The 38^th General Assembly of the PCA will probably neither prove to be the disastrous abyss that some think nor the inauguration of the eschaton expected by others. When measured by a longer perspective, it may prove to have been a fairly normal interaction between the grass roots and those who wish to manicure those stubborn shoots. It may also exhibit unintended consequences for the good.

 

Each of the major issues (deaconesses and denominational planning) may reveal interesting and unexpected twists and turns, probably not planned by some.

 

On the first topic, after many years of close votes on whether to erect a study committee, it may be that the church is ready to move forward in a trajectory that is unintended by progressives. This Assembly proposed a traditionalist answer on the gender overtures; it also gave a polite “negative” to the idea of permitting a cafeteria approach to deaconesses (See both the answer to the Northern California Presbytery overture and the actions of the RPR committee). Those hoping to broaden the PCA’s standards for the past several years on this topic will likely have to adopt a much more patient approach after this year. I’m not sure what encouragement there is on this legislative front; for not only is there no study committee but progressive legislation has been rejected and a decidedly traditionalist perspective approved, once specific wording is proposed. The lesson from this may be: talk as much as you wish, but when it comes to approving specifics, PCA congregations are not supporting progressivist legislation, even if some prominent leaders are. That traditionalist outcome is probably an unintended consequence of a minority pushing so unrelentingly.

 

On the second major topic, the Strategic Plan (SP) was improved as follows by:
 

·     Totally deleting the quite idiosyncratic comment about leaving NAPARC;

·     Changing “safe speech” to the less damaging “have civil conversations” in various courts of the church (e.g., the annual discussions we’ve had for many years). Also, there were repeated denials that any of these freshly invented civil forums (as if in the past we had been insulting each other’s mothers) could provide heresy-free zones.

·     Realizing that seats at the table could not be conferred constitutionally (even if well meaning leaders wished to select new voices). The take away on this plank may amount to the PCA affirming that it hereby proclaims its openness to new voices. If so, we may all affirm, “Most of us meant that already; nice slogans.”

·     Dropping of “gospel eco-systems” mantras in exchange for declaring that we have a more outward looking view to share with international groups. Again, if that’s all that is desired, fine.

 

However, even with those compromises when specifics for the Plan’s 14 Means were voted on individually by this assembly, unanimity and momentum were elusive, perhaps fading. While all the verbiage added up to a great platform of advisory slogans or vision statements from one assembly (two Means were stricken and several were approved only by razor-thin margins; see Don Clements’ commentary at http://bit.ly/bmxQ3K), these also may have little lasting value other than to display publicly the abstract goals of many elected leaders on the CMC. The unintended angels may be in the details.

 

Most importantly, we were promised—repeatedly in committees and on the floor—that none of these SP proposals were legislative, only suggestive. This Assembly also protected against legislative fiat by adding an explicit motion, requiring that specific proposals to alter the RAO or BCO be brought in future years. Thus, this year, no changes suggested by the SP were formally approved, except the AC Funding plan, which will be voted on by the 78 presbyteries.

 

Also in approving Overture #24 (http://bit.ly/aG02Sp) as modified, this Assembly instructed its leaders to broadcast the traditionalist means of grace in calling for renewal. The final paragraph of that overture, which was adopted by a vote in the range of830-1, could perhaps provide a clue if someone were searching for consensus. No similar admonition was approved for the other abstract goals.

 

Meanwhile, all motions to recommit or “just say no to” the entire SP received about 30% support from the floor; the Funding plan received the highest support level (70%). Some of the other innocuous means (mainly on Theme #1 about ‘civil conversations’) received higher support.

 

However, surely troubling to leaders of the AC and the CMC is this: despite having all the advantages and almost unanimous support of all agency employees (MTW, MNA, RUF, CTS, etc—which now constitutes a sizeable voting bloc), and even with all the momentum and corporate advantages, those who range from the skeptical to the out-and-out-opposed now amount to 30-45% of this single Assembly, depending on the issue.

 

Moreover, it may be challenging to find folks who heard the debate that are more enthusiastic now about the SP after learning about “back taxes,” the kind “we will negotiate with you” posture of the AC for back taxes, that these “really don’t change anything in our polity,” and that this has been going on for 10 years (secretly, I suppose regarding these specifics—“gospel ecosystems” in 2000?—for the rest of the church had less than 90 days to review). To the contrary, if the AC hoped to gain enthusiastic managers and supporters for coming campaigns, that may have been their largest failure. And with 750 churches out of 1700 represented (not to mention only 333 REs), it will be an uphill struggle for any BCO amendments other than the Funding plan (which may have more difficulty when isolated) to succeed in garnering approval by 52 presbyteries.

 

Someone wisely sought to counsel the AC that they might want to take this division seriously and modify or go slow. The target of unifying was certainly not hit; and there is probably more opposition to many of these proposals than before the Assembly. Indeed, the glaring weakness of this poor process was that the CMC could proffer such sweeping proposals with so little attention to non-“Innovator Churches” voices. It came off looking like a set of ideas that might highlight values of elite leaders but not field-tested among many average pastors or ruling elders.

 

Few pastors would proceed toward a call if 30-40% voted against. Maybe our AC and CMC friends will not pursue this call in view of that.  

 

Yet, that would be smart (albeit doubtful) and might help repair some lost credibility. Leadership that is confident in the merit of its controverted proposals might even wish to let good ideas bubble up from the presbyteries without any appearance of heavy-handedness from above. And should the Funding plan fail (or pass), what will progressives have gained?

 

What the CMC will have to do, notwithstanding, is now reckon with these two new, unintended dynamics they spawned:

 

1)     A fairly significant unpersuaded movement is now on its toes and will be seen in many presbyteries for some time whenever these and other proposals are presented. The judgment of charity to “trust our leaders” may have peaked and could decline—as receipts to AC might also trend. Pity the one trying to propose more radical change in this environment caused by this process. Plus, some very smart, young men are not that impressed with ideas from our bureaucracy. Many tire of the same leaders and prefer more free market ideas.

2)     Somewhere along the line, the CMC will have to ask themselves, if they ever wish to make lasting change that is not merely the abstract advice of one meeting: How did we group-think ourselves into being so united, while the church was so unpersuaded? And did we just catalyze and unite disparate groups that will oppose the ideas of the CMC—which are now crystal clear—for a decade or more such that skepticism will now raise its head whenever new ideas are proposed?