“A Prayer for the PCA with Hope That It Will Thrive in the Next Generation”
April 3, 2006
John H. Armstrong
I love the people and the vision of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). These people are some of the finest and choicest believers in North America. They have a great vision for church planting, for overseas missions, and for college and university ministry that is second to none. Some of the finest supporters of ACT 3 are members of PCA churches and some of our best supporting congregations are PCA churches. Over the course of this year I will speak in more PCA churches than in any other churches of any other denomination in America. I will speak in PCA churches in every region of the US and in PCA churches of every size and form. I will also speak on seminary campuses where the dominant influence is PCA. And my association with Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) groups on college campuses allows me to meet some of the best and brightest Christian collegians I know. I will further be asked to counsel and pray with many dear friends who are elders in the PCA. Simply put, the PCA is a major part of my life even though I am not a PCA minister. I love the heart and soul of the PCA very deeply.
I also have a growing concern for the PCA. This is a conflicted denomination. This conflict does not come from the Left at all, like it does in so many of the older fellowships in America. This denomination is not fighting about homosexual ordination or the adoption of anti-Semitic overtures with regard to the state of Israel. This conflict, and the spirit that energizes it, comes from the far Right. You see, the PCA has a very vocal minority of folks who just can’t stop arguing. They seem to thrive on polemics. Every controversy known to conservative Christianity seems to eventually find its way into the PCA. I have been reminded of this again over the last few weeks. One theological overture after another keeps surfacing and making its way into the bloodstream of the PCA, poisoning the missional good of this fellowship over and over again. I do not know how long this group can sustain this kind of hostility.
Do not get me wrong. I believe some things are worth ecclesiastical struggle. I am reminded of what an American Baptist minister said to me about this matter seven years ago. He noted that every minister is called to be vigilant and courageous for the truth of the gospel. He said, “John, it really is necessary to fight for the gospel as a faithful minister. Every morning when I get up and pray, I am energized for the battle before me. I know what the real issues are and I am prepared to fight for the truth of the gospel. The battles we fight in my circles are crucial and quite central to the mission of Christ. This makes things easy for me in terms of knowing where to expend my energy in this kind of struggle.”
But the PCA seems conflicted about which conflicts truly matter. Just a few days ago a brother told me of an interview he had with a PCA search committee. The very first question they asked him was: “What is your position on the six literal days of Genesis?” Another brother told me of a presbytery that took ninety minutes to cross-examine a new pastor because it would not accept their own committee’s report on the pastor’s fitness for PCA standing. Still another related the story of false and improperly advanced accusations that proceeded along lines that were completely inconsistent with Scripture. The list goes could on.
The line of questions most often advanced by polemicists in the PCA these days are of a fairly standard variety; e.g., justification and the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision (with related debates about baptism and the Lord’s Supper), Norman Shepherd’s misunderstood views on justification and sanctification, the place of liturgy (including weekly communion, forms of worship expression, ministerial robes and clerical collars), the role of women (including women serving as ordained deacons and women serving in the military), paedocommunion, Bible translations, etc. Yet this is the same denomination that makes wide room for almost every variety of far Right political expression, for strange interpretations of ecclesial trivia that are clearly out of the main stream of historic Reformed life, and for pastors and elders who regularly attack one another in broad daylight. (One needs only to read several blogs and listen to discussions in chat rooms and presbyteries to see this stuff on a regular basis.)
Add to these flames of controversy a new study committee proposal to the forthcoming General Assembly in June. This one comes from the Rocky Mountain Presbytery. The appeal is like several others that have come out of presbyteries over the past few years. This one calls for an ad interim committee to determine if various positions related to present scholarly developments in the area of Pauline theology are consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith. The wording of the Rocky Mountain resolution is quite typical of these kinds of proposals: “Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards.”
The sad fact is that this kind of thing has already been tried several times in the PCA, in at least several different overtures and forms. Every time these proposals have been made they get defeated in the General Assembly, or usually before they even get there. This gives me heart since it demonstrates that the soul of the PCA seems resistant to this wasteful pursuit. But barking critics seem prepared to keep at it for years to come. One reason is the wide use of the Internet. Bloggers and heresy hunters can stir up a storm in a matter of days with this new technology. The problem, however, is not the technology, though it sure makes the work easier to do. One real problem, in my estimation, is the remaining form of litigious practice that is inherent in the court-system of the PCA as they inherited from their old Southern Presbyterian history. Increasingly, a younger generation finds nothing in this system to give them hope about the future.
Sadly, I believe the PCA will not see the end of this bickering for some years. As much as the far Right abominates me for saying so, “real revival” may be the only immediate answer in the near term. And as much as my critics may hate it, only the overflowing love of Jesus will stop this nonsense completely. In a time when a healthy dose of orthodoxy is truly needed, the PCA could be a great means for spreading reformation all across the American church scene, but too much time is presently being wasted on these intramural debates that target only a small handful of pastors.
Sadly, writing the above comments will likely infuriate some, leading them to say, “See, here is the problem. We need to drive the kind of Christianity that you promote, and ministers just like you, right out of the PCA or we will become a liberal denomination that denies the Westminster Standards.” The last thing the PCA needs to fear right now is real liberalism. The real danger in the PCA is sectarianism, a sectarianism which threatens to destroy this great fellowship before it begins to reach its fullest missional potential, which I think is still great. This fellowship is not even thirty-five years old ye, but the separatist DNA of its origins may yet slow its dynamic growth significantly in the next few decades if this constant commitment to controversy doesn’t stop somewhere. I believe this with all my heart and I think history supports me in this observation. A sustained polemic will never build a great church! It will only produce more and more schism. At some point wiser heads must prevail and this family squabbling needs to stop. I pray for courageous leaders who seek this and who will stand up and say, “Enough!”
Though I am an openly confessional Reformed minister, I am not a PCA minister. I pray for my numerous friends who are ministers in the PCA. I listen to them with growing concern. I can speak my mind on these several matters without any fear of reprisal from a presbytery that wants to bring me up on charges. Sadly, some of my friends can’t do the same. Some take a real risk by inviting me to speak in their churches for fear of reaction. Some friends can’t speak plainly about this controversy without personal ramifications that threaten them and their families. Many very fine people are frankly growing weary in their well-doing, yet they continue to work faithfully to stop this kind of infighting that profoundly hinders the PCA’s long-term missionary contribution to the kingdom of Christ. I pray for all my friends in the PCA that they will succeed in keeping the denomination on mission for the sake of Christ’s work.
I agree with you that there is too much polemical discourse within the PCA. (Have you looked at the SBC lately?) However, some of this does seem necessary. If you have no one asking the hard questions and no polemics at all you end up with the PCUSA (the denomination I became a believer in and sadly had to leave). But where do you draw the line? What is acceptable and what is over the top? For example, I'm not sure the New Perspectives on Paul should be left undiscussed. This seems dangerously close to abandoning the heritage of the Reformation (I'm trying to be kind in my remarks.) So in your view, what is and what isn't acceptable polemical debate?
Thank you for your article and prayers for the PCA. I am not PCA either, but pray for our brothers and sisters to find truth.
We know that Jesus came in mercy and truth. We also see this idea, truth and love, upheld throughout Scripture. As in the case of Jesus' evaluation of his active church in Rev. 1-3: although suffering was the word given to Smyrna (which will come to those holding to truth), the church in Ephesus was called to love and the church in Pergamum was called to truth (ridding themselves of wrongful teaching).
Of course, as you stated, you agree with that. So, the discernment must reach a level that allows for correct exegesis of what is timeless and what is adiaphora in the context of God's Word to a certain people in a certain place at a certain time, and applying that properly to our time today.
I write to question one remark, of which, I would contend, is quite important.
In your article, you mentioned:
"The very first question they asked him was: “What is your position on the six literal days of Genesis?”"
Quite possibly, that may look to be an unusual question with which to begin an interview. However, I would say that one's belief in the foundation of Scripture (Genesis) and how one interprets that part of God's Word, sets the stage for how one reads all of Scripture. If I were to say that Genesis 1-11 was only figurative, that it doesn't matter what the literature genre says regarding the matter, or any other argument, than what have I done with God's holy, inerrant, inspired Word? Is there authority? If so, when do "I" choose to give authority to it? Do I begin at Genesis 12? Or maybe it is better to begin with King David, Isaiah, or maybe Matthew, when Jesus speaks (as if he isn't speaking in the O.T., as some misunderstand). These are some of the problems with undercutting the authority of Scripture, which is happening more and more by "pastors" today. This is very concerning to me. It is only a short step away to say that the resurrection did not actually happen (which is what some denominations have already done, which brings to mind the correction Paul gave for such a situation in 1 Cor. 15:12ff). The logical deduction is to follow the argument to its logical conclusion. And if the authority of Scripture is undercut in one place, where do we begin to give it credence?
In a similar matter, most of the Christian world is rightly concerned about the "doctrine" that "The DaVinci Code" spells out because it tears down the authority of God's Word (just to mention one problem). How is that different from our "brother's in Christ" who do the same, yet are not even consistent in doing that? Some may say, "Oh, it doesn't matter about Genesis...but Paul, this you must take seriously!" How can those co-exist?
I do not pray for us to stop our missional response to call a lost world to repentance, but I do pray that those who endeavor such a fine calling would do so with respect to the One who has sent them. No one likes an ambassador who doesn't even know the mind of his sender! The same with God. If we do not lovingly struggle with these truths, compelling each other to stay strong in His Word, we will only continue to fail Jesus' words in his prayer in John 17.
NIV John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-- the name you gave me-- so that they may be one as we are one.
NIV John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
And so, we of over 6,000 Christian denominations, have made a laughingstock of Jesus' Words, for we certainly are far from one, as he and the Father were one.
I pray that we quickly and lovingly, for the sake of our mission to the world (John 17:21), would work diligently to these matters in the spirit of Paul's exhortations to God's servant Timothy:
ESV 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
It is for the sake of our witness to the world that we must struggle with his truth in all things. I pray his Spirit would guide us into all truth. That our hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge(Col. 2:2).
NIV Ephesians 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Are we doing that perfectly? Absolutely not. But we must struggle, for unity is also our witness.
Unfortunately John, it is being falsely alleged that "the gospel is at stake." These false accusations shrilly made (far outside any court of the church, but savagely on the internet) mean that anyone asking for peace is a compromiser.
We are in a situation where theological ignorance mixed with zeal has reached a critical mass. How we are going to avoid a fission reaction is a question I can't answer.
Thank you for your insightful words. They resonate with my own heart on these matters. There indeed is a qualitative difference between discussion and demonization. When it comes to the NPP and the PCA, I suspect far too little discussion has been enjoyed, though there is ample demonization. The vicious nature of the latter is evident in the polemics: misconstruals of the NPP combined with a reduced and selective presentation of the Reformed Faith. This is a recipe for sectarianism. There is little virtue in such posturing.
We will continue to pray with you about these troubling matters.
This is a beautifully written and gracious warning shot. It sounds like a prophet. May the Lord bless this word within a splendid and conflicted
tribe.
I think you do a disservice to those whom you characterize as polemical and to the role that such discussions must play in the progress of the Kingdom. I posted a reply at www.theologica.worldmag.com and would invite your consideration and reply.
Dr. Armstrong: You spoke at our church some time ago and very much respect and support your work. I also agree with your observances of the struggle and theological strife that seems to prevade in my own denomination. That being said, I might suggest a slightly different interpretation as to the correlation. Not so much that the denomination is marked by various theological conflict so much as actually the same root conflict that keeps surfacing but in varied forms.
Many of the controversies you mention:
New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision, Norman Shepherd’s misunderstood views on justification and sanctification, paedocommunion, etc. all branch off the same tree and are rooted in, as you say, a small minority of churches/prebyteries.
However, the entire Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals have come out against what they believe here to be false teaching (The Cambridge Declaration). I believe what Rocky Mountain is attempting to do is to have the PCA catch up with the rest of the reformed community. John Piper, RC Sproul, and so many others have made their statements clear. The problem with this 'small minority' is the significan number of sheep they affect. What originated as an academic debate and exercise among the elite scholars is now be taught as doctrine. Again, I believe that other leaders in reformed denominations have already done what Rocky Mountain has asked the PCA GA to do now.
I agree that some issues are splitting hairs and amount to nothing more than angels on the head of a pin. But the Five Solas should be non-negotiable. Don't you agree?
