According to David Hall, not much of significance occurred at the PCA General Assembly:
It was a par-for-the-course General Assembly, which pronounces another resounding “Meh,” to the idealist reformers. As is becoming customary, most of the interesting things took place off the floor as this court of the church has become largely irrelevant for the year-round functioning of the church. Perhaps it is a sign of growth and stability that churches no longer depend much on annual four-day meetings[1] and are doing the work of ministry themselves without reliance on either a Plantation or a Corporatist model.
I’ll let the Presbyterian Church of Americans weigh in on this, but I do need to correct Pastor Hall about the origins of “Obedience boys.” All hail Bill Smith.
Old Life 
The silence and calm was that of subjugation, resignation, and mild relief (on the part of the splintered old school/traditionalist/conservative minority) that things aren’t worse. I understand — I have not the energy to type anymore words about it.
LikeLike
And I lament the lack of a vigorous and vocal opposition within the PCA, which seems to be tending towards harmony and acceptance of the way things are — as evidenced by Hall’s words. One prog complained that “we argue too much about too much.” I would claim the opposite, that the PCA argues too little about too little. The hang-around-and-try-to-change-things mentality didn’t work in the PCUSA. I’m not sure it will work in the PCA, especially if the good guys are so timid. And comfortable.
LikeLike
Here’s another take
LikeLike
Chortles:
…….., especially if the good guys are so timid. And comfortable.
Montani:
……., and gone.
LikeLike
Does anyone know if the YEC warriors gained any ground this year?
LikeLike
While, I agree with much push back against some of the “obedience boys” I equally wish not to be associated the trendy-hip-new-school presbyterianism of Tullian and some of who have defended him that’s par for the course for Knox and RTS orlando grads (where did FL go wrong?). Rather than being part of the “grace” crew I rather be apart of the “I-Dont-Think-The-Heidelberg-Catechism-is-Lutheran-and-so-what-if-it-is-crew” not likely to catch on but maybe if i threw in some bing words and cool logo it might catch on.
LikeLike
Brian, where did Florida (California, Jr.) go wrong? Where did it ever go right?
LikeLike
What does YEC stand for?
LikeLike
Chris, Young Earth Creationist. Or LSDYEC (Literal Six Day Young Earth Creationist).
LikeLike
Jed,
AIG (YEC’ers wet dream) had a floor exhibit and did a seminar on 6,000 years as “proved” by something-or-other, mainly to counter the griping when OECers did a presentation last. Other than that, not much.
LikeLike
With great love and respect to the PCA family, as I’ve shared before, which are the best of the best, and out of concern for it, and considering myself as being more needy than anyone else, I was wondering if I could present something here which is not ‘Ho-Hum’:
Question: What if your Reformed (or even other denominational church) was composed of a small number of congregants, but the church appeared to be headed toward ‘dying out’, and was in need of revitalization……………and……
…..(another question:) if a Christ-centered, Gospel-driven program (as claimed) appeared on the horizon that presented itself as a ministry to other churches as ‘expert in the area of church revitalization’, in the similitude and pattern of the Apostle Paul going about ‘strengthening the churches’, but yet could only realized for your needy church to the tune of:
– A signed contract (signed by the session members) and payment of several, several thousands of dollars for the program, which recommends the following practices/influences for achieving a revitalized, healthy church:
– ‘Spiritual Formation’ (contemplative prayer and meditation practices) that recommend the influences of Madam Guyon and Thomas Marton, among others, so that one can learn to hear an ‘inward voice’ during your contemplative prayer time (I do believe God guides us in prayer, but this was so emphasized as learning to hear God’s voice/God speaking to you in an inner voice – mysticism, clearly – you get my point).
– The influence of C.J. Mahaney’s (Why Small Groups)
– The influence of Purpose-Driven Rick Warren
– The influence/pattern of John Wesley, etc.
– A process of ‘envisioning’ – whereby committee members shape/create their vision of their prospectfully revitalized church through what they receive in their ‘contemplative prayer-time’ (mysticism) in developing/forming a mission statement, the type of worship service desired, outreach, etc., even the number of people (a number) that they envision for the church to have among their ranks in the future…..
– and, in consideration of the above, by contrast, there are scant-to-hardly any references to the great Reformers/Reformed pattern and tradition. In the program, the Gospel is presented, but afterward, it is as though the Gospel is an after-thought, as the emphasis in the rest of the program is inward-looking and introspective as the church members develop in their ‘spiritual formation’, which will bring ‘a healthy church’, resulting in church revitalization………(but not promising new members – oh, no, it is not a church growth program, it is a church health program).
So, in the end, you will have a healthy church, but not necessarily (the program language asserts ‘not guaranteed’) new members. But you most likely will have them if you do everything that the program recommends. And if you keep sin out of the camp (remember Aachen?). And if you all are committed and keep your commitments (vows, oaths, promises). And remember, if you don’t do all that you have been taught to do, you will not have success. Not to keep repeating the phrase ‘plausible deniability’, but in critique of my observations, one might assert that the intentions of the program are grounded in the Gospel but you misunderstood. I don’t think so.
Not to beat a dead-horse (but maybe so, because it’s not dead), the emphasis on Small Group discipleship and (I believe) Super-Accountability are the centerpiece of this construct…….’be sure to always check in with your small group leader’…………….
Is this what Calvin, Luther, Ursinus, Warfield, etc., would wholeheartedly endorse so that the PCA is not ‘Ho-Hum’ but on fire with revival throughout? Does this type of program follow the Reformed faith, confessions, traditions, and practices in your view?
I do love those who are involved with promoting such an endeavor; I believe that they are good people, with a lot to offer in the way of their ministry and contributions, but still, this seems to me to be a ‘business’, and not a ministry. And I really struggle with the theology and theological influences that shape/form this program. (By the way, Jonathan Edwards is revered in this initiative also).
On the part of those involved, what I would like to believe, to give the benefit of the doubt, is that ‘creep’ is largely responsible for how so many saints can go along with it, because, after all, churches do pay for pest control services, architectural and building contracting services, honoraria for guest speakers, food and rent for conferences, and so on. It’s easy to slide over into a mentality that this is something eligible to do, yet, by contrast, the Apostle Paul made tents to support himself and not be a burden on others. And a signed contract and proprietary materials communicates the message “we don’t want anyone discovering the Colonel’s 11 herbs and spices” – which means it’s about competition. The only other possibility is ‘confidentiality for proprietary reasons alone’, which can mean anything in the world of business. Any good business owner would and should incorporate these practices.
But does that make it a ministry?
LikeLike
With all due respect to Richard, AIG did not participate in this year’s GA. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) had a booth, and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson of ICR gave the seminar on the age of the earth.
I have no idea if ICR represents anyone’s “wet dream,” but I’d rather hope not.
LikeLike
Ho-hum. If David Hall’s piece is any indication, confessional presbyters have learned to accept their marginalized place in the PCA. It’s not that the progressives have won. It’s all those mushy moderates we can thank for the state of the PCA. They say things like, “I think it’s great to be in a denomination which includes Tim Keller & Ligon Duncan.” In fact, it was their kumbaya fest a couple years back that summed it up perfectly. “We need each other” – which really means you confessional guys can co-exist with us progressive-types, as long as you don’t go imposin’ your confessionalism on us or anything unloving like that. Let’s just affirm each other in the name of “unity” (something other than unity in faith & practice, apparently, which I thought was the whole stinkin’ point of being confessional).
LikeLike
You’re right, RGM, my apologies. As I get older, all the acronyms blend together in my mind.
LikeLike
Semper, can I say ‘no’ more than once?
LikeLike
Sean,
Absolutely. You don’t know how encouraging this is to me. Many thanks.
LikeLike
By the way, another nickname used by some in the PCA for the confessionalists are “sectarians.” So, I have been told that the progressives are trying to make us a broader church; but they will allow the sectarians to stay. Which means: as long as they have no influence. And by broader, they mean something more like Anglicanism; not union with fellow NAPARCers.
LikeLike
Robert Gundry: Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian,
1) Jesus is the Word to the world in spite of the world
2) The Gospel of John is primarily for the elect, all of whom will believe the true gospel.
3) The love of God is not universal. John’s vision of the Christian community flows from a view of Christ that is separatist toward the world. The Fourth Gospel is unalterably sectarian
LikeLike
Chris, at this point, I think it would be more honest for the PCA to adopt a broader “reformed” doctrinal statement – and acknowledge Westminster for what it has practically become: merely advisory. Crossed-fingers at ordination exams and heresy trials is not a good thing for any church – or for the men who take the vows. Ninth commandment and all.
LikeLike
Tony,
I have chaired the credentials committees in two different presbyteries and served on the Review of Presbytery Records committee a couple of times. I don’t think it is near as bad as you say. Most presbyteries (I think) follow a pretty thorough subscription/exception standard. I don’t know of any men who have outright lied at their exams or ordination vows. Are we soft in places? Sure. I happen to be glad we are soft on Creation Days for instance — that way I can stay in the PCA.
But the WCF is not even close to being “merely advisory” as you say, not with TEs anyway. That is just not accurate. What worries me is when folks start finding their identity more in the “great tradition” rather than in being Reformed. Then we shall not hold together. And I don’t like folks being labled sectarian for following their conscience regarding what they believe Scripture teaches.
LikeLike
Chris, I know there are more confessional presbyteries and men in the PCA. But what about PNWP & the Leithart fiasco? In what crazy world can what Leithart says about baptism, perseverance, justification, mono-covenantal theology, the church, etc, be reconciled to Westminster? Only in a world where confessional language is flexed to the point of being rendered meaningless. And when there is no meaningful review & control of doctrine (not merely procedure) possible at the GA level (thanks to the constitutional tinkering of years past), how can confessional integrity be maintained within the whole church? We have a confederation of presbyteries, which vary widely in terms of confessional adherence – and the PCA is apparently content to keep it that way.
LikeLike
Tony,
I share that frustration. But the story is not over yet. Leithart will likely need to leave for the CREC, since he now resides is a more faithful presbytery, at least on this score (I don’t know either presbytery very well).
I think you are right that we are more a confederacy than a union, but then again, so was ancient Israel; and at times, the early Church, which was threatened by grave heresies which remained within her ranks for decades at a time, until Councils could settle matters. It’s still early in this whole PCA thing. In the meantime, the Confession itself has not changed, and so the errors of today may in time ebb away (whilst yet others still arise), while our Standard stays constant.
For example, I think some errors of early PCA history are less prominent today, as the Standard asserted its authority again, as it were. Baptist REs, 4 point Calvinists, racism and segregationism, later theonomy, are all much less prominent than they once were.
Now we have other problems arising; but we should neither over-react or despair. And remain thankful for our sister denominations.
LikeLike
Can someone please explain why this 2008 publication states that 22% of PCA people polled said the Bible is a “book written by men, not the word of God”? It’s on page 128. It’s interesting how the PCUSA has the exact percentage in this category. I can understand the other answers listed, but this one should raise great concern.
If this is accurate, the PCA is an even greater tent than I imagined. It’s too large for me.
Click to access report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
LikeLike
“By the way, another nickname used by some in the PCA for the confessionalists are “sectarians.””
It amazes me how willing we are in the confessional Reformed world to put up with such childish name-calling. It is unbecoming of any follower of Christ with a measure of spiritual maturity, especially of church officers. “Sectarian” historically is the opposite of “catholic” (in the good sense), and thus to call someone a “sectarian” historically was a very serious accusation. To call someone a “sectarian” today may have less serious connotations, but it is still usually intended as a snub, an insult intended to imply that those stamped with the “S” label are narrow, bigoted, curmudgeonly, ornery folk, etc. Those who call confessionalists “sectarians” in this sense are guilty of slander (9th commandment). Not very loving, tolerant, or broad-minded, really.
LikeLike
Semper Reformanda,
In answer to your question: “Run Away!”
LikeLike
Geoff,
Thankfully, I could see it for what is was and voiced my objections to it when it came our way. I wanted to share it with you all to see what your reviews of it were. Scant references to the Reformers on the title page along with Wesley (see what I mean) to make it acceptable to the Calvinistic Methodists. Yours is good advice!
Here is the program:
http://www.emberstoaflame.org/fanning.htm
LikeLike
Tony, can you say “good faith” subscription?
The mushy middle sure can.
And slur those for whom the 3rd commandment is neither a suggestion or sectarian.
To put it another way, everybody believes in a catholic faith, they’re just not too sure on what it entails/contains.
A confession of faith? What a novel idea. Let me thing about that for awhile.
Big tent? Nah, you’re making free association/brain fade connections with the Ringling Brothers.
cheers
LikeLike
Re: Alberto and the Pew Study
As always for statistical studies, read the fine print. “Presbyterian Church in America (Evangelical Tradition)” is NOT the same thing in the Pew survey as PCA (though your confusion is understandable). PCA is listed as a subset of that category elsewhere in the document. It would certainly include EPC and probably some confused PCUSA types.
The PCA has its problems, but the connection you make here is not one of them.
LikeLike
@Geoff
I think it is rather clear cut. Person B is in church X. X has a large number of members in positions of authority who disagree with B about something B considers important.
B advocates leaving to form church Y: B is a sectarian.
B isn’t terribly bothered and considers the institution more important than the disagreement. B is non-sectarian.
This isn’t slander it is simply a statement of fact. Confessionalists are narrow which is why they like long confessions that everyone must adhere to. They tend to attack others who disagree with their interpretation of the confession. They cause division in the institution over matters of faith hence: ornery… The PCA has to make choices about how broad it wants to be. Everyone in the PCA wants to be far less broad than the Unitarian Church. Most everyone in the PCA wants to be far more broad than tiny sectarian churches and rather be a major denomination. That’s a tricky balancing act. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with the people who want to focus on broad thinking the people who want to focus on narrow are wrong.
LikeLike
@Alberto According to those Pew Results, 15% of Atheists are “Absolutely Certain” or “Fairly Certain” God exists. 40% of Agnostics are as well. Additionally 2% of Atheists and 7% of Agnostics receive answers to prayer on at least a monthly basis. Also interesting that there are more republican mainline presbyterians than evangelical presbyterians.
I suspect the survey can be used to identify trends, but I don’t think I would get too worked up about the detailed numbers. People aren’t always particularly careful about how they self identify or how they answer questions to pollsters.
LikeLike
CD-Host,
Well, since the WCF best reflects the True Church which Jesus founded, everyone who does not agree with us and joins a Reformed church is clearly a sectarian. See what I did there? Not very nice is it.
LikeLike
@Chris
Of course I see what you did there. But there are two different issues:
a) A standard applied hypocritically
b) A standard applied fairly
Geoff was objecting to the standard being applied fairly because he considers the term negative but the cause positive (like the old freedom fighter vs. terrorist). You were self consciously applying the standard in a way that was obviously hypocritical.
LikeLike
I guess I am just happy for everyone to follow their own conscience, knowing that the “catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them…. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. ” ~ WCF 25.4-5
Ain’t no one sectarian as long as they are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, no matter how impure; unless in fact they do become synagogues of Satan. Sectarian is, and is meant to be, a derogatory slam.
LikeLike
Thank you for the info sdb and Iain, I was a bit skeptical of it. I was just unsure because I don’t have firsthand knowledge of PCA congregations over the entire US. It still seems tremendously odd.
LikeLike
I generally understand (and appreciate) the concerns of the Old Lifers. Moreover, Old Lifers seem to be fairly intellectually consistent across the board. And, when it comes to FV, seem to proffer a more robust criticism of the FV crowd.
I don’t see a similar coherency among the so-called confessionalists in the PCA. Their vision seems to be based much more on a disparate laundry list of things/people they don’t like. I’ve lived in the South on two occasions. When visiting churches, I generally ask three questions.
1. What disciplinary action does your church take against parents who refuse to baptize their children?
2. What do you think about John Piper? What about Al Mohler?
3. What kinds of arguments should the church be making in the public square regarding the propriety of civil same-sex marriage?
To a true confessionalist (which I consider myself to be), I want something akin to the following.
1. We take strong disciplinary action against them, excommunicating them, if necessary.
2. Anti-Christ. Who is Al Mohler?
3. None, although we encourage Christians to be involved in politics, making arguments drawn from general revelation regarding these sorts of issues.
LikeLike
@Bobby
I’d be very surprised if there was a PCA church anywhere that would excommunicate a member who dissented from paedobaptism. The membership vows are pretty broad. Of course one couldn’t be a ruling or teaching elder, and if one advocated against paedobaptism, one would likely be encouraged to worship elsewhere. As one who dissents from inerrancy and the historicity of Adam but has otherwise drunk the Reformed Kool-Ade, I’m grateful for the breadth of the PCA. While I’m not exactly “in the closet” about my views, I don’t advertise them either and realize I could never be an officer in the church. I’m OK with that as long as they are. I’d really prefer not to move to the mainline – not so much because they are liberal, but because they are so insipid (at least the ones in my community).
As far as personal feelings about Piper and Mohler, I’m not sure I get the animosity in some reformed circles – I would imagine that a lot of reformed types would appreciate these Baptists introducing their congregations/denominations to reformed and puritan writers. They are gateways to reformed churches for many. Of course they themselves are not reformed even if their Soteriology mostly is, so perhaps that underlies some of the annoyance. The folks I find much more problematic for reformed Christians are guys like DeYoung and Keller who sign other statements of faith, develop their own catechisms, and form pseudodenominations within their own. That is a much greater threat to the integrity of our small and struggling denominations than Baptists who extol the virtues of Owens and Edwards.
As far as politics go, I think you are spot on. The PCA church I attended in Tucson a decade or so ago was *very* political – the pastor read the old “Thank a Soldier” poem from the pulpit the Sunday near Memorial day, we had patriotic songs complete with video projection of jets flying and tanks rolling. The pastor was from Kennedy’s church, so EE was big as was the distribution of voting guides, etc… However, part of why what happened in church was so shocking was that I had never seen anything like it before, and I’ve lived and worshiped in a lot of different parts of the country.
LikeLike
Bobby, #1 could be avoided if American Presbyterians didn’t make members of credo-baptists in the first place. So the (loaded) question might be, Do you require both officers and laity to confess and practice the Reformed faith, or are you latitudinarian on baptism?
sdb, so few sermons on the downsides of freedom and persecution as a mark of heavenly favor, I’d surmise.
LikeLike
Chris H: What worries me is when folks start finding their identity more in the “great tradition” rather than in being Reformed.
mcmark–Amen to that.
Chris H—no one sectarian as long as they are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, no matter how impure; unless in fact they do become synagogues of Satan. Sectarian is, and is meant to be, a derogatory slam.
mcmark- I am not quite sure, Chris, how your second remark fits with the first quotation. In my experience, the greatest sectarians are the ones who most claim to be anti-sectarians. The sectarian cult of Romanism is the best example of this, but I am sure you also know this in its southern Campbellite forms. Don’t call us Campbellites, we are not a denomination, we are “THE church of Christ”. And of course there are now three sects of different Campbellites.
Is discipline a mark of a true local church, or is it enough that a local church is in formal arrangement with other congregations, so that there is an appearance of discipline, even if it’s only by clergy of other clergy? if we have a paper creed which still says the correct things about how a “sacrament” is to be rightly administered, who is to say that “discipline” is also a mark by which to judge ecclesia? Isn’t that an anabaptist idea originated by those who had contempt for the mixed character of the “older administration of the one covenant” church? Those anabaptist sectarians, along with their disdain for all things jewish, wanted to divide people between those with a profession of faith and those without a profession of faith.
I would rather be a “sectarian” than to claim that what are called “sacraments” are something God does “in order to” saving grace. If it’s sectarian to deny that the Lord’s Supper is a ‘converting instrument”, then so be it—-the command to take eat is for those who profess faith in the gospel, (and that gospel is defined in some very well known paragraphs in the WCF).
LikeLike
sdb,
There are some PCA churches in southern Arizona that don’t preach the type of bilge you experienced in Tucson; you just need to look hard.
LikeLike
RGM – I have no idea if ICR represents anyone’s “wet dream,” but I’d rather hope not.
Erik – Not even Dr. Ruth could help that guy…
LikeLike
CD-Host: “I think it is rather clear cut. Person B is in church X. X has a large number of members in positions of authority who disagree with B about something B considers important.
B advocates leaving to form church Y: B is a sectarian.
B isn’t terribly bothered and considers the institution more important than the disagreement. B is non-sectarian.”
GW: You misunderstand the point I was making. We are talking about Christians and Christian leaders within the PCA — itself a “confessional” (at least on paper) Presbyterian denomination — calling fellow church members “sectarian” simply because they seek to adhere more strictly to the doctrinal Standards the church as a whole professes. It is this that I object to. Historically the term “sectarian” was used to describe those who, through heresy or schism, had broken fellowship with the church catholic/universal to start their own sect. It is my understanding that “sectarian” was a term that had a very clear, objective meaning, and thus it was a very serious charge to call someone a “sectarian.” It was basically tantamount to saying that someone was not a Christian.
While “confessionalists” in the PCA might differ with the so-called “progressives” in the church over matters like confessional subscription, etc., and vice-versa, I don’t think either progressives or confessionalists in that communion view each other as outside of the church catholic, no matter how strongly they might differ over certain matters. When the term “sectarian” is used today by so-called “progressives,” one suspects that it is being used, not in its objective, historic sense, but as a snub, an insult which basically amounts to “someone who is less enlightened than me, someone who doesn’t think in the broad-minded way that I do.” It is that kind of casual, careless, a-historical use of the term that I think is childish and immature. Believers in the same confessional communion can differ with each other, even strongly over some issues, without name-calling or slander. They ought to disagree and debate as brothers and sisters in Christ, and fellow members of the church universal; not like worldly-minded political partisans who resort to mudslinging and slander. That’s the point I was trying to make.
CD-Host: “This isn’t slander it is simply a statement of fact. Confessionalists are narrow which is why they like long confessions that everyone must adhere to. They tend to attack others who disagree with their interpretation of the confession. They cause division in the institution over matters of faith hence: ornery… The PCA has to make choices about how broad it wants to be.”
GW: I don’t agree with the way you (mis)characterize confessionalists as “narrow.” “Narrow” by what standard? According to whom? I believe that in confessional communions like the PCA, it is unfaithfulness to the confession that is divisive, not vice-versa.
It is true that confessional churches (like the PCA, the OPC, URCNA, Missouri-Synod Lutherans, etc.) have long confessions that at least church officers are expected to subscribe to. But it is simply not correct to assert that in confessional Presbyterian Churches like the OPC or the PCA, “everyone must adhere to” every jot and tittle of the confessional standards; in churches like ours lay members are only expected to make a credible profession of faith in Christ, uncontradicted by lifestyle or scandalous sin. (It’s a different story in confessional Reformed churches like the URCNA, which practice confessional membership.) Furthermore, no one is forced to become or to remain a member of a confessional church. It’s a free country, we (thankfully!) have no state-enforced church, and Christians who prefer a non-confessional or broader expression of the church catholic have many options from which to choose. Given that confessions (like the Westminster Confession of Faith) are detailed explanations of the Presbyterian Faith, I would suggest that it is church officers who in effect treat the confession as a wax nose who are more likely to cause division in the church than those who simply want to follow the confession in its plain sense. That may not be their intention, but (in my opinion) that is the effect of their position.
Sure, confessionalists can be “ornery,” but in our hyper-sensitive cultural setting today almost anyone who firmly believes, confesses and publicly defends what they believe can be perceived as “ornery.” Including, I would add, “progressives” in the church. Including even atheists who have no interest in being part of any church.
Here’s a thought for the “progressives” in the PCA who have issues with the confessional standards of their denomination: If you don’t like the teachings of the Westminster Confession, then don’t try to become a church officer (since church officers are expected to “sincerely receive and adopt” the system of doctrine taught in that document); and if you can’t live comfortably as a church member in a church that confesses the Westminster Standards, then find another church where you can be theologically and confessionally at home.
LikeLike
@Geoff
Well I looked it up. You are right the term is considered a negative term for “denominational” in a religious context, so I was wrong it was neutral. Your history about the origin of the term is off. It comes from the term for a secretary of a particular teacher. The first use in English I can find is 1649. It was being applied by Scottish Presbyterians to themselves (the Sectarian party) who objected to forming a unified episcopacy and having a Scottish army be a unit within in a federal union with England. It got associated with what we today would call terrorism because the Sectarians were arming Irish rebels. The Sectarians were people who were attached to being Scottish not wanting a “universal” church but only a Scottish church. The analogy starts getting drawn in the late 18th and early 19th century towards religious opinion, people who wanted to form narrow churches. It is not until 1877 that there is any association with heresy.
As an aside you might want to consider that up until a 1/2 hour ago I considered the term neutral so your opponents may not be name calling in the way you think they are. They might have the same opinion of the word I held.
And with that let me just point something out in your description attacking name calling:
so-called “progressives”, casual, careless, a-historical, childish, immature. name-calling, slander. like worldly-minded political partisans, resort to mudslinging and slander.
My way or the highway is kinda the attitude they are objecting to.
I understand. I wrote an essay about this 6 years ago where I tried to be fair to both sides:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/07/gresham-machen-invalid-excommunication.html
Anyway my read of the PCA is that you have two factions
A: Wants the PCA to be the Conservative Presbyterian denomination for America. They understand this means incorporating people who disagree with some aspects of the confession. So they want faithful adherence to the confession interpreted loosely by a large number of people.
B: Wants the PCA to be a smaller denomination faithfully adhering to a set of doctrines, interpretations and cultural norms. So they want faithful adherence to all of the confession interpreted strictly by a smaller number of people.
Both sides think the confession is important. There are essentially no theological liberals in the PCA.
I think it comes down to a tradeoff and how much you value the size of the denomination. The PCA is in an interesting place right now to benefit from mainstream evangelical Christianity’s high level of dissatisfaction with younger members. But to be able to benefit (i.e. recruit lots of people) it is going to need a missional culture.
Take for example the Denver issue of a PCA church that says, “OK we won’t have female ministers but we are going to go as close to the line without stepping over as we can.” Clearly that sends a message that they don’t enthusiastically approve of the male only pastorate. The more conservatives can legitimately object that female ministers was the #1 issue on which the PCA was founded and if you don’t agree well there are plenty of other Presbyterian denominations only slightly to the left. The more liberal members can say that we are attracting a membership that is used to women in every role but chief pastor and we can’t diverge too much without offended their sense of fairness.
I tend to look at the situation as more balanced. And yeah I’ll agree I’m ornery.
LikeLike