First, let me clarify something. I am writing this commentary as a churchman, not as a journalist.

As publisher of an independent magazine, I don’t participate in discussions or votes at the General Assembly of the PCA (although I must admit my determination was sorely tempted on Thursday).

I also write this not just simply as a churchman, but as one who has been around since the official announcement of a ‘Continuing Church’ leaving the PCUS at Journal Day in 1972.

I have also served five terms on the Permanent Committee of Christian Education, four terms on the Board of Great Commission Publications; a two year term as an elected member of the Committee on Administration plus many years as the CE/P rep on that committee; two years on a special Committee on Stewardship; a term on the Nominating Committee, including chairing that committee when the first manual of operations was adopted; and being an member/officer on the initial Standing Judicial Commission, involved in the drafting of its initial manual.

I set out these facts without any sense of pride but rather to inform readers who may not know much about me that I have a long standing and deep understanding of how the PCA developed and has grown. It is from this position that I write this commentary.

I also need to explain that I have expressed serious doubts and questions about the Strategic Plan progress through the General Assembly since 2001. It’s not that I don’t think we need a plan (part of my current ministry involves coaching smaller churches who are going through a Vision Planning Process). My principle concern is that the leadership of the PCA has pushed this plan forward despite the presence of a large minority.

It should go without saying that the adopting of the principles of the plan on Thursday night in Nashville is a significant, perhaps THE significant action taken in the life of the PCA. And I am deeply saddened this took place despite the presence of a large minority.

Now – what do I mean by using the words ‘large minority?’ Let me give you an illustration from our own Book of Church Order.

As a member of the Study Committee that presented the ‘Two Office View’ that was approved by the PCA in our early years, I am outspoken in my support of the equality of office as Elders among those of us known as Teaching Elders and those known as Ruling Elders. But our Book of Church Order has a chapter that stresses the need for a Teaching Elder in a very specific way, and it is in the area that I want to use as my illustration.

Chapter 20 of the BCO deals with the election of Pastors by congregations. Section 20-3 reads, in part: “When a congregation is convened for the election of a pastor it is important that they should elect a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America to preside…”

Over the years I have been asked many times why that clause is there, and my answer has always been to look at Section 20-5 just down the page. It reads as follows:

On the election of a pastor, if it appears that a large minority of the voters are averse to the candidate who has received a majority of votes, and cannot be induced to concur in the call, the moderator shall endeavor to dissuade the majority from prosecuting it further; but if the electors be nearly or quite unanimous, or if the majority shall insist upon their right to call a pastor, the moderator shall proceed to draw a call in due form, and to have it subscribed by them, certifying at the same time in writing the number of those who do not concur in the call, and any facts of importance, all of which proceedings shall be laid before the Presbytery, together with the call.

My deep sadness is that the leadership of the PCA did not use this very important principle in dealing with the large minority who are opposed to the Strategic Plan – and trust me, it is large.

In fact, there is a sense in which it may well be a hidden majority. I had a revealing conversation with a Ruling Elder Thursday afternoon just when we broke for supper. He said that it looked to him like there were a lot of men who did not trust the leadership of the church. He said that he and others he knew had not even read the Strategic Plan, let alone carefully study it before coming to the Assembly, but rather were just voting because they trusted the leadership.

I would venture to say that had the vote on the Strategic Plan been limited to only those men who had both read and studied the plan ahead of time, it would have failed. Many individuals – both Teaching and Ruling Elders – come to the GA and vote without carefully studying the issues. Now, we may not all need to be quite as completely prepared as my friend David Coffin, but not having read the Plan before voting is something beyond my comprehension.

(Quick aside: I hereby change my previous position; NOW is the time for a delegated assembly, if it’s not too late!)

Now, just how big was the large minority? Most of the votes did not need counting; most could be easily determined by Moderator Harry Reeder (who by the way did an outstanding job throughout the day!). But there were two counted votes taken on specific means in Theme 1. Means (Specific) #1 which reads: Invite younger generation leaders onto GA boards and committees (especially for specific initiatives) was passed by a vote of 507-366. And Means (Specific) #6 which reads: Develop a credible and rigourous alternative credentialing process for men from disadvantaged constituencies, enabling them to attain the same ordination standards expected of a traditional M.Div. seminary graduate” was passed by a vote of 425-409.

Having been a Math major at Vanderbilt University which is located here in Nashville and has allowed me to spend some time reminiscing with close friends this week, I can officially pronounce that a vote of 507 ‘yes’ votes to 366 ‘no’ votes constitutes a ‘Large Minority – a minority of over 42%. I can officially pronounce that a vote of 425 ‘yes’ votes to 409 ‘No votes’ constitutes a Large Minority – a minority of over 49%. One other matter concerning formalizing an organization for women in vocational ministries was defeated by the minority with a few votes from otherwise majority voters.

I can even average the two together and state without equivocation that a minority of 45.5% is a large minority by anyone’s measure.

Now, I am certain that any PCA Teaching Elder who was moderating the meeting of a congregation to elect a pastor, and 45.5% of the voting members voted no, that Teaching Elder would follow the instructions of BCO 20-5 and do everything he could to ‘dissuade the majority’ from moving forward with the decision. But I seriously doubt that the idea of not moving forward in the face of a minority of 45.5% has not crossed the minds of the proponents of the Strategic Plan very often, if at all. Don’t you suspect there was a sense of ‘victory’ in many quarters Thursday night?

To give credit where credit is due, the proponents did make almost a dozen changes to the plan prior to presentation, but those changes were not published ahead of time and the commissioners did not see them until a few moments before they entered into debate on Thursday. Certainly that was not soon enough for appropriate consideration to be given to the impact of the changes (or lack of changes).

Well, Thursday was a day of clichés. The big one was “let’s go to the moon; will figure out how to get there on the way.” Well, here’s another. “The train has left the station.”

However, it has not yet arrived. There is still time to ‘dissuade the majority’ and take into serious consideration the views of the large minority and make future revisions to the plan which would help greatly to return the Assembly to unity.