“Meeting of Understanding” Aims to Ease Denominational Tension
A “Meeting of Understanding,” was held in Atlanta Tuesday, January 17. Some 50 PCA pastors as well as coordinators and presidents of the PCA’s permanent committees and agencies attended. Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the PCA’s General Assembly, in collaboration with other denominational leaders, called the meeting.
“One of the themes of the 2010 PCA Strategic Plan was the necessity for civil conversation,” Taylor said. There’s stress within the denomination, he continued, and there are arguments and rhetoric that may be more divisive than unifying. As stated clerk, Taylor noted that he serves the whole of the denomination. Given the tension within the PCA, he and others believed some civil conversation was needed.
The meeting had two specific goals: “To discuss charitably and forthrightly the causes for conflicts in the PCA that hamper our ministry and unity.” And to discuss solutions to those conflicts. The meeting was conducted under Chatham House Rules, meaning that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant may be revealed.”
Three of the participants—older men who had been in the denomination for many years – believed the PCA is healthy, that elders were generally united, that our system of government works well and as intended, and that the denomination is less politicized today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
And while nearly all agreed that more unites the denomination than divides it, many saw deep rifts and simmering tensions.
Civility and Theological Precision
The PCA has set the bar too low, one man said. I’ve seen [ordination candidates] eaten alive at presbytery because they didn’t give the exact right answer; because their response to certain questions weren’t precise enough. Is that what we’re after, he wondered. Is that kind of precision—that level of exactness—a healthy goal?
In this man’s view such strictness leads to idolatry. The proper goal, he stressed—rather than that level of precision—should be love. If the goal isn’t love we don’t have a vehicle for patience and we get scared. If our goal is precision, he told the group, then our goal is too low.
A teaching elder who had come into the PCA from another Reformed denomination, agreed. We exploit some of the vulnerabilities in our [presbytery] system, he believed. At the presbytery level, pockets of the PCA have become overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy. We’ve reduced ourselves to a measuring stick, the speaker said. As a result, nothing gets built. Men are leaving the denomination, which means we’re limiting our tools for building the kingdom. This, he said, is what’s destroying our harmony. We don’t trust each other any more.
Blogs and Protecting Reputations
A number of men believed that online publications have hurt. They steal face-to-face time in dealing with one another, one said. The speaker alluded to younger men who have left the denomination, feeling as though they’d been “shut down” and branded as heretics. It’s not right to rejoice when brothers are excoriated online, he said. If we can’t disagree graciously…we don’t deserve a denomination.
Another told the group of a survey he’d made of various PCA-related blogs. Men in the PCA, he reported, have called others apostate, heretics, damnable heretics, and witch hunters. One blogger wrote that a man in the denomination made him “want to throw up,” presbyteries have been characterized as “feminized,” and one blogger referred to his brother as a “purple robed, miter-wearing papist.”
A third speaker talked about leaders who have made comments on blogs and in emails. It’s not just what we say about people, the man said, it’s how we’re arguing. [It’s] how we’re talking about issues and how we’re talking about each other. This is affecting the ethos of the denomination.
An older, long-time member of the PCA suggested that we refuse to have discussions on the Internet. It distorts the message, he said, and does a lot of damage. It’s easy to ruin someone’s reputation with a “send” stroke. This man expressed deep concern about some of the views he had heard regarding inerrancy, justification, law, and the role of women. But these won’t be solved by name-calling, he said. We should be on our knees and talking with one another.
Can We Still Champion One Another’s Ministry?
When I first came into the denomination, one man told the group, I found a church and people who championed the ministry of others. We’ve lost that, he said. I don’t hear us celebrating what God has done through the ministry of others. He went on to express his fear that, if we’re not careful, “our camps” won’t allow us to support others.
Such comments resonated with another man who said he had grown weary of being told, “who I’m supposed to hate. I’m tired,” he said, “of wondering who’s a part of what team.”
Yet another man believed the PCA was a place where he could discuss and argue “robustly,” but now, on occasion, fears a “witch hunt” atmosphere. This, he said, could undermine a church culture that should long to be open and teachable.
Loving One Another and Matthew 18
According to one participant, there’s not much wrong that the consistent application of Matthew 18 won’t fix. The issues, as they’re so often debated, become caricatures, he said. We might make progress if those of us who are perceived as leaders would challenge our own folk; if we’d point out that certain assertions were unproven, unfair, or uncharitable. It might also help, he said, if the blogs established a code of ethics; if publishing standards were held up to biblical criteria.
Another PCA veteran suggested that there’s nothing a glass of wine and a good cigar won’t help. We need to maintain Christian fellowship, he told the men around him, and we need to pray together. There’s a place to criticize, but it’s within the bounds of Matthew 18.
A long-time PCA leader closed the meeting talking about the importance “for those of us who are older to listen to the younger elders.” These men believe there are problems, he said. We need to hear what they’re telling us.
The group then broke into groups of five or six and, together, prayed for the ministry of the PCA, and for unity.
Comments
All Fields Are Required:
Timothy
LeCroy
Columbia, MO
All Fields Are Required:
Tim
Burden
Columbia, SC
All Fields Are Required:
John
Musgrave
Clayton, NC
All Fields Are Required:
Tim
Muse
Brandon, Mississippi
2. The goal is love, but love finds itself in neither unorthodoxy or conformity to the rules of men.
3. Blogging should not be seen as the problems or attempts made to stifle it; we must police our conversations & we have procedures for infractions.
4. We must be careful not to villify a man or attack his ministry because of individual differences; however if those differences are of an essential nature, they cannot be overlooked.
All Fields Are Required:
Jerry
Koerkenmeier
Glen Carbon, IL
All Fields Are Required:
RE Miguel
del Toro
Fayetteville, NC
The proper goal, he stressed—rather than that level of precision—should be love. If the goal isn’t love we don’t have a vehicle for patience and we get scared. If our goal is precision, he told the group, then our goal is too low.
“Theological precision” is essential. Requiring theological precision in our candidates does not, necessarily, preclude “love.”
All Fields Are Required:
Glenn
Mullen
Morgan City, MS
Keeping ourselves on path of correct doctrine is LOVE.
All Fields Are Required:
Alan
Jensen
Des Moines, Iowa
All Fields Are Required:
Eric
Hettinger
Philadelphia
All Fields Are Required:
John
Hendrickson
Middletown NJ
All Fields Are Required:
Sam
DeSocio
Pittsburgh (Grace & Peace Pres)
All Fields Are Required:
Bob
Mattes
Arlington, VA
There is no unity without common doctrine, and no love without truth. As a pilot, if I were flying an airplane in which you were a passenger, would you rather that I be evaluated based on love or precision in my work? How much more so, then, for the work of the gospel which has eternal consequences.
As one prominent pastor said years ago, we should not regret those who leave for the right reasons. That especially applies to officers in the church. And this debate should not be about numbers. After all, Jesus told us to feed His sheep, not count them.
All Fields Are Required:
Richard
Phillips
Greenville, SC
All Fields Are Required:
Sam
Roberts
Fort Walton Beach, FL
More humility is needed. Recognize that you are fallen and the words you write or speak are bound to contain some error, no matter how carefully you may compose them. Also, mind that the one you speak to or speak of is a child of God.
Hold fast to Scripture, to grace, to Christ. But at all times be aware that the Internet is global and the world IS watching how we treat each other.
3 John 13,14
All Fields Are Required:
Jack
Unangst
Prescott, AZ
All Fields Are Required:
Richard
McBane
Lilburn, GA
All Fields Are Required:
Andy
Webb
Fayetteville, NC
Second, we have documents that are meant to pull us together and ensure that the body is like-minded on most things, ignoring them is not the answer, applying them is. Latitudinarianism kills denominations dead, always has, trying to pretend its the answer to our problems is naive.
Third, people can be mean, sheep bite, the body of Christ is always discontent and generally unhappy with its leadership (see Moses and the Wilderness for details), and most pastors are one step away from a complete nervous breakdown, but those aren't arguments in favor of semi-secret meetings, theological imprecision, and an end to debate and church discipline.
All Fields Are Required:
Andy
Webb
Fayetteville, NC
All Fields Are Required:
Joshua
Owen
Fayetteville, NC
All Fields Are Required:
Jason
Van Bemmel
Cheraw, SC
All Fields Are Required:
Brenda
Faria
Colorado Springs
All Fields Are Required:
James
Pakala
Manchester, MO










All Fields Are Required:
Bo
Lancaster
Lookout Mt, GA
I think your question would be answered in paragraph three. The meeting was held under Chatham House Rules, where the information received during a meeting may be shared freely afterwards, but not where the information came from.
It's a way of encouraging more honest discussion during the meeting while still allowing the reporting of what happened during the meeting.
All Fields Are Required:
Andrew
Lawton
Chattanooga TN
I believe Jerry was pointing out the irony of conclusions being posted anonymously on the internet rather than publicly and in person, which seemed to be a central thread of the meeting that took place.
All Fields Are Required:
Warren
Hill
Hilton Head, SC