Members of A4MR desire less division in the PCA. That is a good and worthy aim. But when vague accusations about extremes and the need for renewal are put forward without definition, it is worth asking a harder question. Are they willing to look in the mirror and consider whether their own rhetorical approach is contributing to the very division they are diagnosing?

The following is a brief rejoinder to the recent blog post, Toward Recovering the Confessional-Missional Center of the PCA by David Richter on behalf of the Executive Board of the Alliance for Mission & Renewal (A4MR).

I want to begin by acknowledging something positive. The desire to encourage cooperation, reduce unnecessary conflict, and foster a spirit of charity in the PCA is commendable. No one should want a denomination marked by constant suspicion and internal hostility. That instinct is right.

But as I was reflecting on it, I was struck by how similar the piece feels to the way political populism operates. It identifies frustration, dislocation, or division, and then rallies people around a sense of shared sentiment. The rhetoric is often compelling. It invites people into a movement. But it can also be remarkably thin on concrete substance. People are drawn into the mood even when the content remains vague.

That same dynamic is what I see here. The A4MR article is rich in sentiment but poor in substance. It uses a great many words to describe a mood without actually arguing for anything in particular. You come away with a sense of the kind of spirit the authors want to cultivate, but not with a clear understanding of what positions are actually being affirmed, corrected, or rejected.

This shows up in how the piece frames the current moment. It speaks about tensions, divisions, and unhealthy dynamics, and suggests there are problems on both sides of various debates. But those problems are described in general and often emotional terms. We are told that people feel unheard, feel marginalized, feel the denomination is drifting, or feel it is becoming rigid. The article leans heavily on experience without identifying the theological or confessional issues that would allow those concerns to be evaluated.

That creates a kind of vagueness that is difficult to engage. If certain positions are out of step with the Confession, they should be named. If certain arguments are harmful or incorrect, they should be addressed. Instead, the article remains at the level of atmospherics. It describes how people feel without adjudicating whether those feelings correspond to doctrinal reality.

Read More