The
issues Webb wrestles with are many I have wrestled with in my admittedly
shorter time in the PCA. And as I have wrestled, I have written. Thus, I have a
respect for Andy Webb and his perspective and this does not intend to be a
debate, but merely a counterpoint – another perspective on the issues that he
raises here and why I come to different conclusions.
This article is partly working through
these issues for myself, but also to any friends I have that are PCA and
looking over fences to "greener pastures." Below, I offer a brief interaction
with each point, as well as some positive points about the PCA. Before you jump, let me attempt to dissuade
you from jumping ship.
I do so as one who is a
Confessional Pastor in the PCA. I took no exceptions to the Confession, meaning: I am an exegetical 6 ordinary day
Creationist, I believe in an historical Adam who probably didn’t have a belly
button, and my favorite self-identifier
is the same as Derek Thomas’ self-appellation: a plain vanilla Calvinist. I
believe in applying the Regulative Principle, and in the ordinary means of
grace. I am amillenial and neither a Theonomist/Reconstructionist nor a full
throated Two Kingdoms (or R2K or whatever) guy. If you want to know what I believe
about doctrine open up the Confession. There it is.
So I am one that would be a
possible sympathizer with Webb’s document, and his trajectory. However, at this
time: I am not. Not because I am never against leaving, but because the reasons
cited do not rise to the level of leaving and writing the proverbial “Ichabod”
above the PCA’s door post. [
1 Samuel 4:21]
I will interact with Webb’s points
in reverse order:
- A Failure
to Stand against Moral Compromise
This point seems vague enough that
specific instances need to be cited to illustrate, and the specific instance
cited is questionable. Of those close to the RUF Vanderbuilt situation, it
appears the structure of RUF actually was not affected by the decision of the
University. Other campus groups, which are
actually less strong in their ecclesiology and do not use an ordained
minister were effected in their student leadership, whereas RUF does not rely on student leadership. This fifth point seems to suggest
that RUF should have given up local ministry to “make a statement” or stand in
solidarity with other campus ministries. That's a judgment call, but the more I
read about this situation, the more I am comfortable with RUF's decision here,
and men I respect who worked with the details were also comfortable not
abandoning the local ministry on this campus in order to make a statement.
- Failure to
Maintain the Teaching of Scripture Regarding Six-Day Creation
I classify myself as an “exegetical
Six-Day Creationist” and am glad that the
Creation Study Report of the PCA took
a decisive stand against theistic evolution. The Study report did not, however,
disallow various “Old Earth creation” stances, for instance Day-Age, Analogical
Days, and Framework perspectives. In this area, the PCA followed, in large part,
the approach of the OPC.
I would merely say this is not a
“make or break” issue for me. The PCA has rejected theistic evolution both by
declaration and
in discipline cases before the Standing Judicial Commission.
Leaving a denomination over this issue (allowing Young and Old Earth Creation)
would need to mean that to have an Old Earth perspective so perverts the
Scriptures in interpretation to the point that it effectively rejects the
Scriptures as plainly true (in a similar way that ignoring Paul’s instruction on women being teachers in the church in 1 Timothy 2 would). Although interpretation of Old Earth Creationism runs
into several interpretative problems (death before the fall, etc), most will
acknowledge these as unresolved matters, as the PCA position paper does.
This area, it may be also noted,
is one that a particular presbytery may enforce as narrow as Young Earth only or
as broad as the position paper. If you don’t think Old Earth ministers should
be ordained, stop voting for them at presbytery. Argue against it at
presbytery. Ask the presbytery to adopt a position paper. On many issues, we
should stop thinking upper level first, and focus on our local areas of
influence. Think Global, Act Local.
Note: If this is a make or break issue for you, you will also
have to pass up as a home the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which has a similar
approach and latitude on this issue.
- Failure to
Safeguard the Sacraments
The practice of paedocommunion and
intinction is disallowed by our Standards. However, both sides in each of these
areas have falsely believed the arena for taking care of these infractions is
to have the General Assembly talk a lot about it. If a minister knows of these
practices taking place in their presbytery, they ought to go to those pastors
and sessions first, gives some time for reformation and if it does not occur
begin discipline at the presbytery level. This needs to start happening rather
than having this discussion at General Assembly.
I believe this being cited in this article reveals
a confusion over process in the PCA. Some presbyteries have
allowed paedocommunion as a conscience objection (the pastor personally
believes it should be practiced), but not to be practiced by that pastor. Now,
I see this as unwise and would not vote for someone taking exception in this
area. Yet, if it is practiced in your presbytery by a church, see the previous
paragraph. And if you want to see this exception no longer taken as an
exception, vote against candidates who have it as an exception and encourage
others to do so as well.
- Anarchy in
Worship
Worship practices except for the
Lord's Supper and Baptism are not dictated in the PCA’s Constitution. The “Directory
of Worship” is not constitutionally enforceable in the PCA's Constitution and
this has been the case as far as I can tell since the founding of the PCA. I
agree with those that say this is quite unfortunate, although to rectify this,
it would also take a revision of the “Directory of Worship” since it seems to
easily have things stuck in it for years because no one reads or follows it
anyway. Instead, each congregation is allowed great deference in their worship,
which can look anything from traditional Confessionally Reformed, to Anglican,
to Contemporary, to whatever.
Yet, this has always been the case
in the PCA and those getting in the PCA knew this on the outset. In the PCA,
the case for ordering worship is made by persuasion and Scripture, but not
enforceable by discipline. This being the case, RPW types (such as myself) need
to do two things: 1) Worship God in such a manner within this principle 2)
Write and persuade others to do the same, not as a matter of preference but
conviction. Perhaps a 3rd could be added in attempting to bring to
constitutional enforcement the directory of worship.
Yet, again, we all knew in
entering the PCA that worship is not a constitutional matter in the PCA, and
thus this would be a reason for never becoming PCA rather than leaving. This is
not an area that has changed, but has never been present. Semper Reformata. Let
us reform it rather than abandon it.
- A Failure
to Exercise Discipline.
This is the one area that causes
me more pause and internal conflict. I was involved in the early process of brainstorming
a response to the horrendous
Leithart decision (I have no qualms calling that,
since the decision was a travesty of ecclesial justice, theology and simple
logic). Let me say further, and make no qualms even as I say this about
something written by men I otherwise respect: The 5 page decision in the
Leithart trial is an embarrassment to the PCA , Reformed theology, and all
ministers in the PCA. [I recommend the
dissent in the case to understand the errors of the decision] It needs to be repented of, and our process needs to be
changed to make sure this does not happen again.
Yet, the question is this: now that the PCA
has failed to discipline Leithart (and lets be fair: at least 3 other alleged Federal
Visionists, 2 of these 4 cases being men who have signed the FV Joint
Declaration): Does this case of failure to discipline mean that the PCA has
lost the “Third Mark” of the Church in discipline?
Let me ask this about another
instance: Did the OPC cease to be an expression of the visible church when it
failed to discipline Norman Shepherd who taught the same doctrines as Leithart
(in a more proto-FV form)? [Some details are different, but at the presbytery level, Shepherd was acquitted and transferred out of the OPC to the CRC later]
Also, does the PCA through the
presbytery of Illiana get any redeeming marks for disciplining Burke Shade, who
was in some ways the first PCA Federal Visionist, even with the expert
testimony of Peter Leithart and Jeff Meyers defending him? Does Illiana
protecting the doctrine of justification and baptism give any counterweight to
Pacific Northwest, Missouri Presbytery and others failing to do so? My question
is: has discipline died, or has it failed in these circumstances?
Yet, if it has failed, what is the
alternative? It is as if one cancer treatment failed and we call for
euthanasia. Perhaps the right course of action is
1)
Correcting procedures.
3)
Writing and teaching persuasively against these
doctrines.
Conclusion:
In all,
of the 5 points, at least 3 I would also name as real problems within the PCA.
Yet, is the diagnosis that the patient is
1)
well with a few minor problems,
2)
sick with major problems,
3)
perhaps terminally ill without intervention, or
4)
Dead?
I am alarmed enough especially by
Reason 1: Failure to Discipline to sympathize with the diagnosis of a sick PCA
(either option 2 or 3), but certainly not option 4. At least not yet.
The article about “5 reasons It
may be Time to Leave the PCA” fails to convince on the particular reasons, but
also fails to convince for me in providing principles to judge when to leave,
or to acknowledge the positives of membership in the PCA.
I am happy to be in the PCA not
merely because it’s not bad enough to leave, but because the PCA has positive
qualities that attract me to it, and I find being within the PCA aids rather
than hinders my ministry in connectional help, helpful oversight, and positive
theology to offer a confused, sinful and dying world.
Let me offer then 10 brief
positive Reasons that it may NOT be time to leave the PCA:
10 Brief Reasons that it may NOT be time to leave the PCA.
1. The PCA is a largely faithful, Reformed,
evangelizing denomination
Through PCA churches I have seen
outreach, evangelism and a seriousness about the bible and theology. This is
true in churches throughout the denomination. There are many encouraging things
happening in the PCA, and we shouldn’t let the negative aspects discourage us
from celebrating the work of missionaries, church planters, and faithful ministers
and laypeople across the PCA.
2. The grassroots nature of the PCA
protects faithful congregations through every wind of new doctrine and fad.
Because the PCA in practice works
from the ground up, with great latitude given to congregations, this curse can
also be a blessing. Throughout fads and waves and winds of new doctrine, a
local congregation can function in faithfulness until that wind passes.
The most important relationship of
the local congregation, then, becomes not the relationship of the church to the
General Assembly, but to the presbytery. This is truly the measure of whether
one should stay or go. Is your church protected by faithful men at the
presbytery level? Do you trust them in potential discipline cases? Will they
reject unorthodox men heading towards your pulpit when you leave? If the answer
to these questions is yes, known from years of relationships, then it very well
not be time to risk a bad presbytery in a “good denomination” versus a good
presbytery in a “bad denomination.”
3. The PCA is much healthier than the PCUS
it left in 1973.
The issues facing churches in the
PCUS was a breakdown of fidelity to the Scriptures. This manifested itself in
the debate over women’s ordination. This is a problem facing congregations even
today in the RCA, CRC, and the EPC. Perhaps seeing other struggles in other denominations may put our
debates over intinction and worship in perspective. Not to lessen
the importance of fidelity to Scripture and God in all areas of life, but some
areas must be admitted to be more black and white than others, and some issues
are a matter of interpretation, and others over believing the bible. Are our
issues over interpretation or over the authority of the Bible? I think more
often than not, it is the former (interpretation), which is actually encouraging. I will take
the controversies in the PCA over the controversies in the RCA or PCUSA or even
the EPC any day of the week.
4. The PCA has not sanctioned heresy or
immorality
Although discipline has failed and
will fail in a few instances, the PCA as a body does not endorse in position
papers or generally accept: heretical views of the gospel, homosexuality, women’s
ordination, fornication, errant views of the inerrancy of Scripture, or other
gross errors.
5. Non-confessionals burnout too.
Ligon Duncan’s chapter in “
Risking the Truth,” ends with this advice for combatting error in the church: “We must
out-live, out-rejoice, out-love, out-preach, out-serve and out-die the false
teachers and errorists.” [
Risking the Truth. Pg 202] The longer I see these
debates, the more I grow to see this advice as supremely wise. What do you
think of when you think of a conservative Presbyterian? Is it a loving,
rejoicing, persevering, effective preaching, service oriented and boldly life giving
person? If not, why not?
Yet, if we look around the PCA,
less-than-confessional pastors often do not last long, in my observations.
Conservatives are not the only ones who bolt a denomination, despite the common
complaint: “We are always the ones that leave.” Quite a few pastors have left
for the less restrictive EPC lately. Some have left the ministry. Those with
really bad theology, as I have noticed, cannot help but have their heterodoxy
produce immorality, and a few have left over moral reasons/failures.
It is not immediate, it is not
sexy, but outlasting heterodox agitators may be one of the best ways to affect
faithfulness in the PCA.
6. Liberals may not be as liberal as you
think
Every progressive PCA Teaching
Elder I have met would be too conservative to be ordained in the PCUSA.
Many “progressives” have ordinary means
services like the conservatives. The theological range in the PCA is much smaller
than some would imagine, and one should talk with those you may label as
liberal to discover: What do we really disagree about? Perhaps it is like the
Charles Hodge versus the New Schoolers: His problem was not so much with what they
confessed but what they tolerated. Thus, perhaps the major conversation that needs
to happen, one-on-one, is the necessity of discipline, and discipline as an act
of love (
Hebrews 12:5-6), and the lack of discipline as hate and violence
against sheep and shepherds. A major problem in the PCA may be a low view of discipline, which instruction and conviction in
this one area could do much towards the health of the denomination.
7. Leaving would make the PCA less healthy.
8. Lack of good alternatives
As a northerner and
confessionalist, I find myself with great affinity for the OPC, but several of
reasons Andy Webb cites would preclude joining the OPC, the next biggest
conservative Presbyterian denomination, including creation and discipline
issues. The other alternatives are either extremely small, premillennial,
fundamentalist, exclusive psalmity or a capella, or have their own unique problems, or some combination of the
above. That is, unless one is exclusive psalmody, there are few alternatives
outside the PCA and OPC for a confessionalist to go, and if your reasons are
problems within the OPC, then do you start a new denomination?
9. Starting a new denomination is hard and
expensive.
Study the history RIGHT AFTER the
split of the PCA and the OPC from the mainlines. Note how many agencies worked
to create momentum, publish books, publish curriculum, host meetings and
general assembly and travel expenses, etc. This is not to say new denominations
may not be necessary at certain times in history (i.e. the OPC and PCA thought
so), but is this such a time?
Not to mention other questions with the founding of a new denomination: What new boundaries
or mechanisms would stop trends that happen in the PCA? Would you be welcome in
the new denomination another person wants? New denominations are necessarily
strict in some areas and not in others. Who decides this time? Can you tolerate
someone with other convictions in a new denomination in what you sing, how you
interpret the OT law, or how certain elements of worship are done?
10. Is leaving the easy way out?
Are the problems in the PCA worth
leaving over, or are they worth attempting to be good churchmen and fixing over
the period of years of not merely voting in GA, but working locally, taking in
interns, faithful shepherding your congregation and working towards renewal and
repentance and growth in your own local church and presbytery? Do we find it easier to write “Ichabod” above the PCA than to do the work
of reformation and local ministry?
Prioritizing
If you are leaving, I think there
may be no better resource for thinking through this than Kevin DeYoung. He is a
minister facing many of these questions at present and gives good counsel about
principles, grace in leaving and warmth in deciding:
For an individual member:
For a denomination:
I’d recommend listening to this, especially when DeYoung talks about life int he RCA or when the other minster talks about leaving the Episcopal church:
All this is not to say that I aim to
keep my head down and ignore these issues. I aim to go to every presbytery
meeting possible and every General Assembly I can attend. I intend to make good and
honest relationships with as many people in the denomination as possible and
talk about being a confessional church. I intend to listen as well as speak
about my positions, and read and keep learning. I intend to ask questions of ministerial candidates dealing with FV, creation, and their will to discipline.
At the end of reading
“Risking the Truth” by Martin Downes about doctrinal
controversies in the church, (an invaluable resource to any PCA minister) my
conviction was this: It is better to be involved, dialogue, and work towards
good ends rather than agitating to leave the denomination. The PCA is not at,
or even extremely close to, a point where I am wanting to leave. This is not to
predict the future that such a time may come in 5, 10, 20 or even 50 years. But
that time is not now.
The PCA has the gospel, practices the two Christ-ordained
Sacraments, and exercises discipline, though like all churches, ebbs and flows
between “more or less pure” as the confession puts it. The PCA is my home, and
it will take more than cited to make me leave. Now, if I get evicted…that’s
another story…
Respectfully with much love in
Christ,
