversight of the session and presbytery. What are these good men doing as the erosion spoken of is happening within their midst?

AMR

 

[Scott1]

I have not read the posts.

Understanding how these terms are being used in our current vernacular, things are not what they seem.

Biblically, our goal as a peculiar people,

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

is to live individually, in family and in covenant community to glorify God in everything we do. That begins with reforming our lives daily by the Word of God in every aspect to be obedient to our God, and it is an ongoing process that does not complete in this life.

That means trying, by God's grace, to keep life patterns in obedience to God's Word- enjoying the weekly Christian sabbath, tithing cheerfully at every level, refraining from worldliness and all its attributes. It means substantially loving and serving your family and God's people in community right where you are (covenant community) as priority of your time, money and effort in this life, as unto the Lord.

It means not becoming unduly distracted or fascinated by the (fleeting) ways of this world, but rather to live by, through and in light of the ordinary means of grace God has appointed for His people. So that God will receive glory.

If "big tent" means doing that, it is biblical.

If it means appealing to any other imagined notions of men, it is at best, vane and distracting, and at worst deceitful and idolatry (and of the most detestable kind).

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

What I found ironic in reading Dr. Gleason's series is that his opponents in the PCA cite "ethics" and that to the minimizing of "doctrine". However, it is not ethical to hold false doctrines, and it is not ethical to take vows before Christ to your Church's Standards and then surreptitiously work to erode them, or to ignore them altogether.

 

[Unoriginalname]

What I found ironic in reading Dr. Gleason's series is that his opponents in the PCA cite "ethics" and that to the minimizing of "doctrine". However, it is not ethical to hold false doctrines, and it is not ethical to take vows before Christ to your Church's Standards and then surreptitiously work to erode them, or to ignore them altogether.

Something also has to give with the tone policing that is squashing any frank discussion of any important issue. If anything this tone policing is the "Americanism" that is spilling over into our religion. Presbyterianism has seemed to baptize political correctness when it comes to its own internal debates.

 

[Philip]

Something also has to give with the tone policing that is squashing any frank discussion of any important issue.

Eric, the problem is that so much of what I hear coming from those, like myself, who hold to the confession comes across as pure invective rather than thoughtful engagement with the issues and searching of the Scriptures or even engaging with the confession's reasoning. We need well-spoken confessional folks to thoughtfully engage these issues in a way that doesn't come across as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Jack K]

Several of the practices Dr. Gleason is concerned about deserve to be challenged. It's too bad his articles come across as advocating traditionalism rather than advocating confessional unity.

By appealing to Reformed tradition and thus railing against kneeling at communion time, women involved in passing around the elements, and the church's response to immigration policy (really, immigration policy?), Gleason advocates an even smaller tent than the confessions and BCO expressly allow. He sounds traditional, not confessional. His views could be right, and his appeal to historical Reformed practice accurate, but a focus on what the church's standards actually call for would help him to be heard. By insisting that churches adhere to practices narrower than the standards expressly call for, Dr. Gleason is likely to find himself preaching only to the choir—and a small one, at that.

Too bad. We need people to challenge us both to doctrinal fidelity and to the wisdom that comes from valuing tradition. By effectively telling people who may be doctrinally sound but are questioning some traditional practices that this puts them "outside the tent," the articles lose any chance of actually convincing anyone.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Eric, the problem is that so much of what I hear coming from those, like myself, who hold to the confession comes across as pure invective rather than thoughtful engagement with the issues and searching of the Scriptures or even engaging with the confession's reasoning. We need well-spoken confessional folks to thoughtfully engage these issues in a way that doesn't come across as a knee-jerk reaction.

I am not saying you are doing this but I have seen the traditionalist card thrown far more times than it is deserved in my experience, even in the face of reasonable arguments. I agree that we need thoughtful engagement but in many areas the doctrine of "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" has been used as a hammer to silence disagreement.
So my point in my original post was not to say what group is more dismissive than the other but that in many parts of conservative Presbyterianism it is nearly impossible to strongly disagree with someone with out being labeled uncharitable. In addition, I do not think charitably should be a criteria for grading the merit of an argument. I do not think it is too outlandish if someone gets heated when they write about members of our denomination kneeling for communion because it is ridiculous.

 

[Philip]

I do not think charitably should be a criteria for grading the merit of an argument.

Actually, Eric, this is a valid criticism, because uncharity implies that the person has failed to regard people as brothers in Christ and has further failed to read the opposition's position appropriately.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Actually, Eric, this is a valid criticism, because uncharity implies that the person has failed to regard people as brothers in Christ and has further failed to read the opposition's position appropriately.

Again forgive me for further clarifying, I should have said perception of charity. I think your critique is valid and you do bring up a good point. What is closer to my intended meaning is how one judges charity. My point was that it is extremely difficult to grade charity in an argument especially if it is an opposing argument. It is my opinion that the standard for being perceived as charitable is much too high in this day and age.

 

[Philip]

It is my opinion that the standard for being perceived as charitable is much too high in this day and age.

But I also think it's possible to express constructive criticism without casually rejecting positions out of hand or throwing around invective.

 

[Mushroom]

But very often any form of difference in views is labeled uncharitable. This is a common red herring used to claim a higher ground, although completely unrelated to the validity of the views in question. False humility does not prove an invalid argument.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think that a similar question deserves to be raise: When is a small fellowship too small? When you regard only 1,000 churches in the whole world as doctrinally sound enough to join with in ecclesiastical fellowship? 100 churches? 20 churches? At some point professed regard for the church ends up destroying it.

 

[py3ak]

Eric, the problem is that so much of what I hear coming from those, like myself, who hold to the confession comes across as pure invective rather than thoughtful engagement with the issues and searching of the Scriptures or even engaging with the confession's reasoning. We need well-spoken confessional folks to thoughtfully engage these issues in a way that doesn't come across as a knee-jerk reaction.

Perhaps there would also be room for some introspection: why does it sound like a knee-jerk reaction instead of "thoughtful", "searching", "engaging"? Presumably the ones making those responses don't perceive it quite that way.

 

[J. Dean]

I tried clicking on the links in the OP and for some reason the link aren't working, so admittedly I have not read the core articles.

That being said, I have a question: am I correct in assessing (based upon the responses here) that the articles are addressing a sacrifice in doctrine for the sake of increasing numbers in the church?

 

[Jack K]

I tried clicking on the links in the OP and for some reason the link aren't working, so admittedly I have not read the core articles.

That being said, I have a question: am I correct in assessing (based upon the responses here) that the articles are addressing a sacrifice in doctrine for the sake of increasing numbers in the church?

He's dealing more with the denominational level than the church level. The issue is how much leeway from historically Reformed practice we will allow churches and pastors before we say they don't belong in the PCA. The PCA has a stated desire to have a somewhat "big tent"—that is, to allow for a somewhat large range of practices so that all congregations don't necessarily look identical. For example, one church might sing just psalms in worship, another hymns, and another cheesy 80s choruses... and all these churches can still fit under the "big tent." It's all allowed. But what about, say, non-traditional communion practices? Is the tent so big that those churches fit in too? So Gleason asks, "Is the tent too big?" "Are we allowing practices we shouldn't allow?"

 

[Edward]

Thoughts?

Well thought out and presented, if perhaps too gentle.

I think that a similar question deserves to be raise: When is a small fellowship too small? When you regard only 1,000 churches in the whole world as doctrinally sound enough to join with in ecclesiastical fellowship? 100 churches? 20 churches? At some point professed regard for the church ends up destroying it.

And I would agree that this is also a legitimate question.