In God’s providence, it is certainly no coincidence that the PCA Strategic Report with it accompanying videos by Bryan Chapell has come out publicly the same time as the Together For the Gospel conference videos. I’ve watched Thabiti Anyabwile’s and John MacArthur’s presentations today and then the Bryan Chapell videos after that.
I’ve gotta tell you, it was like walking through two completely opposite cities.
And I guess my question is: can these two cities live in harmony with one another, or are they fundamentally opposed to one another? I can’t help but to think its the latter. The T4G presentations emphasized that the way forward for the church today is to focus on the proclamation of Gospel, resolve ourselves to be counter-cultural, to stay faithful even if it means the masses abandon us, and preach Christ and him crucified. The PCA plan sounded just the opposite. We need to get bigger and not waste our ministry energies working with small-time Reformed denominations. We need to advance the Kingdom through mercy ministry and cultural transformation. Chapell spoke about Reformed doctrine and those who are concerned to preserve it. But it was almost like those guys really need to get in step with the cultural transformationalists, tolerate the aberrant views of the emergent church in “safe places,” and open the table to those outside our confessional parameters. This sounds like a hamstringing of the Confessional contingency of the PCA, and not a plan which “meets in the middle.”
Of course, the question is, can there be a middle? Or are we talking about two mutually opposed positions? If Machen was correct when he wrote Christianity and Liberalism, then it seems there can be no middle. I think we have been duped into thinking that liberalism at its core is about denying inerrancy. Its not. The denial of inerrancy (or other core doctrines) is actually a by-product of a more fundamental issue. Modernism, properly understood, was always about bending the distinctives of the faith to the sentiments of the culture. And on that definition, the PCA plan is a thoroughly modernist proposal. And as such represents not just a different perspective on the Reformed Faith; but, rather, is a denial of it.
The passing of this plan will mean the demise of the PCA.
Let’s pray it doesn’t pass.
Isn’t the plan mostly funding suggestions with some observations? How will the PCA die if people start funding GA?
Some of the language of “safe places” is misguided at best, but there are very few action items in this thing, right? Is this a little bit of an over-reaction? What specific action items are objectionable and have fooled Lig Duncan into supporting them? I don’t like the analysis of the plan either but I don’t know specifically what prompted red alert here…
I am trying to discern why you have your teeth out and are ready to call the proposal – liberalism. Really? This is the problem front and center with the PCA. There is no place to dialog, even by the committee’s that are formed for such purposes. I find it interesting that you side with two non-confessional & Anabaptist partners, because they serve your purposes for preserving the PCA against invisible adversaries. We should be seeking a third way, so that we can maintain unity which is a deep concern of our Lord, instead of continuing to splinter ourselves into irrelevancy and invisibility.
Just read page 26, a proposal to withdraw from NAPARC. THAT’S NUTS! It actually says, possible negatives: “potential compromise of doctrinal distinctives.” But on the positive side it shows “enthusiasm” Neo-pietism, yea!
Nevermind, just read page 26 that calls for a withdraw from NAPARC. THAT’S NUTS!!!
The PCA Strategic Plan sounds like an indigenous form of contextualization.
The Great Commission mandates the propagation of an exhaustive exclusive culture of the truth that is to dominate and destroy the counter-cultures of the world.. It does not permit accommodation or amalgamation.
[see Are the Mosaic Laws for Today? Francis Nigel Lee]
Hi Jared,
The proposal to withdraw from NAPARC is nuts! And to me is greatly offensive. If you watch the Chapell video you will hear him basically says, “we’re too big and fast moving to be slowed down by those small, insignificant denominations.” I mean, can you say “arrogant?”
Furthermore, it is not so much what he said as what he did not say. Notice there is nothing in the plan about defending the faith against unbelief, or becoming more clear about what the Gospel is and preaching it to a lost and dying world. All of that is missing. I don’t know why Ligon Duncan supported it. But even from this distance I smell modernism. This is exactly where the PCUSA was 100 years ago.
Jim,
What do you make of the fact that one of the driving forces behind T4G was also on the CMC?
I need to ask him about that.
Hi Ken,
Yes, please do ask him about that and share with me what he says.
To be honest I am not sure what to make of that.
Blessings,
What is going to throw gasoline on this fire is the new book “To Change The World” by James Davison Hunter. I am sixty some pages into it. His thesis is bold and provocative: all our ambitions to transform the world will fail precisely because we really don’t understand the nature of culture and how it changes.
Thanks Jim.
Jim
You will no doubt recall stories about Van Til who use to pound the lecturn and with great inflection in his voice tell us ” Men, culture is NEVER value neutral-NEVER. It is always taunting it autonomy and don’t you never forget it!”
Gary,
Thanks for this reminder. Van Til was right on! And so is Thabiti. Culture is not a passive lump of clay we can mold at our will. It molds us back!
Thanks for the comparative pointers and comments, Jim. Points to consider as the debate & discussion over the Strategic Plan continues. Organizational, administrative, financial maneuvering are often the way around Confession and Polity. Recall the founding of Westminster at the reorganization of Princeton. This is the “Broadening Church” thesis all over again. Read The Broadening Church by Loetscher. It’s the story of the PCUS from 1869 to 1954, features the mainline’s proud view of how they broadened the OPC right out of the Church.
Another point (recognizing statistics can be twisted to suit a variety of presumptions): as to the rationale for changes: the flattening curve of church growth. Need to investigate where, how growth has come over the years. There was a time when whole congregations were, um, migrating to the PCA. Have the growth stats been normalized for that factor? Way back at the time of the grand Joining & Receiving, when the RPCES merged to PCA, but the OPC failed to, I recall the ratio of converts to communicant members was HIGHER for the OPC, not the PCA (not the summary number, but the ratio). I may be a little fuzzy on that, I’ve not spent the last 25 years worried one way or other over the fabled J & R (since I spent most of that in the federation of Canadian/American Reformed churches).
EAZZT1 I’m not easily impressed. . . but that’s impressing me!
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your helpful comments here. I agree. This is the 1920′s all over again. Or, perhaps more accurately, its the downgrade controversy among the Particular Baptists all over again. Remember, the ones who did the greatest damage during the modernist-fundamentalist controversy were not the liberals. It was the moderate and evangelical center.
Excellent point.
Jim,
I am not sure if I am ready to say that the PCA is careening towards Liberalism if the Strategic Plan is approved. Perhaps that has to do with my membership in that body, but it probably has more to do with my confidence that the leaders in the PCA, such as Ligon Duncan, Rick Phillips, and Tim Keller are committed to proclaiming a distinctly Reformed Faith. I don’t believe that we are in the same place that the PCUSA was in during the first half of the 20th century when complete accommodation to Modernism and Liberalism led to the formation of the OPC.
That being said, I would agree that the PCA has always had to hold together those parties who are committed to protecting confessional Presbyterianism and those who would look to move the denomination towards a broader American Evangelicalism. It seems to me that the Strategic Plan is a movement towards that broader Evangelicalism in the PCA. I believe that that the debates over the Strategic Plan and the overtures to affirm the Biblical requirement for male deacons, which will occur in this year’s GA, will further expose the fissues between these factions.
Thanks, my brother! Excellent and helpful post.
Hi Ken,
Much depends on your definition of liberalism. At the core of it is this notion that the church must accommodate its theology to the norms of the culture so as to preserve the church’s relevancy and influence. This modern impulse is all over the PCA SP. Consequently, this was the exact agenda of Schleiermacher and his supposed apologetic for the Christian Faith.
I have to give an amen to this article. It seems to me that becoming more concerned about your neighbor than about God is idolatry. Our first concern is to glorify God. When our theology becomes increasingly focused on the below rather than above we end up in idolatry and antinomianism. Inerrancy is not the only issue at stake here.
Charlie
I’m with Justin Edgar. Let’s hear them out. And I’m not sure of the justification for leaving NAPARC, but what I’ve read from Roy Taylor says that the whole reason the PCA agreed to join in the first place was the potential to “join and receive”. After several failed attempts, Taylor says that we need to move on. Honestly, that is my biggest concern with the plan.
I think one of the saddest things I’ve seen so far in this debate is the unwillingness to believe good things about our brothers. In my 14 years in the PCA, I’ve found it to be one of the most “suspicious” denominations. We tend to label people before we have given them a hearing. They are either a “Neo-Catholic” or a “Liberal”. These are our brothers in Christ. We need to hear them out first. There needs to be proper debate, defense, correction, etc. by the denomination as a whole.
Not in this particular post, but in others and around others I’ve heard some say hateful things about these people involved with the Strategic Plan. If one is concerned to maintain the “True Faith”, part of that “True Faith” is that if you “hate your brother, then the truth is not in you”. Be cautious that your criticism doesn’t devolve into hatred, lest you be guilty of violating the commands of the Lord in your protest.
Secondly, in your desire to disagree with these people do not jump to the “unbiblical” argument. None of the aspects of the plan are unbiblical. If you don’t agree with them, then say so. You can say, “I don’t think this is the proper reflection of the Reformed Faith” all you want to, but to jump to the argument that the plan or the men involved with it are “unbiblical” is a serious accusation. Even our BCO says that a charge against a TE should not be considered lightly. If you think they are being unbiblical, then that is a charge; a very serious charge. Read the plan, not the critiques. No one is throwing out the Bible or its inspiration and inerrancy. You should see Dr. Chapell’s critique of the TNIV, brothers. I think you will be surprised at his comments on that “Gender Neutral” translation.
Thirdly, remember if your desire is to rebuke these men personally (as opposed to critiquing a plan) Matthew 18 calls for you to address them personally. Critique the plan, do not impugn a man’s character online. That isn’t in the Spirit of what Our Lord commands. Should you disagree by jumping to passages on “False Prophets” and “False Teachers”, etc., then I will remind you that a brother in our denomination can only be labelled as such after the Matthew 18 process is fulfilled.
Please, please, please…in your desire to hold to the truth, which I am thankful for, do not turn aside to worldly tactics. Our Lord wants us to stand for the truth in a Christ-like way.
As a frequent delegate (and past chairman) of NAPARC, I would like to see the reason for the proposed withdrawal of the PCA to be more clearly (honestly?) put. The PCA will remain with the NAE, but will retreat from the NAPARC churches who share her confessional standards (or its equivalents). Is the only value for solidarity with other conservative reformed denominationsin NAPARC the potential to add them to the number of the PCA?
Part of the hindrance to church union in NAPARC has been the reluctance for the communions to yield their pet identities but another is this practical question: Is doing business in the PCA a better and more stable setting than in the existing churches? Would it advance the ministry of Christ there?
I realize that NAPARC has changed over the last few years. Human associations and organizations (like flocks and herds) are not for always. We shall see what comes next both for NAPARC and the PCA.
Assessing the cash flow is one more essential element in the company technique format, so as to sustain a normal money flow to meet the important capital requirements. Probability of monetary crisis and also the ways of crisis management must be pointed out within the structure. The business technique should consist of the advertising plans and strategy leading to the expansion from the organization.