Genuine Reformed catholicity…appreciates the wider tradition and heritage of Christian churches both past and present. It acknowledges both the areas in which Reformed Christians agree with various historic Christian traditions and areas in which the Reformed are distinct. True Reformed catholicity is committed to robustly expressing the beauty of Reformed worship, piety, and theology as well as winsomely engaging and working with those outside of Reformed churches.

Numerous elders have attempted to explain the current moment in our beloved PCA family. TE Derek Radney recently offered his own assessment attempting to explain the reason for the differences and tense discussions within the PCA of late.

His essay was published on the SemperRef collaborative.¹ Radney identifies the trouble in the PCA not as one in which doctrine is disputed, but rather how the two sides “handle difference relationally.”

Radney winsomely counsels that both sides need to learn to

“stay connected to each other amidst our differences and to remain in the struggle with charity and humility that seeks to understand and learn before critiquing.”

Radney explains further, urging all sides in the PCA to ask:

“Do our words accurately represent the positions of our opponents? Do our words assign motives to our opponents?”

On the surface Radney presents a beautiful way forward for a less fractious Assembly and life together as the PCA.

But as one reads his essay, it becomes clear Radney not only has ignored his own counsel, but uses his counsel as a club to beat those with whom he disagrees in the PCA.

I. Identifying the Parties

Radney seems to identify the two major groups in the PCA as what he describes as the “Reformed Catholics” and the “Reformed Fundamentalists.” The group with whom he affiliates is the former. Everything wrong in the PCA apparently comes from the “Fundamentalist” portion of the PCA and everything good, beautiful, winsome, and hopeful seems to be expressed in the “Reformed Catholic” portion of the PCA.

Radney asserts:

“Reformed Fundamentalists hold Reformed distinctives in such a way that they cannot stand to stay connected to others relationally amidst disagreement of almost any kind. Rather than humble curiosity that slowly seeks to gain understanding about difference, distrust grows, motives are assigned to others, and many, if not all, disagreements are treated as matters of orthodoxy. This posture involves constant suspicion of outsiders and regularly seeks to purge insiders who appear to be compromisers.”

But he’s not finished describing his brothers in the PCA:

“The posture lacks generosity and charity through its inability to listen well such that others are really heard and understood. More basically, it lacks humility because this radical suspicion of others is absent in regard to one’s own motives or possible ignorance.”

In contrast to these “Reformed Fundamentalists,” are the “Reformed Catholics,” who are the only hope of a “beautiful future ahead” for the PCA. Radney characterizes “Reformed Catholicity” as

…a posture of curiosity, charity, critical appreciation, and cooperation grounded in and faithful to Reformed distinctives.

That’s quite a contrast. I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of those mean, ignorant, suspicious, proud, fearful “Fundamentalists.”

“Fundamentalist,” however, is an odd way to describe Reformed people given that “fundamentalism” in Christianity is more typically associated with folks who “don’t smoke, drink or chew, or run with girls who do.”….

….Radney acknowledges he’s not using the term “fundamentalism” in a “strict historical sense.” But on the other hand, Radney recently did assert he sees one of the major challenges of the PCA is how many are stuck in last century’s crisis (presumably the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy):

Recent cautions from Jon Payne about excessive alcohol consumption and his calls for pastoral piety when contrasted with the statements in the National Partnership documents cited above might, I suppose, lead the uninitiated to conclude one side of the PCA is a bunch of “Teetotaling Fundies” and the other takes care to “SCHEDULE YOUR DRINKING” during General Assembly. But that seems a bit of a stretch and not very nuanced.

II. Projection and the PCA

My seminary education at RTS Jackson didn’t have much training in psychology, but I can recognize psychological projection when I see it (I did, after all, watch a few Frasier episodes back in the day).

What is “psychological projection?” Britannica defines it as, “the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds.”

While Radney warns us all not to misrepresent the positions of our opponents and not assign motives to them, he does exactly that. First he describes his opponents with a pejorative “fundamentalist” label. But then he goes further.

He asserts his opponents are dominated by “relational anxiety,” grounded in “pride,” and motivated by a fear of “losing control” over the denomination. And – he asserts – that is the reason they are opposed to what he calls “the presence of difference.”

It’s hard to believe the author of those allegations is the one who also – in the very same article – cautions about assigning motives. Is it acceptable to assign motives if one does so in the spirit of “Reformed Catholicity?”

But Radney turns from psychoanalysis to spiritual analysis. Even going so far as to suggest those with whom he disagrees at best have no confidence in Jesus:

“If we have confidence in Jesus, the presence of difference will not throw us into combat mode (at least not right away), nor will it lead us to distance ourselves from other Christians over our differences in fear of a slippery slope.”

And at worst do not even know the gospel:

“Rather than being filled with pride and fear, the good news of Jesus can fill us with humility and hope. Because we are saved by grace alone, we have nothing to boast about and no ground to stand on to exalt ourselves above others.”

Shockingly it is Radney’s opponents whom he accuses of trying to exalt themselves above others. Even as he as the audacity to imply their lack of acquaintance with Christ is the reason for their “Fundamentalist posture.”

Read More