Thoughts on the PCA Strategic Plan

The PCA’s website asserts that its Strategic Plan is a contribution “to the progress of the gospel and the building of God’s kingdom with wisdom and intentionality.” As I understand it, the Plan appears to be strong on intentionality but weak on (true) wisdom (few if any Scripture passages are quoted, paraphrased, or alluded to). It has been in the making for two years, and its three themes consist of providing for 1) “safe places” to discuss new ideas, 2) increased involvement and more diverse representation in PCA leadership, and 3) more effective participation in global mission. Each theme includes various means by which the respective goal is to be reached. The General Assembly approved the entire plan except for one of the means under increased involvement: “establish standards for voluntary certification of men and women for specific non-ordained vocational ministries.”

Having read the plan and listened online to Dr. Bryan Chapell’s presentation, I think its strength lies in its social, cultural, and ecclesiastical analysis. Strategic planning is certainly not wrong. It is biblical. Paul himself was a master strategist (e.g. seek out synagogues in major cities). The Cooperative Ministries Committee has done a good job in assessing some of the strengths and weaknesses of our denomination at this historical juncture. Its desire to facilitate discussion, expand denominational participation, and promote greater effectiveness is noble. The structure of the Plan is clear, having three major themes with stated goals and specified means to achieve them. Much of the material should be considered carefully as it may prove helpful to us as a church in fulfilling our commission.

However the Plan is extremely weak on biblical rationale. This is likely to be the Achilles’ Heel of the whole project. In fact, the Plan is strikingly undersupplied with references to Scripture. Hence, the whole tenor of the document has a pragmatic air to it. It may be argued that biblical principles are assumed rather than stated because everyone is aware of the foundational underpinnings. However, even if a majority of PCA’ers understand them (which we should not assume), it is helpful and important to be reminded of them in a document such as this.

Equally bothersome is the fact that some of the proposed means may be contrary to biblical principle. For instance, “Public forums at GA to test ideas without vote or risk” may open the door for heretical opinions being unaddressed and passed over for the sake of “safety.” This contradicts our commitment to uphold biblical standards in belief as well as practice. Also, enlisting a more diverse involvement in our leadership may lead to quota systems much like those we must endure in politically-correct America rather than godly character which matters most. In addition, the proposed “unifying funding” sounds like an ecclesiastical tax to me, which flies in the face of God’s delight in and approbation of cheerful giving (2Cor 9:7) and His implied non-delight in conscripted giving. If ultimately passed, every church, if they want a vote at GA, must pay the legislated fee (I think it was 1/3 of 1% of annual budget). Lastly, the express mention of withdrawing from NAPARC so that we can minister more effectively seems to undervalue the importance of truth. The Plan suggests we “withdraw from organizations with whom we share doctrinal history, but not ministry priorities, currently draining our ministry energies (e.g. NAPARC).” What would constitute ministry priorities apart from doctrinal concerns? Do we not receive our "marching orders" from Christ our King? Does He not reveal those orders in His word? Is that not doctrine? I fear this weakness might lead to the proverbial “slippery slope.”

In sum, I think there are beneficial aspects to this Plan. As a mere advisory document aimed at spurring us on to think of our place in history and its unique challenges, the Plan has some merit. As a binding aspect of our denominational life, I think the Plan is dangerous. It has a pragmatic, worldly air that concerns me and keep me from lending it my full support. At best it is severely lacking in biblical support. Perhaps like the 17th century Parliament, we should send it back for Scripture proofs (though I’d rather have more than mere “proofs”).