Because of the current climate in the PCA, if the doctrinalists do not address racism as a doctrinal issue it will likely not be taken seriously by many in the denomination.

[Before reading this post I would urge listening to Rev. Randy Nabors’ August 1 sermon on unity and reconciliation in Galatians 3:26-28 titled “Right Sight.” Rev. Nabors’ sermon should be played in every PCA church next Sunday, at every youth group, in every college ministry large group and small group in the Fall (RUF, Campus Outreach, etc.), played at the computer of any employee of any agency of the denomination, and emailed to every member of the denomination immediately. Nabors’ account of the anguish of new black teaching elders in the PCA must be taken seriously and not ignored.]

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) will not make progress toward reconciling her racial history unless the denomination’s doctrinalists (i.e., confessionalists) lead us in being biblically and confessionally self-critical. Peter Slade, Joel Alvis, Joseph R. Washington, Mark Noll, and others, consistently conjoin the history of racism in Presbyterianism and the Reformed tradition with doctrinalists.

Morton Smith, and others, who sought to bring reform to Presbyterianism by a renewed commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith sadly, for some, also brought a racist parasite. This is consistent with the history of Southern Presbyterianism and many Calvinist doctrinalists, in general, especially the Puritans, as reported in Joseph R. Washington’s research at the University of Pennsylvania (which, oddly, few people in the PCA have ever read).

Using Tim Keller’s very good discussion of the PCA’s various wings, it seems that the doctrinalists are predominantly positioned to analyze the denomination’s racial history as virulent Reformed theology and execrable Presbyterian practice.

Because of the current climate in the PCA, if the doctrinalists do not address racism as a doctrinal issue it will likely not be taken seriously by many in the denomination. The denomination needs the theological “quality control” that the doctrinalists tend to provide.

The pietists can help by having a profound corporate moment to encourage and aid the doctrinalists. If the PCA seriously wants to engage America’s changing racial demographic and participate in global Christianity the recently exposed racial history will be a stumbling block to evangelism.

The culturalists are also needed as well to sober the cultural elitism (and white privilege) that is concomitant with Wendell Berry, James Davison Hunter, etc.–i.e., cultural visions that tends to be held captive to white Western cultural norms as Soong-Chan Rah notes and Rev. Nabors preached about.

Our own Westminster Confession of Faith points to the need for specificity in our repentance and reconciliation (WCF XV.5). Overture 20 from Nashville Presbytery, adopted in 2002, was a wonderful first step but remains inadequate to deal with the specific untenable theological positions and unbiblical Presbyterian practices reported in Slade, Alvis, Washington, and others.

Because racism is a doctrinal issue for our denomination, we can rightly expect the doctrinalists to lead this discussion and present any new study reports, overtures, and the like, in the future with the aid and support of the pietists and culturalists. This type of cooperation is a needed new paradigm for unity and faithfulness in the ministry of the gospel. The kind of unity that Rev. Randy Nabors preached about on August 1, 2010.

I’m afraid that any absence of public action by the doctrinalists could raise a hornet’s nest of new questions. The PCA’s future diversity hinges upon her ability to understand the denominational implications of Rev. Randy Nabors’ sermon.

Previously I asked if churches were “Rah Certified” now I’m asking if the PCA is “Nabors Ready?”

For an example of a conservative confessional denomination that reflected openly about the sinful aspects of its own racial history, with great courage, I would recommend the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod. In 1994 The Missouri-Synod successfully accomplished what the PCA has yet to do: name the names of theologians and theological positions that contributed to racism within the denomination for the sake of confession, reconciliation, and purity of the church.

This is outlined in “Racism and the Church,” a report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. This report should serve as a model for how conservative confessionalist denominations handle the issue of race self-critically. It is a “doctrinalist” report.

An excursus on recent posts about race and the PCA (as I prepare to move on to other topics): This is the point at which I have been advised to express affections for the PCA “in order to be heard.” That is, “in order to be heard” one needs to publicly make statements about loving the denomination with all the associated community genuflections.

There is some precedent for this is the biblical narrative. I have already publicly expressed my gratitude and commitments as such in Anthony Carter’s book, Glory Road and don’t need to repeat them here. This seems like such an odd repeated expectation because there are no such expectations that I express “love and affection” when I perform critical analysis against James Cone, Union Theological Seminary in New York, socialists, liberation theologians, and so on. This may be, in part, because many are confused about the nature of vocation. I am an academic, not a pastor.

I have no desire to be, as Rev. Randy Nabors says, “an honorary white person.”I believe in unity as long as you look, think and act like me” mentality is a problem among multiple wings and divisions of the PCA as Nabors (and Keller) points out that creates disunity. As Nabors says, there are too many whites who want blacks and Latinos to come into the PCA and be clones of white Southerners or New England or European Puritans (and there are some minorities willing to clone themselves and that’s their decision).

The cloned black “honorary white person” is publicly praised and promoted quickly as the model “Reformed African American” and proof of progress and diversity. Nabors, thankfully, explains why this is unacceptable from Galatians 3:26-28.

For the rest of us, however, coming into the PCA means bringing our community’s concerns and issues with us for gospel application. We realize that this will make many uncomfortable and explains why the homogeneous church planting model makes life easier. Thankfully, grace does not make the PCA colorblind.

Moreover, many teaching elders tend to speak about the denomination publicly in ways that advance themselves socially and politically to certain subcultures.

Many remain silent because of the social and political costs. There are people who are, de facto, running for “bishop” of the pietistic, doctrinalist, and culturalist wings (or any other subculture or network of friends) by their selective silence.

A corollary, by example, would be that in the corporate world IBM employees who publicly criticize the company can expect backlash, retaliation, and most likely separation. This type of public criticism is often inappropriate. Being a “team player” in the corporate world means public silence and the need to work within established bureaucratic systems to bring about change.

In many ways, this is good and necessary for the sake of morale and unity. Denominations tend to function the same way. I have no problem with such systems in principle. Any employee of any organization is bound by the same rules of engagement. It is what it is.

Outside of Christian education, this may explain why academics tend not to be successful at middle-management roles.

As an academic, like a journalist, I am expected to ask critical, investigative questions for research. I am expected to critically expose and challenge what I perceive to be weaknesses and bad paradigms. I have no political ambitions in the PCA. None. I have been advised that “if you want to be a leader in the PCA then you should write differently, etc.”

Playing church political games for the sake of being a future “influencer” seems sinfully ambitious to me. I have no interest in playing church politics. None. No, not even one. I’m not wired for church politics. I’m too much of an academic to remain silent for the sake of moving up the “influence” ladder within a church bureaucracy.

Academics poke around. Cornell West, Stanley Hauerwas, Peter Slade, Mark Noll, and the like, poke around and poke often. People don’t like it. One of the weaknesses of my vocation, however, is that we raise many questions and do not provide many answers. I do this frequently. I am guilty of not always knowing what to do next. I’m not that smart.

However, being mordant and sardonic is neither the goal nor the intention of my research and writing. With probity and sound judgment Washington, Slade, myself, and others raise issues before us. Anyone familiar with any of my previous work will see no difference in these questions directed at the PCA versus other questions I raise about other organizations, institutions, and social systems. The etiology and diagnosis of racial issues in the PCA has implications for all of Protestantism. Most academics are not prigs for sport. I am committed to Truth not to being a prig.

Anyone familiar with academy inquiry in Protestant studies knows that it is a methedrine compound of theological pastiche formed with culturally driven juxtapositions that provide the apotheosis of why academics, and not churchmen with sworn allegiance to certain bureaucratic structures, are needed to speak outside of church structures to raise issues within the church. The absence of non-bureaucratic, outside voices on important issues enfeebles Christianity and creates the conditions for the church’s apoptosis.

Anthony Bradley is an Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at The King’s College, NYC. This commentary is taken from Bradley’s blog, The Institute, and was also published in the Commentary section of WorldMag.com and is used with permission of the author.

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]