“…what preceded the eventual divorce of opposing factions was assumed agreement by both sides on essential points of doctrine and practice…made by moderates who wished to avoid controversy for the sake of denominational unity and mission”

I had to take a break from blogging to settle my family in Seoul, South Korea and to prepare for my wife’s cancer treatment. Christine had a successful surgery this week to remove the tumor, along with her stomach and infected lymph nodes. She is recovering from the surgery and will begin chemotherapy shortly. Many thanks to all who have been praying for us. Praise God also that we’ve able to find a PCA church in Seoul that has an English ministry.

I’ve finally had some time to catch up on what’s been happening outside of my own little world and one obvious area of interest for me was the recent Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) 38th General Assembly (GA).

I’ve been able to read several reviews and summaries of the proceedings, thanks to Wes White’s helpful blog which has been aggregating blog posts on the subject from various sources. Clearly, the number one GA topic has been the 2010 Strategic Plan, , which was adopted with a narrow majority after many hours of debate.

Adopted along with the Strategic Plan, was the 17 Points for PCA Renewal which had been originally motioned by Rev. Jon Payne and submitted as an overture by the Northwest Georgia Presbytery. Not surprisingly, these two actions have elicited opposing responses.

The glass half-full folks see the adoption of these 2 documents as proof of a united denomination that is ready to take on the challenges of the future while being firmly rooted in its Reformed confessions. The glass half-empty contingent sees a divided body with a sizable minority that opposed the Strategic Plan and a majority of churches that only pays lip service to our Reformed creeds and confessions.

I must admit that while I am heartened by what everyone has described as civil debates characterized by mutual respect, I am among those who are concerned about what the adoption of the Strategic Plan bodes for our denomination. Dr. Don Clements has already made a persuasive argument for why the presence of a large minority should give the majority pause as the PCA moves ahead with the implementation phase of the Plan.

I want to make the less obvious argument that the adoption of the 17 Points, which would seem on surface to be a small but significant victory for those opposed to the Strategic Plan, may actually prove to be as troubling as the large minority that voted against the Plan.

To begin with, it is not insignificant to note that the 17 Points were originally put forth as an alternative to the Strategic Plan. The fact that it was adopted along with the Strategic Plan changes the original intent of the resolution, which was to supersede and not merely to supplement the Strategic Plan.

Additionally, I believe that by adopting both plans, the PCA may be committing the Error of Assumed Agreement. By that I mean the error of assuming agreement on one or more points by multiple parties without those parties doing proper due diligence to understand the other parties’ understanding of those points.

In this case, I am referring to those who advocate for and those who oppose the Strategic Plan assuming agreement on the terminology, doctrine, and practice of the 17 Points without doing proper due diligence.

Why am I making this argument and why is it a big deal? The PCA, from its inception, has been influenced by a broadly Calvinistic ethos that has allowed it to effectively assimilate different constituencies within the Reformed family; that point was argued by Dr. Tim Keller and Dr. Ligon Duncan during GA.

As a result, the PCA has always allowed presbyteries and local churches great latitude in terms of their understanding and application of our Confession and Church Constitution.

Under those circumstances, how meaningful are the 17 Points to the entire denomination, at least without further clarification? Can we really assume agreement on all 17 Points just because the vote to adopt the resolution was almost unanimous?

I would argue that this assumed agreement is false and can illustrate that by questioning one of the points – that of worship. Can we truly assume agreement on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) when we have churches within our denomination that uses dramatic skits and liturgical dancing in Worship and others that believe such elements are a violation of the second commandment in the Decalogue? Are two PCA churches in agreement on the RPW when one features bands playing the latest contemporary praise music on Sundays while the other advocates for exclusive Psalmody?

Are we not, as a denomination, guilty of the Error of Assumed Agreement?

Again, why is this an issue? The history of the American Presbyterian Church is filled with painful divisions and contentious strife. Examples of this include the Old Side-New Side Division in the eighteenth century, the Old School-New School Split in the nineteenth century, and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the twentieth century. Each of those division have been helpfully detailed in Darryl Hart’s and John Muether’s history of American Presbyterianism, “Seeking A Better Country.”

In each case, what preceded the eventual divorce of opposing factions was assumed agreement by both sides on essential points of doctrine and practice. In most cases, this assumption was made by moderates who wished to avoid controversy for the sake of denominational unity and mission. Ironically, the end result were painful divisions and time consuming distractions from the mission of the Church as both sides found out too late that they could not bridge the gap between their differences.

Now, let me be clear by saying that I am in no way arguing that those who support the Strategic Plan should be equated with the revivalists and liberals represented by the New Siders/New Schoolers/Modernists. Nor am I saying that the passing of the Strategic Plan and the falsely assumed agreement on the 17 Points means that the PCA is heading for an inevitable church split, although that appears to be the concern of some such as Dr. Keller and Dr. Duncan.

What I am arguing is that by ignoring the disagreements in our denomination over many if not all of the 17 Points will only mask the differences that exist and potentially lead us down a path that leads to further divisiveness and distraction from the mission of the Church.

So if my diagnosis regarding the Danger of Assumed Agreement is correct, what is the remedy? Certainly, it needs to begin with an acknowledgement by all parties that just because we adopted both the Strategic Plan and the 17 Points for PCA Renewal, this does not mean that we are in agreement as to what those points mean and how they should be implemented in our churches.

If we can agree that we currently disagree, then it becomes incumbent on the leadership of our denomination, including our Officers of the Church, to begin dialoging on how we can come together around the 17 Points, recognizing that we need to arrive at a common understanding of terminology, doctrine, and practice.

This is, of course, no easy task but one that must be tackled. Thankfully, we have the resources within the PCA to approach this daunting work and I am aware of at least one initiative to do just that. My prayer is that this grassroots initiative and others like it will get off the ground and prod our denomination forward beyond our assumed agreements and towards true unity.

Kenneth Kang-Hui has served as a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in Manhattan and has lived in New York City for almost 40 years. This article is taken from his blog, Reformation in the City http://reformationinthecity.blogspot.com/, and is used with his permission.