Letter to the Editor

The PCA Strategic Plan (SP) has been prepared to identify the denomination’s challenges and to address them with strategies that are consistent with Biblical values (A summary of this proposed plan can be found here, An Overview of the PCA Strategic Plan). But the question in this elder’s mind is, “Is the Strategic Plan really consistent with our Biblical principles?” If we are to support the SP, we must in good conscience be able to say ‘Yes.’ Do the three themes of this Overview line up with Scripture?

Theme #1 is about ‘Safe Places.’ So the question that we must ask is, “Why do we need safe places?” This must be asked because it implies that it is ‘not safe’ to talk about ideas within the PCA. The proposal in the SP has little to do with involvement in the courts of the PCA (e.g. the Session, Presbytery, or General Assembly), but rather the desire is for ‘safe places’ that are outside of the courts but during their meetings.

Why are we discussing the advancement of the PCA outside of the courts of General Assembly? The Tim Keller/Ligon Duncan debate last year on ‘deaconesses’ would be a prime example of this. So ‘safe places’ already exist. Nonetheless, the question still remains, “Is it ‘not safe’ to talk about ideas within the PCA?” Perhaps, there are many in the PCA who believe that there is no respect shown in the courts.

Then I submit that the problem is not the ‘courts,’ but the participants within the courts. 2 Timothy 2:24-25 shows us how we, as elders, ought do conduct ourselves, “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…” If someone opposes the truth of God, we must correct with gentleness. We must speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). So if we have differences, let us settle these in the church’s courts (General Assembly, Presbytery, and Session) according to the Scriptures.

Theme #2 concerns ‘More Seats at the Table.’ I could ask what ‘table’ we are talking about here, but the context seems to show the ‘table’ is where ‘PCA ministry direction and development’ occur. Isn’t it the elders who are called by God to sit at this kind of ‘table’? In our local churches the ministries and the methods of those ministries, are they not guided and directed by the elders?

1 Peter 5:1ff says, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (emphasis mine).

It appears that this theme ignores or invalidates the God-given means for ministry direction and development, which is, the elders of the Church at the local church, Presbytery, and General Assembly levels. When the church in Acts had a problem, as it had to do with its direction, did they create more seats at the table? No, they invited the elders to come to Jerusalem to sit down and figure out the problem (Acts 15).

Theme #3 deals with the PCA ‘In God’s Global Mission.’ Part of the PCA expanding in its global mission means that we, the church, must financially support the PCA. If a denomination is going to function, whether here in the states or globally, we must support it. That is part of what it means to be Presbyterian.

The fact is, however, most churches within the PCA don’t support the denomination on the General Assembly level for whatever reasons. The SP desires to correct this problem by changing the Book of Church Order (see Rules Changes). I can see how this would be a appealing, but would this proposed change be contrary to Scripture’s teachings? The language of BCO 14-1 as it is now states, “It is the responsibility of every member and every member congregation to support the whole work of the denomination as they be led in their conscience held captive to the Word of God.” The language reflects our Confession, “God alone is Lord of the conscience…”

The SP suggests adding the following, “The General Assembly, however, may require churches, teaching elders, and Presbyteries to contribute to denominational support services by their paying an Annual Registration Fee to assist in underwriting the ministry of the Administrative Committee” (emphasis mine). This addition seems contrary to what it is being added to (no matter if this is the current practice or not), especially when the word ‘require’ is used (also see contradictions to BCO 25-8, 10) (See Note 1 below).

Using this word confuses and opposes the current ‘conscience’ language. But this requirement seems even more drastic when we look at the details keeping in mind James 4:12, “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge…” and that is God. As you look at the Rules Changes suggested under BCO 14-2, you will see that a TE or RE from a church that doesn’t pay the ‘Annual Registration Fee’ will be stripped of their privilege and right to vote at General Assembly. The PCA has financial problems, especially the Administration Committee, but is this the answer or can we not go about this in a better way?

There are Biblical problems with the conclusions that have been drawn in the SP. But how did we come to these conclusions? Towards the beginning of the SP (the exhaustive SP can be found here), Sections II and III identify the PCA’s mission/values and challenges that we face. Having identified these values and challenges, the SP puts forward twelve questions which need to be answered (these are found on page 17, Section VI). The answers to those questions are provided in the three themes we have discussed above (pages 19 and following).

So does the SP ask the right questions? Before we can ask that, we must ask if we have been given an accurate account of our mission/values, which have been formed to determine what questions to ask. On page 5 of the SP, ‘Animating Values’ are discussed. The term ‘animating values’ is problematic, for what is its meaning? The SP defines it as, “the concerns, goals, and practices that get us up and going each morning for work of our individual presbyteries, ministries and churches” (emphasis mine). These are half of the values that the SP uses to figure out what questions need to be asked (Section VI). We all know that the PCA is made up of different types of churches who have different focuses in their ministry, but can this be part of the foundation from which we move forward? Do we take our ‘practice’ and develop a theology or a plan from our practice? We must not! So of course the final product of the SP is wrong because the questions asked are wrong. These questions are wrong because the ‘animating values’ are being used in the equation to ask the questions.

I exhort you to consider the devastating effects of following the SP, for these strategies are not consistent with Biblical values. There are plenty of narratives in Scripture that describe what happens when the church follows her experience and practice, and not the God who created us. Will we beg for the judgment of our Lord just so we can say, “At least it is something”?

Let’s go back to the drawing board with an understanding of who we are in our practice, but focus intently on the ‘formal values’ of what we hold dear, as our Historic Motto declares, “Faithful to Scripture, True to Reformed Faith, Obedient to Great Commission.”

Note 1: The two BCO references are as follows:

BCO 25-8 says, “The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.”

BCO 25-10 says, “The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.”)

PCA Teaching Elder Andrew Barnes
Jackson, MS

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