To Leave or Not To Leave

Recently at least one pastor has advocated leaving the PCA for what he believes are valid reasons.  In response another pastor argued that while those reasons give rise to some concern, they are not serious enough in his mind to warrant a departure.  To leave or not to leave, that is the question.  I believe there are two preliminary queries that must be answered in order to resolve this larger issue.  First, is leaving a church or denomination necessary?  Second, is leaving a church or denomination wise?  Regarding the former question, I am in agreement with the second pastor’s response.  The concerns about the PCA do not necessitate leaving the denomination.  As to the latter question, I do not believe it is wise at this time to leave the PCA.  Indeed, it appears very unwise to depart from one fellowship without being called to a different one.  That is to say, it is never wise to leave any church or denomination for purely negative reasons.  God does not simply drive us away from challenging or difficult circumstances.  He uses them to test, challenge and refine – to sanctify us.  Therefore, we are to stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong (1Cor 16:13).  In other words, be courageous!  We need not flee from anything except sin.  But of course that is dealt with in the first question – is it necessary?  A wise departure always involves being called or guided to something – to a new sphere or opportunity for service, ministry or fellowship.

Let us resist the consumeristic urge to think only of our own tastes and preferences.  Paul says, Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves (Php 2:3).  We must look not only to our own interests but also to those of others (v. 4).  Membership in a church or denomination involves a significant degree of commitment.  It means we become part of a family in which we are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to [our] mutual edification (WCF 26.2).  To leave unnecessarily for selfish reasons is never wise.  One of the distinguishing traits of a truly Christian character or a genuine Christian church is loyalty.  We serve and worship a God who promises He will never leave us or forsake us.  Even if we are faithless, He remains faithful (2Ti 2:13).  That kind of fidelity should be reflected in our lives and relations.  I do not mean we are to be loyal at all costs, for sometimes circumstances demand decisive action and a break with ungodly influences.  The formation of the PCA is a case in point.  The churches leaving the PCUS departed necessarily and wisely.  But I do mean that loyalty requires kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other… and above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony (Col 3:12-14).  Is it necessary to leave the PCA?  No.  Is it wise to leave the PCA?  No, because God is not calling us elsewhere and loyalty demands that we persevere together.  As for me and our church, since at this time a departure is unnecessary and unwise, we will remain gratefully within the PCA.

PCA 40th General Assembly

Last week the Presbyterian Church in America held its 40^th General Assembly in Louisville, Kentucky.  There were 1,075 pastors and elders present to conduct business and edify one another in this annual meeting of one of Christ’s churches.  For the position of moderator the Assembly elected Rev. Mike Ross, whose leadership was characterized by efficiency and good-natured amiability.  The Assembly faced a full docket with 44 overtures, one of the largest clusters of overtures received in a decade.

Various fraternal delegates brought greetings from their denominations, such as James Faris (Reformed Presbyterian Church North America), James Kim (Korean American Presbyterian Church), Charles Jackson (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), Gyu Chul Hwang (Presbyterian Church of Korea Hap Dong) and Ludgero Morais (Presbyterian Church of Brazil).  The PCKHP consists of roughly 3 million members and the Brazilian church boasts over 1 million members.  The chairman of the Committee on Interchurch Relations noted that “we are small fry” compared to these august denominations!

The commissioners were offered a full slate of seminars in mid-week.  Many of us took advantage of listening to various presentations dealing with all sorts of issues, including one by Dr. Gregg Davidson, professor of Geology at the University of Mississippi.  Dr. Davidson affirmed his commitment to the authority and commitment of Scripture, then provided scientific evidence for an ancient earth that included tree rings, varves and radioactive dating.  It was well done and very fascinating. 

Another seminar enlisted the memories of two of our founding fathers, Rev. Frank Barker and Rev. Jim Baird.  Both of these men were intimately involved in the inauguration of the PCA.  Their personal recollections of what led to the formation of the PCA and some of the early circumstances were enlightening and enjoyable.  God has blessed the PCA with tremendous growth and vitality over the years. 

In the Assembly there was some discussion about whether or not we as a denomination should continue our participation in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).  Some of the NAE’s recent actions and positions suggest a shift from its original evangelical focus to more political involvement.  The Assembly decided to remain in the NAE but to closely monitor its activity in the future.  It is possible that the PCA will withdraw from its membership should its activity continue to expose a liberal bent.

We heard reports from all the permanent committees and rejoiced with one accord over God’s gracious generosity in blessing these efforts.  

The Committee on Review of Presbytery Records discovered a discrepancy in the minutes of Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  At one of their meetings they granted an exception having to do with paedocommunion that was hostile to the system and struck at the vitals of religion.  A man seeking ordination said he believed Scripture nowhere prohibits young children from coming to the Lord’s Table.  In his thinking the only thing preventing baptized children from coming to the table is the inability of taking solid food.  This is contrary to the express teaching of Larger Catechism 177, which says the Supper is to be administered “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”  The man’s view is unbiblical and inconsistent with the principles of our Standards.  The Assembly required the presbytery to reexamine this matter and respond to the next General Assembly.  

Finally, the business concluded with a spirited discussion about the practice of Intinction.  This is the practice of dipping the bread into the cup by participants in the Lord’s Supper.  An overture was sent to the General Assembly by Savannah River Presbytery calling for an amendment to BCO 58-5 that added the following words, Intinction, because it conflates Jesus’ two sacramental actions, is not an appropriate method for observing the Lord’s Supper.  The vote in committee was 49-37-2, and the significant minority presented a compelling report that ultimately prevailed.  The language of their BCO amendment is as follows:  As Christ has instituted the Lord’s Supper in two sacramental actions, the communicants are to eat the bread and drink the cup in separate actions.  This terminology was approved by the Assembly and sent to the presbyteries for their approval.  If this amendment receives the advice and consent of two-thirds of the presbyteries, then the 41^st General Assembly will decide by a majority vote whether or not it will permanently amend our Book of Church Order.  Generally speaking those who voted can be classified into three groups.  Some believe Intinction is biblical and in accord with our constitution.  Others believe our constitution is clear enough in forbidding this practice and in need of no amendment.  Still others believe such an amendment would clarify the requirements of our constitution and help eliminate confusion among the churches.  It will be interesting to see what happens to the amendment among the presbyteries.

Over all it was a very good Assembly.  The inspirational services each night were well attended and replete with opportunities for spiritual nourishment.  At all times the brethren behaved with honor and decorum.  The business of the church was carried out with decency and order.  At strategic points throughout the week we enjoyed respites of laughter and encouraging testimonies.  In retrospect, I think the Presbyterian polity once again proved its worth.  This should come as no surprise to anyone since it is the biblical model of church government.  I appreciate the way in which the PCA handles its work.  I have no reason to believe our commitment to Scripture has weakened.  Certainly our devotion to Christ is evident.  Men who vigorously debated certain issues confirmed their willingness to submit themselves to their brethren in the Lord.  It was a very good experience.  May our God bless the PCA.

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”).