I pray that we may be rekindled through this debate to be once more that creative, faithful, outward-looking body of God’s people who love Him and each other.

Dear Editor:

In his article advocating the adoption of the proposed funding plan, RE EJ Nusbaum correctly analyzes the immediate problem we confront in the PCA with regard to funding the AC. I trust that there is no substantial disagreement among us as to his assessment.

The rub comes when we begin to discuss the solution. Contrary to RE Nusbaum’s assertion, the system currently being considered IS inequitable; and further, it IS coercive. We are being asked to adopt a system that functionally disenfranchises a significant portion of the congregations in our fellowship.

It is rather cavalier of RE Nusbaum simply to dismiss any percentage of non-paying congregations by saying that “they are free to remain as members in the PCA for as long as they shall desire and they will continue to receive the direct and indirect services from the denomination but they cannot vote at GA.”

“Free?” Really? And what measure of fellowship will they experience (if they are not able to afford the required payments) that would induce them to remain as “members in the PCA?”

This proposal is analogous to telling a group of members in a church, “You can worship here as long as you keep your mouth shut and let a select few make all the decisions.” If we implemented this policy at the congregational level we would rightly be chastised for poisoning the well, so to speak, and purposely creating an unloving environment. The incentive it creates is to leave, not to stay.

No, the proposed solution is tantamount to retaliation for prior lack of support. There is no improvement to the existing situation in the current proposal; indeed, it can only make it worse.

The path toward a solution lies in a different direction. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Growth is the synthesis of change and continuity, and where there is no continuity there is no growth.” Lewis’ insight is precisely applicable to the current debate. Have we no memory of our origins? One need not be a charter member of the PCA to understand that among other things, the excessive and coercive centralization of power drove the PCA into existence. And now we will adopt a system which is in principal exactly like the one we repudiated as unbiblical at our founding? The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind.

Unless we are prepared to admit that our founding was illegitimate, we must build a solution that has continuity with our founding principles if we are to see the current dilemma as an opportunity for genuine growth. Such a solution must be based in a profound commitment to share common cause, not merely a common institution. And that point leads a final observation.

The most pressing aspect of this debate is what is lacking in it. The problem confronting the AC is only symptomatic of the larger, systemic problem we are currently experiencing in the PCA. We are no longer deeply committed to our core principles in general: “True to the Scriptures, the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” If our hearts and minds were held captive by these ideals, we would not be scurrying about looking for ways to fund our efforts—whether those be of the AC, MNA, MTW, or any other aspect of our ministry.

Indeed, the fact that we are now resorting primarily to institutional tinkering rather than calling one another robustly to repentance is indicative of just how deep the problem is. We have, I trust, moved past the “TR” vs. “Good Faith” subscription debate. That protracted struggle to define the PCA by cultural attributes emptied many of us of an early zeal for our ministries. We began to mistrust one another, and as a result, the PCA suffered a profound polarization. It had seemed that we had begun to recover from that period, only to be plunged back into it by a different doorway.This debate has reconfigured the polarization, but it has done nothing to alleviate it. We have an opportunity with this debate to pursue genuine growth, of the kind Lewis envisioned, not merely pragmatic advancement of institutional aims.

Currently, at best, the PCA can be likened to the Church at Ephesus: We have lost our first love. At worst, we may be tracking toward the Church at Sardis: Having a reputation of being alive, but in fact being dead.

I pray that we may be rekindled through this debate to be once more that creative, faithful, outward-looking body of God’s people who love Him and each other—and that our love will be evident to all. I pray that we will pursue one another, pray for one another, seek one another’s good; that we will embrace the stylistic differences among us all the while calling one another to repent of our creeping indifference toward the biblical and theological substance of the gospel. If—and I am not naïve—IF we will repent, we will be amazed at the speed with which the Holy Spirit rekindles our hearts for Him, for our churches, and for the world around us.

In Christ,
TE David Wallover
Harvest Presbyterian Church
Medina, OH