A post with this title by Bryan Chapell (http://byfaithonline.com/the-state-of-the-pca/)
appeared earlier this week. A response a couple of day later appeared from Rick
Phillips (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/05/dear-bryan-replying-to-the-sta-1.php).
So I figured I’d add my two cents worth.
First, where I’m coming from. I have served the entirety of
my ministry in the PCA in Calvary Presbytery, which is probably notorious as
one of the more conservative presbyteries in the denomination. I am not widely
traveled in PCA circles, unlike both Bryan and Rick. I teach at Greenville Presbyterian
Seminary, which at least some folks in the PCA have never heard of, and some
wish they hadn't. I attend GA sporadically, though I have served three years
on the Review of Presbytery Records Committee. So my perspective is parochial,
but informed by a certain level of awareness of what’s going on the
denomination at large.
First, I think Rick got a lot right in his response to
Bryan. I would fall into the “traditionalist” group that Dr. Chapell
identified, but I don’t recognize myself in his description. In fact, I was
shocked by how far off his description was. I thought he knew his denomination
better than that. His statement identifying Colson, Falwell, Robertson, and
other such as being the heroes of the over-50 crowd couldn't be wider of the
mark. There are no doubt those in the denomination who looked to those men as
Christian leaders thirty years ago, but even then, they would not necessarily
have considered them heroes or even good guides on how best the church should
function. I appreciate some of the things that Al Mohler and Russell Moore have
to say, and I’m thankful to God for their work, but I wouldn't want either one
of them in my presbytery.
Further, his characterization of the progressive churches as
the ones that are growing, and the churches of the others (traditionalists and
neutrals) as not is unkind as well as inaccurate. Certainly there are churches
in all three groups that are growing, and there are churches in all three
groups that are not. There are also many PCA churches that are located in rural
areas with small populations where much growth will not happen, no matter how “progressive”
the church might be.
I could go on in this vein, but Dr. Phillips has already
dealt with much of it. Instead I want to focus on one statement that Dr.
Chapell made, and one point that neither he nor Dr. Phillips addressed. Dr.
Chapell made the comment early on that the progressives “are increasingly
concerned that the church cannot move forward without controversy.” It may come
as a surprise to Dr. Chapell and the “progressives,” but the church has never
moved forward without controversy. There were the Trinitarian and Christological
controversies of the early church. There was the iconoclastic controversy of
the medieval church. There were generations of controversy leading up to the
big controversy of the Reformation. There was the Synod of Dordt. There was the
Westminster Assembly. There were the Old Side-New Side and Old School-New
School controversies. Why should we think that in our church in our generation the church should move forward without controversy? I don’t like
controversy. I fear those who do. But iron sharpens iron, and that means
disagreement. If those in the PCA are unwilling to engage with those in the
denomination with whom they disagree, there is no hope for the long-term
viability of the denomination. But if we’re going to disagree with one another,
we need to know those with whom we disagree better than Dr. Chapell seems to.
Finally, there is an issue that neither Dr. Chapell nor Dr.
Phillips addressed. That is the ministry and outreach of the PCA to minorities.
Now I know that some of my African-American and Hispanic brothers think that
there is too little of this going on. I understand their concern, and I
sympathize with them. But I would also like to encourage them. It may not seem
like much now, but given where the PCA started, and the fact that the PCA has
only been round for a little over forty years, the PCA has actually made
significant progress in these areas. Yes, it needs to make more. But that will
only come by patient sowing and watering. There are increasing numbers of
church plants and outreaches by PCA ministers and churches to minority
communities. My generation (I am 61) will not see much fruit from these works. There
is too much baggage that needs to be cleared out. But the next generation will
see more, and hopefully the following generation even more. But we do well to
remember Paul’s admonition, "And let us not grow weary of doing good. for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up" (Gal 6:9)
In short, the PCA can have a
bright future, but it will take more getting to know one another, and what
others really think and are committed to, and willingness to engage in some
controversy when necessary.
1 comment:
Dr. Shaw,
We are always grateful for your considerate and loving appeal for loving care.
The Chapell led (moderator) of the Panel discussion on minority issues, together the "epic" discussion of PR 4 revealed a vulnerabilty within the PCA pastoral element,i.e., moving away from the authority of scripture to one of emotions and feelings. Our doctrine of One in Christ, though brought forward on the floor disicussion, was set aside. The minority demanded action, a vision. The State of the PCA is becoming one more of uncertainty. May our Lord have compassionate mercy upon it.
Post a Comment