The question is whether the Plan recognizes who it is that we are supposed to be keeping safe, and whether what it proposes will better help them stay that way.

The first theme proposed by the PCA Strategic Plan is “How to Provide Safe Places to Talk about New Ideas to Advance the PCA’s Faithfulness to Biblical Belief, Ministry and Mission.”

The plan is right to be concerned about safety when it comes to new ideas. Ideas have consequences, and Scripture cares about safety in relation to them.

The question is whether the Plan recognizes who it is that we are supposed to be keeping safe, and whether what it proposes will better help them stay that way. In other words, is it safe?

God’s great concern seems to be for the safety of his flock, for which purpose he has appointed elders to guard them (Acts 20:28-31). Keeping Christ’s church safe from false teaching is one of the most basic responsibilities given to elders (1 Tim 1:3). We are specifically warned that people will depart from the received truth and will try to introduce new doctrines into the church, so we must be vigilant (1 Tim 4:1).

We are not entirely without concern for those who deviate from orthodoxy, but our duty consists in warning, rebuking, and silencing them (2 Tim 2:14; Titus 1:11-13). The overall mandate in Scripture has nothing to do with keeping proponents of new ideas safe while it has everything to do with protecting the church.

The Plan would seem to invert this priority. It proposes to create “Public forums at GA to test ideas without vote or risk,” wherein “nothing [will be] chargeable” (19).

Now, what better opportunity would any false teacher want than the ability to speak to the assembled leadership of the PCA under a shield of invulnerability? We better have some impressive reasons to want to run that risk. However, the arguments in favor of this unprecedented measure are underwhelming.

The most explicitly biblical is “iron sharpening iron” (Prov. 27:17). Having sat through many seminars at liberal divinity departments, I find that the only iron that gets sharpened is precisely the part that is exposed to risk. In this situation, scholarly reputation is at risk, so presenters take discussion of their scholarship seriously and leave the room sharpened.

On the other hand, no one is under threat at these seminars for being heterodox; the issue might be discussed, but it is of no real consequence and so they walk out of the room as heretical as they walked in. Likewise, eliminating risk in theological discussions at GA will actually blunt any opportunity for real sharpening.

Most of the other arguments make less claim to Scriptural justification, such as “Cross-pollinating with global church.” Now either the “global church” believes in the very same theology as we do, or it doesn’t. It should, because we believe that we share the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

This sort of “global church” can be found in the ICRC and in NAPARC, and their sharpening influence is invaluable. That is why it is a good idea to remain part of NAPARC. If we were to ever depart from the faith, say on the issue of women, NAPARC would rebuke us and eventually reject us like they did the CRC.

That threat is a good thing, a safe thing, and one that should not be disposed of in the name of saving money. If, on the other hand, some part of the “global church” does not confess the one true theology, we ought to teach them. But we would have no more reason to give opportunities for them to float ideas to our leadership than for any other sub-orthodox church down the street.

The authors of the Plan tell us such new measures are needed because people have the perception that the PCA is not a “safe place.” Yet we are not told who these people are or why they have this perception.

Out of curiosity I asked the PCA Stated Clerk if he could provide examples where people have been unsafe, where people were treated unfairly and the existing safeguards did not work. He could not think of a single instance.

So we are left to wonder, who is experiencing the PCA as being unsafe? Those who merely eschew traditional forms of church ministry and worship in favor of expressing the old orthodoxy in more contemporary forms? Probably not, since nothing of this kind has been the recent subject of discipline.

Or, could it be that the perception is held by those who want to talk not about “new” ideas, but old errors—errors which our Confession and our courts have already rejected? These sort of men have, after all, been the subject of recent disciplinary proceedings, and many more of their opinions are still around.

Yet there is no way of knowing for sure; the Plan does not choose to identify them. In the absence of even a token case, we must simply take a leap of faith into the dark road ahead.

Christ’s church must be a safe place for sheep. In order for that to happen, the church must necessarily be a dangerous place for wolves, a place where they can never for a moment feel safe. It would be perverse to establish times or places that are exempted from the discipline of the church.

We can create safe places for people who want to promote their ideas without fear of discipline, or we can make the PCA a safe place for Christ’s sheep. We cannot do both, at least not well. And therefore, we must question how the Strategic Plan could reasonably be considered safe, let alone a safe path to increased biblical faithfulness.
________________
William M. Schweitzer is a MTW Church Planting Minister in Gateshead, England