My general conclusion is simple: This is neither strategic nor much of a plan. I have several thoughts on the Plan, but will only address a few in this article.

In 2004, I took a certification class for new General Motor products. When I completed it, an older Chevrolet salesman asked, “What do the new models look like?” I responded, “The new Impala looks like a Toyota Camry.” His disgusted response, “When will we learn? Those old men in Detroit have NO idea what the customers want. All they do is watch Japan and remake their stuff – just 5 years too late.”

As I’m coming to the end of my 15th year of ministry in the PCA, we (the elders) are being presented with a “Strategic Plan” (Hereafter, “the Plan”) for the next phases of ministry. Since the introduction of this Plan, I have read as much as I can get my hands on and watched the “promotional video” that has been published to “sell” the Plan. My general conclusion is simple: This is neither strategic nor much of a plan. I have several thoughts on the Plan, but will only address a few in this article.

First – I agree with the principle that the PCA needs to enact a better funding mechanism for the Admin. Committee (AC). But, I am not comfortable with the current proposal that, in my opinion, amounts to “tax and shame.” Ministers and churches will be required to pay a “poll tax” to the central office. If they do not, they will be publicly shamed for not participating. This proposal goes against the grain of the (a) the Biblical requirements for membership and (b) the foundation principles of the PCA. In the local church, we do not prohibit non-tithers from voting or enjoying the benefits of the Body of Christ.

Second – The Plan proposes at least two odd and troubling notions: “Safe Places” and “More Seats at the Table.”

Safe Places
I have no idea what “Safe Places” are. This morning I went to McDonalds for coffee and noticed a bright yellow sign in their window proclaiming McDonalds to be a “Safe Place.” Upon inquiry, I was told that runaway or at-risk children can come to McDonalds (and other such places) to seek refuge from danger. Is this what we are being sold?

From the Plan and sales video, we are told that the PCA needs “safe places” for theological discussion. Maybe I’m arcane, but I thought presbyteries were the ordained “safe places” for such discussions.

In addition to not knowing what a “safe place” is, I also see potential danger with this notion: If men perceive that their presbytery is no longer “safe,” then I’m willing to wager that those men are aware that they may have unorthodox views. Or, maybe, men are scared to enter into heated discussions relating to their views? In either case, men need to be men. Step up with boldness, make your case known, and deal with it.

What does this say about our view of the vows of an elder? Let’s suppose a man is in his “safe place” and divulges that he likes young boys or thinks it’s OK for the minister to help himself to the Sunday offerings. What if this minister says (in the safe place), “you know, I don’t buy this inerrancy stuff” or “I’m struggling with the divinity of Jesus. That Arius fellow had some really good ideas.”? Are the other members of the “safe place” now duty-bound to keep his “safe confession” a secret?

More Seats at the Table
I find this idea to be equally vague and risky. The idea being put forward is that we need to allow “more seats at the table” for leadership and decision/vision building. We need to include (we are told) younger ministers, women, and foreign leaders. The idea is that we will create greater respect from other denominations who will later seek our help in understanding the Truth.

So, here are my questions: Whose table will this be? Who will do the inviting to this mythical table? What will qualify the invitees to be invited? Do you see where this goes? At some point – in the name of equality – some person or group is still sitting at the head of this table and functioning as some sort of “leadership guru.” This table notion is fraught with elitism and secrecy. “But,” some will say, “we’ve got really good guys we can trust.” OK. But what happens when we install this table and the good guys are gone?

If the PCA has such awesome young leaders (and I believe we do), then why haven’t these young leaders been identified by their respective presbyteries and “promoted” from within the ordained channels? The most natural route for raising up the next generations of leaders is the route of presbytery. The presbytery should know men the best, have evidence of their prowess, and first-hand knowledge of a man’s character.

We are told in the Plan, and by its promoters that this table needs to be open to women and foreign leaders who can better help us shape our views. Well, why do want outsiders (i.e. non-PCA elders) in influential positions? I respect many pastors from across the globe. They are wise, godly men. But, they are not welcome to tell the PCA how it should function unless they join the PCA. Likewise, we don’t go to the Church of Botswana and tell them how to properly lead their church. Those folks have “no skin the game” of the PCA. They can advise anything and then retreat to their Church. I think this is simply silly.

As for having women involved in the vision and leadership I ask, “What’s been stopping you?” We have no rule preventing the elders from seeking the wisdom of the ladies. As a matter of fact, the BCO instructs that this is a good idea that should be practiced.

Third – We are told by the Plan and its promoters that NAPARC is dangerous and we (the PCA) need to get out. This suggestion is made with such urgency that we are to believe that membership in NAPARC is (and has been) preventing the PCA from a lot ministry. Really? When did NAPARC gain such sovereign power over the PCA? I’ve yet to meet a person who says “I like your church, but the PCA is in NAPARC. So, I can’t join your church.”

When did NAPARC become the United Nations (or Geneva Conventions) of the Church? Does the PCA need some sort of accreditation from NAPARC to be a legitimate Church? Did we ever? I don’t see why we were in it from the beginning. I’m in favor of leaving NAPARC. I’m in favor of abandoning any meetings or affiliations that are a waste of time and money. Why wasn’t our membership in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) even addressed, should it be dropped as well? Is it better for us to be a part of the NAE but not NAPARC?

Finally – Suggestions
If the PCA is to have “central offices,” then we need to properly fund those offices. The Southern Baptist Church has a simple method for funding both operations and missions. Why don’t we look at their model? No one can question their “success” under this model.

As with General Motors, the PCA has found itself on the brink of irrelevancy. But, I propose that we are irrelevant to the Kingdom due to our litigious and provincial spirit. This plan suggests as much. If the PCA is to become relevant to kingdom matters, we need to look at restructuring the operations of the PCA as a mechanism so that our mechanics reflect our existing ministry priorities. This plan is overly complex and vague. There are at least 14 proposals within this plan. They should be acted on separately, not collectively.

I will suggest that giving has decreased (to the denomination) because there is a growing distrust of bureaucracies. Over time, bureaucracies exist to support themselves and they have a difficulty explaining their raison d’être. For many in the church, the central offices of the PCA are simply seen as a bloated (and bloating) bureaucracy. Individuals are compelled to give to organizations that they see as financially efficient and accountable. If the PCA’s model for leadership is to reflect our priorities, then when will we start cutting costs? Shouldn’t efficient stewardship be a top priority? General Assembly is far too expensive. For too long we’ve been going to expensive resorts and conference centers as if we are a bunch of high-paid executives when the reality is that most churches are small and poor. A long time ago, a minister told me, “If you have a compelling vision, the money will appear. If not, you will never compel others to support your non-compelling vision.” When it costs $1000’s to send men to General Assembly and the message to the local church after GA is “we didn’t do much other than bicker,” we are not seen as financially responsible.

Strategic Plans are supposed to be simple and actionable. Such plans are supposed to identify specific targets and goals. The only specific and actionable step presented in the Plan is the funding of AC. The other suggestions are vague, mysterious and, thereby less than simple. In 2006 a Strategic Plan was put forward and approved by the Assembly. Where is that plan now? Why was it not acted upon?

In college, I took a “Sailing” course. One of the first lessons we were taught was the necessity of the “center board” (rudder). In that class, I was given a first-hand view of the lessons of James 1. Without a center board, a sailboat is impossible to navigate. It is at the whims of the winds. With a simple center board, a sailboat can be easily navigated through great difficulties and trials. The Plan reveals that our center board has not been fully utilized for a long time. We now find ourselves 15 miles offshore, in the midst of great winds and we are now scrambling to find our center board. I am glad that we are recognizing the need to correct our course. I just don’t agree with the proposal.
_______________
Bill Lamkin is a PCA minister living in South Florida.