“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


This is a good step for our denomination. I hope the discussions continue and real substantive change can occur to make us more healthy for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

2012-01-19 13:04 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Tim


Burden


Columbia, SC


This is encouraging! I'll be praying that this meeting will bear good fruit for Christ's Kingdom.

2012-01-19 13:26 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Musgrave


Clayton, NC


Public blogs are a huge problem. I refuse to look at them. Blogs make it too easy to say something rash, unkind, and unfair. This is because there are no editors to correct and refine the writing and because they make it possible to publish before time has passed to cool down and to seek to understand for sure what the other is saying. Additionally, blogging can feed the pride in all of us, who in our sin natures say "Look at me; aren't I bright!" and tend to think we're the new Martin Luther, who alone possess the truth "and can do no other."

2012-01-19 14:37 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Tim


Muse


Brandon, Mississippi


‎1. Hats off to Dr. Taylor for the wisdom of the position he's taking.
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.

2012-01-19 15:07 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Jerry


Koerkenmeier


Glen Carbon, IL


I don't get it. Isn't this an anonymous article quoting anonymous people making anonymous attacks on other people in the PCA in a (now) public forum - a blog?

2012-01-19 15:20 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Bo


Lancaster


Lookout Mt, GA


Jerry,

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.

2012-01-20 00:16 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Andrew


Lawton


Chattanooga TN


Bo,

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.

2012-02-06 17:02 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Warren


Hill


Hilton Head, SC


Took the words right out of my mouth.

2012-01-20 00:37 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


RE Miguel


del Toro


Fayetteville, NC


I was saved out of the apostate PCUSA. It was a lack of theological precision that God used to move us from the PCUSA to the PCA. History teaches us that a lack of precision in doctrine and practice is precisely what will destroy a once faithful denomination, sooner or later. In the PCUSA, “doctrine” has fundamentally been replaced with “love.” So it was with great dismay and discouragement that I read the following:

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.”

2012-01-19 16:44 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Glenn


Mullen


Morgan City, MS


This seems to be much ado about nothing. They had a meeting to complain about people being nasty to one another on blogs? Is this a real problem in the PCA? If they want to hear nasty, check out the correspondence between Luther and Erasmus. That will curl your hair.

Keeping ourselves on path of correct doctrine is LOVE.

2012-01-19 18:08 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Alan


Jensen


Des Moines, Iowa


Is it not possible for those called by God as elders of Christ's church to have intense, rich in content, discourse without imitating the character assaults and vitriol practiced by the world that does not know Christ?

2012-01-19 20:20 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Eric


Hettinger


Philadelphia


I am glad someone (Jerry Koerkenmeier) sees the silliness of this situation. With all do respect precision is something to be guarded and cherished, it is unloving to to allow unorthodox men into our pulpits

2012-01-19 21:13 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


John


Hendrickson


Middletown NJ


Toning down the acerbic and vitriolic nature of commentary on those whom one disagrees with is, without question, needed. My fear is that the unstated goal is to move out the fences and broaden the scope of acceptable exceptions. As RE del Toro rightly points out, it was the ever-increasing latitude of the old mainline denominations that led them to where they are today. We must guard against going there. Moderating rhetoric is one thing, while dismissing the need for continued precision (i.e., defining what orthodoxy means and sticking to it) in the name of love is not only another, it is just plain wrong.

2012-01-19 21:24 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Sam


DeSocio


Pittsburgh (Grace & Peace Pres)


I'd hate for us to create an aversion to technology rather than dealing with some sinful actions when they arise. The PCA is already so behind when it comes to technology. With that aside, I'm encouraged to hear that this kid of thing happens.

2012-01-20 02:39 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Bob


Mattes


Arlington, VA


I, too, was saved out of the PCUSA, and the rhetoric there appears eerily similar to that conveyed in this article.

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.

2012-01-20 08:40 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Richard


Phillips


Greenville, SC


An unspoken assumption today seems to be that it is unloving to examine a minister's doctrine with great care. This fails to realize a) that love for the sheep will motivate zeal for ensuring doctrinal faithfulness; and b) we can decline to ordain a man while continuing to love, admire, and support his ministry. For instance, Charles Spurgeon could not be ordained in the PCA because of his teaching on baptism. This does not mean that we do not love, admire, and promote the work of Spurgeon or a Mark Dever today. It simply means that for the peace and purity of our denomination we have standards for teaching and practice. To knowingly violate those standards is to violate love by disrupting our unity. To uphold our standards is to serve the cause of love for the sheep and unity among shepherds.

2012-01-20 10:54 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Sam


Roberts


Fort Walton Beach, FL


The problem is not the technology. The problem is the spirit and intent driving the one operating the technology. We are the global church. We represent Christ. We are to be salt and light in this world, not a reflection of it.

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

2012-01-20 11:02 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Jack


Unangst


Prescott, AZ


One look at the theological/confessional declension of some of our esteemed Reformed Churches,ie,UPUSA,CRC,Ch.of Scotland,et.al.,& seminaries like Princeton,old "Pitt-Xenia",Union,et.al.,(cp.CH Spurgeon's "Down-grade",1890s) should inform us, as one said,"Truth (precision)questioned in one generation,becomes truth uncontended for in another, and then truth abandoned in the next."

2012-01-20 11:33 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Richard


McBane


Lilburn, GA


As a former RE in the PCA, now an elder emeritus in the OPC, I have attended PCA churches in ten states. Love alone will not solve the PCA's problems. The denomination is schizophrenic, and the cure is both simple and unwelcome: full subscription to the Westminster Standards. If a pastor, elder, deacon, or member in the pew cannot subscribe without reservation, they should not be a member, or an officer, and certainly not a pastor. Full subscription puts everyone on the same page, and there will be no problem understanding others. Christ loved all, but His sacrifice and salvation is effective only for those who believe. Love one another, but first love Christ and His word.

2012-01-20 12:10 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Andy


Webb


Fayetteville, NC


Three quick thoughts, first we can try all day, but we aren't going to circumvent the essential truth of Amos 3:3.

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.

2012-01-20 17:33 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Andy


Webb


Fayetteville, NC


One final thought - The idea that the church is NOT supposed to have battles is neither historical nor biblical. If the devil is ever sowing his tares and pursuing his agenda, if the Apostolic church was one big ecclesiastical battleground, if the survival of the early church depended on the willingness of men to die for the teaching of the bible, if our own denomination was birthed as a result of terrible and unresolvable theological conflicts, why on earth do we think there is a magic pill that will make our own conflicts disappear??

2012-01-20 17:34 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Joshua


Owen


Fayetteville, NC


I don't see how anonymity fosters charitable dialogue. It seems that it would promote suspicion. It also allows one to be unaccountable for what he says. If we are to understand each other in a trusting relationship, anonymity is not the way forward. Love and truth are inseparable. I pray my church does not ask me to choose one over another, for that would mean failing at both. God help us to move forward together for sake of Christ.

2012-01-20 19:32 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Jason


Van Bemmel


Cheraw, SC


I think the meeting was a great idea, but I really don't see how this article helps to solve the problems its author sees rising in the PCA. The article is anonymous, one-sided and not entirely accurate. No honest accounting from the "other side" of the debate is presented here- namely, those who believe the PCA suffers from a lack of theological precision and has gotten too broad and too inclusive to be robustly Reformed and truly unified. Some of think that bigger is not necessarily better, if it means ordaining men who hold to FV views that corrupt the Gospel or who embrace Darwinian evolution or a lower view of Scripture. I notice that in these comments first and last names are required, and these comments are the only place where a dissenting voice can be heard.

2012-01-24 14:12 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Brenda


Faria


Colorado Springs


I would respectfully suggest the removal of descriptions of contributors to the discussion in the written article. Though names are left out with Chatham House rules, the descriptions (older, younger, came from another denomination, etc.) may add to marginalization or stereotypes of the reported opinions.

2012-01-24 16:35 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


James


Pakala


Manchester, MO


Coming from separatist Bible Presbyterian orientation, I know the devastation that can come from man-made "purity" of the church. Often quoted was the verse: "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?" What a difference the PCA was, though now it seems in danger of self-delusion. The Bible Presbyterians thought it was great that Mrs. Allan MacRae taught an adult Sunday School class for years. What a jolt to find this was forbidden in a PCA church. Sadly, if visitors show up with a "Vote Democrat" sticker on their car, in some of our churches they could be accosted by incredulous members before even reaching the door.

2012-01-30 00:16 Permalink Reply

Leave a Comment

All Fields Are Required: