The following article will be appearing in an upcoming edition of The Nicotine Theological Journal.***
The PCA has issues.
Much like the kid brother of a member of your group of friends growing up who desperately wanted to fit in with the older guys, so the Presbyterian Church in America has begun to display a similarly desperate tendency to seek the approval of those whom we seek to impress. The problem, of course, is that it is unclear just whose approval we’re seeking—it may be that of other missionally-minded churches, it may be that of the culture itself. But either way, like that kid brother, those who crave affirmation just end up annoying the rest of us who couldn’t care less.
It’s not that we Old School Presbyterians don’t care about pleasing anyone, of course. We certainly seek the approval of Jesus Christ in whose Name we minister Word and sacrament each Lord’s Day. Here’s the thing, though: Jesus doesn’t make me feel bad because my church is small; Jesus doesn’t chide me for not having transformed my city into the kingdom of God on earth; and Jesus doesn’t make me feel guilty because of all the white people who show up for church each Sunday (whites are fine in the suburbs, but ethnics are needed in The City, where the real ministry happens). My point is that it is the smile of God that we should be seeking, not street cred (and God smiles at faithfulness, not necessarily at nickels and noses).
Why the rant, you ask? The reason is simple enough: the PCA’s Strategic Plan, the points of which were adopted at this summer’s General Assembly, represents the latest in our denomination’s hand-wringing over how supposedly irrelevant we have become (I mean, we didn’t even grow numerically in 2009!). Whether it’s withdrawing from NAPARC (which the original version of the Plan suggested) or shifting our discussions of worship and mission from the context of church courts to “safer places” with “more voices at the table,” the fact is that the movers and shakers of the PCA have determined that we’ve got to do something (did I mention that we didn’t grow in 2009?).
My aim here is not to discuss the Plan in detail, but rather to direct our attention to what it says about us as a denomination. It seems that the everyday and ordinary are just fine when we’re surrounded by tokens of blessing and bounty, but when those outward, visible tokens disappear then we must come up with something out of the ordinary in order to make up the slack and restore what the locusts have eaten.
What many of the PCA’s leaders have failed to appreciate is the degree to which a church’s philosophy of ministry is indicative of its understanding of the Christian life more broadly. I’ve been told that Jewish rabbis are fond of saying “Our calendar is our catechism,” by which they mean that their faith is instilled and passed down by means of the regular rhythm of the synagogue’s times of worship and prayer. A similar principle is true in Christianity: we communicate the what by means of the how. If the Christian life is to be understood as one of marked and measurable success, then what better way to convey that expectation than by inventing new strategies and methods to deal with perceived failure? And contrariwise, what lesson is conveyed by an insistence upon the ordinary means of grace than that the Christian life is characterized by some ups but lots of downs, by smatterings of already amid plenty of not yet?
This ordinary-means-of-grace ethos was captured beautifully by PCA pastor Jon Payne, who submitted to the Assembly what was originally intended as an alternate proposal to be adopted instead of the Strategic Plan. Its points include: a renewed commitment to exegetical, God-centered, Christ-exalting, Holy Spirit-filled, lectio-continua preaching; a renewed commitment to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper for the spiritual nourishment, health and comfort of the elect; a renewed commitment to private, family and corporate prayer; a renewed commitment to—and delight in—the Lord’s Day; a renewed commitment to worship God according to Scripture; and a renewed commitment to sing the Psalms in private, family, and public worship.
The first thing one is likely to notice while perusing Payne’s alternate strategy is just how mundane and unexciting it all sounds. Absent are the clarion calls for the transformation of society and the democratization of the church’s leadership, and in their place we find a renewed commitment to sacraments, psalm-singing, and Sabbath-keeping. If you think about it, what lies at the back of the disagreement on the part of the Old-School opponents of the Strategic Plan and its New-School supporters is the relationship of the church’s mission and marks. As the (original) Strategic Plan’s suggestion for the PCA to withdraw from NAPARC suggests, it is apparently not enough for a congregation to exhibit the marks of a true church if those congregations are not sufficiently “missional.” But aren’t the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline themselves the mission? And isn’t this what NAPARC churches do?
The mere exhibiting of these marks, however, hardly sounds “strategic.” A strategy, after all, is “a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.” If you want to lose twenty pounds this year, you had better implement a strategy. But it is here that the analogy breaks down with respect to Christ’s church, for while the means are given to the church’s officers, the results are out of our control. “The winds blows where it will,” Jesus tells us, and though we can see its effects we cannot harness its power or predict it path. “So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This admission does not breed apathy, any more than an appreciation of divine sovereignty breeds prayerlessness. On the contrary, it is precisely because we believe that God is in control that we bring our petitions to him, and likewise, it is precisely because we believe that God will add his blessing to the means of grace that we insist so strongly upon their centrality in the life and ministry of the church. Last I checked, Jesus didn’t tell his disciples to go out and build him a church, but promised rather to be the Architect himself: “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
But this is risky business, this stepping back and allowing Jesus to determine the success and relevance of the church. Size matters, at least in the minds of most American evangelicals, and nickels and noses simply cannot be guaranteed by such out-of-date methods as preaching and serving communion. But shouldn’t this be the point where faith comes in? If strategies are intended to bring about specific results, then what’s the point of faith (or the Holy Spirit, for that matter)? You get on the treadmill and cut out the Oreos, and you’ll lose that weight. You adopt a culturally savvy mission, and you’ll grow a relevant church. But all this talk of strategies and expected results makes the church sound like a mere human institution beholden to the laws of the free market rather than a Body whose growth comes in spurts unpredictable.
The point of all of this is to say that it’s gut-check time for the PCA.
Are we as a denomination going to trust in the tried and true means of grace that Christ has ordained for the growth of his church, and commit our expectations concerning that growth to the Spirit who alone can bring it about? Or, are we going to fall into the old trap of sacrificing the church’s marks on the altar of “mission,” as defined by the cultural guardians of all things relevant? Many of our Reformed forefathers stood at this very same crossroads and blinked, and we have their failures to thank for the liberal Protestant churches that litter the current landscape.
Much like the kid brother of a member of your group of friends growing up who desperately wanted to fit in with the older guys, so the Presbyterian Church in America has begun to display a similarly desperate tendency to seek the approval of those whom we seek to impress. The problem, of course, is that it is unclear just whose approval we’re seeking—it may be that of other missionally-minded churches, it may be that of the culture itself. But either way, like that kid brother, those who crave affirmation just end up annoying the rest of us who couldn’t care less.
It’s not that we Old School Presbyterians don’t care about pleasing anyone, of course. We certainly seek the approval of Jesus Christ in whose Name we minister Word and sacrament each Lord’s Day. Here’s the thing, though: Jesus doesn’t make me feel bad because my church is small; Jesus doesn’t chide me for not having transformed my city into the kingdom of God on earth; and Jesus doesn’t make me feel guilty because of all the white people who show up for church each Sunday (whites are fine in the suburbs, but ethnics are needed in The City, where the real ministry happens). My point is that it is the smile of God that we should be seeking, not street cred (and God smiles at faithfulness, not necessarily at nickels and noses).
Why the rant, you ask? The reason is simple enough: the PCA’s Strategic Plan, the points of which were adopted at this summer’s General Assembly, represents the latest in our denomination’s hand-wringing over how supposedly irrelevant we have become (I mean, we didn’t even grow numerically in 2009!). Whether it’s withdrawing from NAPARC (which the original version of the Plan suggested) or shifting our discussions of worship and mission from the context of church courts to “safer places” with “more voices at the table,” the fact is that the movers and shakers of the PCA have determined that we’ve got to do something (did I mention that we didn’t grow in 2009?).
My aim here is not to discuss the Plan in detail, but rather to direct our attention to what it says about us as a denomination. It seems that the everyday and ordinary are just fine when we’re surrounded by tokens of blessing and bounty, but when those outward, visible tokens disappear then we must come up with something out of the ordinary in order to make up the slack and restore what the locusts have eaten.
What many of the PCA’s leaders have failed to appreciate is the degree to which a church’s philosophy of ministry is indicative of its understanding of the Christian life more broadly. I’ve been told that Jewish rabbis are fond of saying “Our calendar is our catechism,” by which they mean that their faith is instilled and passed down by means of the regular rhythm of the synagogue’s times of worship and prayer. A similar principle is true in Christianity: we communicate the what by means of the how. If the Christian life is to be understood as one of marked and measurable success, then what better way to convey that expectation than by inventing new strategies and methods to deal with perceived failure? And contrariwise, what lesson is conveyed by an insistence upon the ordinary means of grace than that the Christian life is characterized by some ups but lots of downs, by smatterings of already amid plenty of not yet?
This ordinary-means-of-grace ethos was captured beautifully by PCA pastor Jon Payne, who submitted to the Assembly what was originally intended as an alternate proposal to be adopted instead of the Strategic Plan. Its points include: a renewed commitment to exegetical, God-centered, Christ-exalting, Holy Spirit-filled, lectio-continua preaching; a renewed commitment to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper for the spiritual nourishment, health and comfort of the elect; a renewed commitment to private, family and corporate prayer; a renewed commitment to—and delight in—the Lord’s Day; a renewed commitment to worship God according to Scripture; and a renewed commitment to sing the Psalms in private, family, and public worship.
The first thing one is likely to notice while perusing Payne’s alternate strategy is just how mundane and unexciting it all sounds. Absent are the clarion calls for the transformation of society and the democratization of the church’s leadership, and in their place we find a renewed commitment to sacraments, psalm-singing, and Sabbath-keeping. If you think about it, what lies at the back of the disagreement on the part of the Old-School opponents of the Strategic Plan and its New-School supporters is the relationship of the church’s mission and marks. As the (original) Strategic Plan’s suggestion for the PCA to withdraw from NAPARC suggests, it is apparently not enough for a congregation to exhibit the marks of a true church if those congregations are not sufficiently “missional.” But aren’t the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline themselves the mission? And isn’t this what NAPARC churches do?
The mere exhibiting of these marks, however, hardly sounds “strategic.” A strategy, after all, is “a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.” If you want to lose twenty pounds this year, you had better implement a strategy. But it is here that the analogy breaks down with respect to Christ’s church, for while the means are given to the church’s officers, the results are out of our control. “The winds blows where it will,” Jesus tells us, and though we can see its effects we cannot harness its power or predict it path. “So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This admission does not breed apathy, any more than an appreciation of divine sovereignty breeds prayerlessness. On the contrary, it is precisely because we believe that God is in control that we bring our petitions to him, and likewise, it is precisely because we believe that God will add his blessing to the means of grace that we insist so strongly upon their centrality in the life and ministry of the church. Last I checked, Jesus didn’t tell his disciples to go out and build him a church, but promised rather to be the Architect himself: “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
But this is risky business, this stepping back and allowing Jesus to determine the success and relevance of the church. Size matters, at least in the minds of most American evangelicals, and nickels and noses simply cannot be guaranteed by such out-of-date methods as preaching and serving communion. But shouldn’t this be the point where faith comes in? If strategies are intended to bring about specific results, then what’s the point of faith (or the Holy Spirit, for that matter)? You get on the treadmill and cut out the Oreos, and you’ll lose that weight. You adopt a culturally savvy mission, and you’ll grow a relevant church. But all this talk of strategies and expected results makes the church sound like a mere human institution beholden to the laws of the free market rather than a Body whose growth comes in spurts unpredictable.
The point of all of this is to say that it’s gut-check time for the PCA.
Are we as a denomination going to trust in the tried and true means of grace that Christ has ordained for the growth of his church, and commit our expectations concerning that growth to the Spirit who alone can bring it about? Or, are we going to fall into the old trap of sacrificing the church’s marks on the altar of “mission,” as defined by the cultural guardians of all things relevant? Many of our Reformed forefathers stood at this very same crossroads and blinked, and we have their failures to thank for the liberal Protestant churches that litter the current landscape.
.
The temptation to innovate is strong, but what we must remember is this: choosing the old paths is what makes us a church, while seeking the novel is what will makes us a cliché.
Where do I sign to join the Old-Schoolers?
ReplyDeleteThis is the clearest and most concise article I've read so far on the issue. Well done.
As I was reading it, I couldn't help but think: Oh, he's pulling out Jesus as his trump card. Doesn't everybody do that?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I do think Jesus is happier with the "alternate proposal."
What an excellent essay. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteCorrection: "Nevertheless, I do think Jesus is happier with the 'alternate proposal' as you've presented it here, which is to say, that the two are antithetical and not complementary."
ReplyDeleteBut I hear otherwise, and from an old-schooler too.
Great post. Very relevant (if you'll excuse the term) for not only PCA but church planting on on the mission field as well.
ReplyDeleteAs a missionary, I hear plenty of "strategy" talk in wider evangelical missions circles, and it gets rather quickly. Lots of talk about indigenous biblical church movements but not much talk about what we mean by "biblical" or "church".
Church planting on the mission field may be different than at home but it requires the same thing - a focus on what the church is, and doing the basics, and not jumping on whatever strategic bandwagon happens to be coming through town this decade.
Well done. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this excellent essay. As an Old-School Presbyterian living and attending church in a New-School leaning Presbytery in the PCA, I am in basic agreement with everything you've written. However, I would caution everyone who self-identifies themselves as Old-School to guard against a few things:
1) A sense of arrogance because we get it and the other guy doesn't. No matter how well we think we understand the importance of building the Church through the ordinary means of grace, the reality is we constantly fail in our own reliance upon the grace of the Lord and turn instead to our strength.
2) Using the ordinary means of grace vs. new measures argument as an excuse for our own unfaithfulness. God calls us to build His Church through His means, but we should expect that as we minister faithfully, God will reach the lost and transform lives through the ordinary means of grace. If that is not happening, we need to ask ourselves, not if we need to change methods, but are we being faithful to Christ in how we shepherd His flock.
Give me the "Old Paths" every time. I'm sick of hearing about being relevant to the surrounding culture. God will call who He has chosen if we just keep preaching the Word and not get caught in the trap of entertainment to draw crowds - most of who are goats/tares used by Satan to stir up the church putting out fires everywhere so there is no time for prayer and Bible reading.
ReplyDeleteWell said, spot on.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteIs anyone else smelling Barth underlying these transformation movements? They've moved beyond Kuyper's sphere sovereignty and are certainly trafficking in Dooyewerdian territory, but the more I hear the redemptive realities posited as the launchpad for cultural engagement and transformation, I hear Barth's christological grounding for creational ordinances. Am I sensing this correctly?
ReplyDeleteJJS, superb. Too many are imposing business models on the church and expect elders to behave like CEOs or partners on the board. But it ain't a business, it's a body. To impose a business model on a body is like telling a 45 year old man that he needs to change his habits because his height hasn't changed since his teens.
ReplyDeleteNicely done, Jason. Contra Keller, I think the PCA has a split personality - the more confessional who trust in Word & Sacrament and the sovereign Spirit, versus the more evangelical who trust more in "stratego-relevance." Sadly, I think the latter is the predominate personality.
ReplyDeleteJJS,
ReplyDeleteGood post. But wasnt it clear when you had to go through the MNA assessment where the PCA stood on these kind of issues at a denominational level? If Old School guys keep willingly subjecting themselves to New School measures to get in, can they really be upset when they find that the place is actually full of New Schoolers?
Thanks for the thumbs-up, everyone. And Kenneth: good words that we all need to take to heart.
ReplyDeleteJesse: MNA assessment is not a requirement on any official level, but in some presbyteries they require it if you want funding for your church plant.
I appreciate our brother’s valiant words, and those of the Northwest Georgia Presbytery (and the PCA’s basic adoption in affirmation and engagement of their overture of encouragement to ordinary means of grace, in principles and insights consistent with Scripture, as I believe the great majority of PCA members would agree). Though in truth we confess that our Church and her members have to a greater degree failed to faithfully exemplify the holiness and commitment of her calling, we need not presuppose that any PCA brother, even of those invested in strategic planning, is shortsighted as to the spirituality of the Church, or less concerned with the Ordinary Means of Grace than those admirably in overture for renewed commitment to them.
ReplyDeleteIn these tough economic times I too have championed a focus on the economics of spirituality – that much (in spiritual prosperity), of nature (in redeemed living), follows from channeling ones energies “to the rich theology and practice of Reformed Confessionalism”. The Westminster Standards state, “Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (chap. I.6.b). That is, our spiritual light orders our commonality to human actions and societies. Yes, there is a danger if one sets “thoughtful sociological analysis” somehow against the Gospel, but cultural sensitivity and relevance need not be automatically distanced from the “efficacious means God Himself has promised to bless”.
Room here may not permit to delve too deeply into an equally volatile ancillary, but as a Southern Presbyterian I must humbly confess that some aromas of doctrinal confession have not always been pleasingly fragrant in their distinction from social relevance. Giving ourselves wholeheartedly to God and His Word demands “a seat at the table” for minorities and women and the young, and ordained white male elders had best represent each of these, which has not always been the case, even as a stricture of doctrinal confession. For example, slavery, segregation, and an inadequate engagement in civil rights is one of at least a few dynamic, dramatic, and heart-wrenching failures of splitting the cultural-doctrinal atom. There are some things equally relevant to a culture of both “mark” and “mission”, with historic failures on either side of a forced divide. I love the call to the Word, the sacraments, and prayer, and I applaud our focus there; but let’s make sure our light from these is not clouded by any allowance or undergirding of such societal travesties as racial prejudice (or other societal ills failing of proper doctrinal viewing). Some may rightly claim little comparison to savvy nuance of cultural relevance toward increasing PCA numbers, but we Southerners have hard learned we cannot sit in spiritual towers twiddling our cultural thumbs, nor doctrinally should we.
The cultural relevance of live, streaming videos at a few GAs at least informs our doctrine of peace and purity, of unity in diversity, even in renewed and avowed “commitment to the Biblical, Reformed, Confessional, and Presbyterian Faith”. Like the author, I am not one to favour a market plan, a Strategic Plan over and against the Ordinary Means of Grace (the Word, the sacraments, and prayer), so long as we agree that some old paths may still be in need of a wisdom in doctrinal reexamination toward even older, truer paths, and some old paths may still benefit from new pavement.
There is a tendency to equivocate on "ordinary means" and the more broadly considered "means" by which we conduct our ministries in this world. What should preaching look like in a given neighborhood or region? What is the most effective way to gain a hearing for preaching in a given neighborhood? What is the most effective way to equip ministers to deliver the ordinary means in a particular neighborhood? These are the kind of strategy questions that platitudes really don't address and that's why a strategic plan is necessary.
ReplyDeleteMissionaries learn the language of the people they are trying to reach so as to communicate credibly. What is the "language" of various places and cultures that gives the word its proper context?
All of this scoffing at the strategic plan is overly cynical. There are more and less effective ways to engage in the ministry of word and sacrament. Yes, God is the one who brings the increase, but he also gives us the good sense not to plant watermelon seeds in asphalt or cactuses in rice paddies.
When the strategic plan calls for the use of the "anxious bench" or the altar call, then the new school / old school stuff can come into play. But until then, a lot of this opposition just sounds like cynicism about using modern planning techniques to figure out how an organization should be conducted.
Some of the criticism of the plan centered on whether the plan used proper strategic planning principles, and I thought that was helpful. But pitting the ordinary means of grace against attempts to figure out the best strategies for church planning and ecumenical partnering is just not very helpful.
I'm involved in a church plant now and we are with you on the ordinary means of grace. But we have also been handing out free water bottles at a local concert series this summer just to find some way to make a connection with the people in the neighborhood. And we've been renting space from the Lutherans for our meetings, and they've been very good to us. They want to see the plain old gospel spread and are "with us" in that endeavor even though we are not absorbing into each other. And so I think cynicism about the way New York is handling things is excessive. We only have a small taste here in in our town of what they must be going through, but it is very difficult to gain a hearing without giving some kind of thought to the context in which the ordinary means of grace will actually be heard.
-Anonymous Jon
Many of our Reformed forefathers stood at this very same crossroads and blinked, and we have their failures to thank for the liberal Protestant churches that litter the current landscape.
ReplyDeleteRight. It was the evangelicals and many (presumably) reformed who blinked in 1936 in the Northern Presbyterian Church, and left Machen hanging. Look at the result, the dead mainline Presbyterian Church. It's the "broadening church" all over again. Replace a confessional understanding of Scripture and a scriptural use of Confession with moderation, methods, and man-centered thinking, and you can become so culturally relevant that you are meaningless and patronizingly accommodated by the unbelief you slowly begin to echo.
-=Cris=-
JJS,
ReplyDeleteI agree, the assessment is not required on an official, but MNA is supported on an official level as an agency of the PCA and therefore, on some level, it's philosophy is denominationally supported.
Old/New light split: 1741
ReplyDeleteOld/New School split: 1837
OPC/PCUSA split: 1939
Every 100 years it seems there is a divide. Is 2040 the next one?
"Is 2040 the next one?"
ReplyDeleteAs a minister in training I certainly hope not. I'd rather it happen now and be over and done by the time I'm in the pastorate. There have always been two denominations in the PCA, one Confessional, one broadly Evangelical, and it's about time they admitted their differences and moved on. Perhaps the Confessionals could join up with the OPC? Asking too much perhaps, but one can always hope.
@sean, none of these strategists of missional new measures is trafficking in Dooyeweerd, I guarantee it.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very clear whose approval is being sought (explicitly or no). Evangelicalism itself is seen as the cool crowd. That is, there is a watering down of what it means to be Presbyterian (Confessionally Reformed).
How many PCA pastors and elders say that an Arminian profession is a credible profession of the gospel? How many shy from affirming, teaching, and practicing the regulative principle and calling all other worship idolatry?
No PCA pastor or elder wants to call for a gut check in that denomination, unless they are calling for an end to the PCA. Discipline on the gospel and true worship is impossible there.
Grit,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to CCC, and thanks for your comments.
That is, our spiritual light orders our commonality to human actions and societies. Yes, there is a danger if one sets “thoughtful sociological analysis” somehow against the Gospel, but cultural sensitivity and relevance need not be automatically distanced from the “efficacious means God Himself has promised to bless”.
My intention was not to create an either/or, as in, one must either be culturally sensitive or employ the means of grace. But my sense from many PCA leaders is that those who identify themselves as ordinary means of grace people, and who embrace the foreignness of the Christian church, are hopelessly out of touch and in danger of moving the PCA into cultural obscurity and obsolescence.
For my part, much of what falls under the obsession with cultural relevance is simply a theology of glory according to which success is ill-defined. I mean, our fear of becoming the OPC is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It is this very fear that accounts for my presbytery's refusal to deal with Peter Leithart.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
All of this scoffing at the strategic plan is overly cynical. There are more and less effective ways to engage in the ministry of word and sacrament. Yes, God is the one who brings the increase, but he also gives us the good sense not to plant watermelon seeds in asphalt or cactuses in rice paddies.
Look, I can only speak from experience. I've been to MNA assessment and have had plenty of interactions with the kind of people who support the SP, and the sense I've gotten is that Old Schoolers are a stone in the shoe of the PCA. In fact, if there's "scoffing" going on, it's going in both directions.
When the strategic plan calls for the use of the "anxious bench" or the altar call, then the new school / old school stuff can come into play. But until then, a lot of this opposition just sounds like cynicism about using modern planning techniques to figure out how an organization should be conducted.
Why is disagreeing with you considered "cynicism"?
I think this goes beyond "using modern planning techniques." Until you've been told that in order to plant a church in The City you need to hire a black, a Hispanic, and an Asian to head up your "worship team" or else you're doomed to failure (this coming from the same people who consider the term "covenantal" to be an example of unnecessary theological baggage), then I would say that your dismissal of my concerns as cynicism is itself way too cynical.
Excellent word Jason Stellman...
ReplyDeleteLet us major in the "mere" means given... the right preaching of the pure Word of God, the right administration of the Sacraments, and due diligence to discipline in the church. If we center on these, then we fear not them being displaced by any current fad or innovation.
blessings and thanks,
Jack
After the GA, our pastor spoke about church growth in terms of our being "hospitable". The opening up of our homes and lives. His Sunday School class showed the biblical definition of hospitality and it's quality being a necessary trait exibited in the lives of noted early believers. His call to us was to begin a strategic plan for the opening up our homes to become involved in the lives of our neighbors.
ReplyDeleteBro. Jason, I am glad that you decided NOT to engage the SP "in detail". Since you twice refered to a "propsal" to leave NAPAC that was not in any version of the plan, it is probably best to rely on vague accusations and to insinuate some "evil master-mind" by your choice of photo.
ReplyDeleteI attended GA this year for the first time. I went considering myself a TR. After a few hours of watching procedural motions to block the most innocent motion I began to wonder what the fighting was over.
The premise of your article seems to be that those that minister in cities & desire to see God save the lost in large numbers, some how implies a corresponding lack of intrest in the ordinary means of grace. Huh?
If this is the best that you have to offer, some sloganeering & a bit of Rah, Rah Hooray for our team? Then this is pretty thin beer.
Is this what happens when we have no serious issues facing our church? Do we just start to make up a threat to our faith where none exists?
peace, kevin
So are you against the Strategic Plan specifically or against the idea of having a strategy beyond the ordinary means of grace? Because the SP seemed remarkably benign to me ... off the top of my head:
ReplyDelete1) We have seminars to discuss important theological issues. Haven't we always had those? Pastor X talks about some issue, usually related to a book Pastor X has written. Gathering asks questions. Gathering leaves and continues discussions over lunch. Is this really a seismic shift?
2) As a church, the ONE thing that should bind us together is the gospel. And yet, as we look around, most of us are the same color, make roughly the same income, have the same educational background, own "The Joshua Tree," etc., etc. Some friends of mine and I actually started a game where we tried to count the guys at General Assembly who look exactly like you. (Bald guys with black-rimmed glasses. No offense. Once we played the game with guys who wore North Face jackets and khaki pants. The point is, we never counted the guys who looked exactly like Usher.) Is it not even worth asking if this is a giant coincidence? If it is, then that's the answer. But seriously, it's not even worth asking if we're adding something to the gospel when we're not connecting with people who are different than we are? Isn't the gospel so important that we must constantly ask whether we're adding to it?
3) There are really amazing folks serving God around the world. Is it wrong to hear from them? Don't we do that every year at General Assembly when we welcome delegations from other countries? Our church had the Archbishop of Uganda preach one Sunday a couple of years ago. He preached an amazing, Christ-centered sermon about Jesus calming the storm. Remarkably, we're not all liberals now. In fact, the imagery of an Anglican Archbishop speaking in our church when he was unwelcome in the liberal Episcopal church across the street from us was really powerful and a testimony to our Christian brothers and sisters in Africa that we stand together for the gospel.
I've often observed that guys that become Reformed later in life, especially after getting burned by Evangelicalism, speak in melodramatic tones about "our Reformed forefathers," and then describe what these forefathers would or would not do in a given situation. But many of the "Reformed forefathers" were my actual biological forefathers. I can tell you many stories about their strategic plans ... they didn't call them "strategic plans," back then of course, but they had plans about how to do things in order to reach as many people with the gospel as they could. My great-grandfather preached three services every Sunday (they call it "multi-site" now) ... one in German, one in Dutch, and one in Fries. They evangelized people as they helped dig wells. They evangelized patients, doctors, and nurses as they visited hospitals. They didn't do these things because they were trying to be cool ... they were trying to follow the "strategy" of Jesus which involved going to people's houses for dinner, teaching in the synagogues, using terminology and language familiar to the people to introduce concepts that can only be revealed by the Spirit of God.
I don't think the PCA's Strategic Plan is trying to be cool or hip either. It's just a plan to use biblical wisdom to preach the gospel, pray for, and administer the sacraments to as many people as God appoints to believe. We've always done that. Yes, the Strategic Plan uses annoying buzz-words sometimes, but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is not some radical departure from historical Reformed Orthodoxy.
Anyway, those are just a couple of thoughts from a brother who doesn't think the sky is falling. (Though as an amillennialist, I acknowledge that the sky could indeed fall at any time.)
Grace and Peace,
Joel
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteBro. Jason, I am glad that you decided NOT to engage the SP "in detail". Since you twice refered to a "propsal" to leave NAPAC that was not in any version of the plan, it is probably best to rely on vague accusations and to insinuate some "evil master-mind" by your choice of photo.
The original version of the SP referred to the option of leaving NAPARC. What I wrote was accurate.
I attended GA this year for the first time. I went considering myself a TR. After a few hours of watching procedural motions to block the most innocent motion I began to wonder what the fighting was over.
Labels aside, we shouldn’t choose our sides based on how we feel about parliamentarian tactics on the floor of the assembly (your statement implies that you now question your former “TR” affiliation for this reason).
It sounds like you’re new to all of this. The more you hang around the more you’ll recognize the fact that the PCA is largely divided along Old and New School lines. The SP, at least in the minds of those who have reflected on it and rejected it, represents a step away from traditional Presbyterian polity toward a more culturally-driven, egalitarian ethos.
The premise of your article seems to be that those that minister in cities & desire to see God save the lost in large numbers, some how implies a corresponding lack of intrest in the ordinary means of grace. Huh?
No, that’s not the premise of my article. The premise of my article is that “the PCA’s Strategic Plan… represents the latest in our denomination’s hand-wringing over how supposedly irrelevant we have become.” I don’t have time to explain how the PCA is obsessed with cultural relevance, so if someone who doesn’t see that reads the article, I can see how it wouldn’t make much sense.
If this is the best that you have to offer, some sloganeering & a bit of Rah, Rah Hooray for our team? Then this is pretty thin beer.
No need to insult me. It sounds to me like it is you who has failed to accurately take the spiritual temperature of the PCA (this being your first GA and all). If so, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t blame others for seeing what you do not.
Is this what happens when we have no serious issues facing our church? Do we just start to make up a threat to our faith where none exists?
Again, I think you’re demonstrating a serious naïveté here. It seems to me that history teaches us that churches start down the road to liberalism by exalting methods over marks, and by making God’s kingdom all about cultural activism, which is what the PCA seems to be doing.
JJS, I remain unconvinced. Here is why, the (draft) SP mentioned "leaving NAPARC" as an example of what we should be willing to give up (a man made association) if it ever distracted from our mission (the gospel).
ReplyDeleteIt was an illustration. NOT a proposal. The failure to recognise the distinction & the repeated referemces on-line to a (no-existent) proposal, here and elsewhere, seriously undermine any other point. imho.
And yes for years now I have called myself a TR. Going back to TNVP days of the early 90's. I did so because I believed that this appelation defined one as a person that was devoted to the Gospel, and loved our standards because they faithfully proclaimed it. My observation over the past few years, and sadly reinforced this GA is that TR now refers to ones willingness to recast every issue as the Diet of Worms, or the Marrow controversy.
This is no Marrow conroversy, neither does it rise to the level of a Free Church property title debate. Some people love the Gospel & want to plan how to proclaim it more effectively. Some people love the Gospel & think that planning anything distracts from its purity. Period.
I recognise the attraction of nailing electronic thesis to the door of on-line web-hosting services. Taking the train from Princeton to Philidelphia was no doubt a thrilling moment. But if I can borrow a concept, most of us are simply called to lead white bread, plain vanilla lives in ministry. Those thrilling dramatic moments do not even come along once a century. And this ain't it.
peace, kevin
Joel,
ReplyDeleteSo are you against the Strategic Plan specifically or against the idea of having a strategy beyond the ordinary means of grace?
As I said in the article, the SP represents a subtle movement toward a vision for the PCA that I do not share. I don’t have time to outline all the reasons I have problems with the MNA/Redeemer/Covenant Seminary philosophy of ministry, but can anyone doubt that the SP smacks of that brand of ministry? No, I don’t have a problem with strategies (I employ them all the time, like when I put gas in my car yesterday so that it would drive), I just don’t like this one. I would have preferred to adopt Jon Payne’s alternate proposal, since it calls us to renew our focus on what we’re supposed to be all about in the first place.
As a church, the ONE thing that should bind us together is the gospel. And yet, as we look around, most of us are the same color, make roughly the same income, have the same educational background, own "The Joshua Tree," etc., etc.
Speak for yourself. My church reflects pretty well the surrounding community when it comes to income, skin color, and education. I’d even go toe-to-toe with any MNA person who thinks that mixed-race marriages are signs of missional street cred.
Ironically, it is the transformationists who screw up the catholicity of the church by trying to target a certain niche-market in their cities (as if all black people are the same). My church doesn’t appeal to any one group of people more than another, which is why we have such a diversity.
[Cont'd below]
Some friends of mine and I actually started a game where we tried to count the guys at General Assembly who look exactly like you. (Bald guys with black-rimmed glasses. No offense.
ReplyDeleteI’m either flattered or annoyed by this, I haven’t decided. But don’t blame the Old Schoolers in the PCA for the fact that I look so awesome that everyone copies me.
The point is, we never counted the guys who looked exactly like Usher.
You mean guys who are 5’10’ with dark hair and nice clothes on? I saw tons of guys like that at GA.
Is it not even worth asking if this is a giant coincidence? If it is, then that's the answer. But seriously, it's not even worth asking if we're adding something to the gospel when we're not connecting with people who are different than we are? Isn't the gospel so important that we must constantly ask whether we're adding to it?
Last I checked, most Christian black people are Pentecostals or charismatic Baptists (whose ministers wear robes), and most Mexicans are Catholics. And despite the fact that most Presbyterians are white (which is not really true since Africa has more Presbyterians than America has Reformed people), the worship in our churches is patterned after the early church, which was itself patterned after the Jewish synagogue. Trust me, faithful Reformed worship doesn’t magically appeal to white people.
My point is that diversity is achieved (or failed at) due to a huge number of factors, very few of which are anyone’s fault. How many of your close personal friends look like Usher? None? So I guess you must be “adding something to the gospel” to drive black people away.
Nah, I didn’t think so. Probably it’s because you either live somewhere with few black people, or because you just haven’t met any who share your interests or with whom you really click. It doesn’t make you a racist. I mean, I hang out with absolutely zero dentists, and there aren’t any in my church, either. But that doesn’t make me a rabid anti-dentite.
Oh, now I get it! "Usher," not "Ussher."
ReplyDeleteAs a really old-line, near-fossilized, generationally-challenged TR (RTS '73), I was headed for a Google search for paintings of Archbishop Ussher. I wanted to check out who at PCA GA this year looked like him.
Never mind.
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out... And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." We should have full confidence in the trustworthy promise that all who are elect to come to the Lord will come to Him and remain with Him. All we need do is be faithful to our duty to preach, teach, worship, and witness according to Scripture- filling our minds and hearts with its truth and our worship with its prescribed elements. God gives the increase, not methods or plans or the brightest hopes for some super-PCA that will radically change the world. Why we waste so much time using worldly methods of thinking about ministry is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteI just posted a blog in response to your essay, at http://bit.ly/cvMlLr. Your comments as well as those of others are welcomed. Let's keep a civil dialog going.
Great piece. However, I tend to wonder to what extent flat growth numbers in the PCA have to do with the unwillingness (or general inability) to discipline those within Presbyteries throughout the PCA who are teaching the false gospels of the Federal Vision and New Perspectives? Can we really say that on this score the PCA is actually displaying the mark of a true church where the best anyone can hope for is that those who are advancing these false gospels are simply pressured to leave if at all? Most seem unwilling to even identify these denials of justification by belief alone (preferring justification by faithfulness and covenant membership via water baptism instead) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness (that implies merit after all)as false gospels, but rather the much more benign "exceptions to the Standards." I mean, anyone who is even remotely aware of the spread of these "parallel soteriological systems" (and, for the record there are no parallel soteriological systems) must be hard pressed to recommend the PCA to others (except perhaps their own little oasis where the Gospel is still believed and preached). Speaking for myself, I stopped recommending the PCA to family and friends years ago out of fear that they might end up in the FV or NPP influenced church. I'm not a fan of playing ecclesiastical Russian roulette with those I love and I suspect many others within the PCA feel the same.
ReplyDeleteJason - I think you're getting sidetracked and missing my point. You conclude your article with the following:
ReplyDeleteThe temptation to innovate is strong, but what we must remember is this: choosing the old paths is what makes us a church, while seeking the novel is what will makes us a cliché.
What I'm saying to you is that this is a false choice because in this instance "the novel" isn't novel at all. Reformed people have been doing the things in the Strategic Plan for generations. Throughout my childhood, my father would get together with other pastors, outside the courts of the church, and they would write papers. They would distribute the papers amongst the group, and then get together and discuss them over breakfast once a month. For generations, pastors in our Reformed churches made decisions about non-doctrinal issues in official consultation with the elders and in unofficial consultation with what we called the Ladies Aid Society. The Strategic Plan probably has some hipster name for this, but we called it "wise leadership." For hundreds of years, we had yearly missions gatherings where we invited foreign missionaries (egads! foreign leaders!!) to speak to us about what they were doing on the mission field. None of this is novel. It's part of our history ... the "old paths" my family and many other families have walked for hundreds of years.
Well, I'll leave it be. You seemed to go off in some strange directions with the whole race thing, which wasn't meant to be the focal point of what I wrote to you. If it somehow came across that I was calling you a racist or implying that anybody else was a racist, please know that wasn't my intent. I'm perfectly willing to grant that you're much better at reaching every people group within your community than I am. I fail at that often, both consciously and unconsciously. I might be breaking the blogger code by asking you to pray for me in that area, but I do sincerely ask for your prayers. We're much more alike than you probably know, which is why I generally enjoy your writing and your point of view, even when we disagree with one another. When I read Acts 4, I see a vision of what I would like the PCA to be. I would like us to be both loved and hated because of our commitment to biblical Christianity ... a faith that I think is beautifully summarized and systematized in our confessions.
Be well, brother.
Joel
Dang, I wish Jason was with us!
ReplyDeleteI have a great idea for a strategic plan for the PCA...
ReplyDeleteIt involves going WAY back old school...
For those concerned with 'flat' growth numbers, I hope you will read through Martin Hedman's analysis of the facts, posted here:
ReplyDeletehttp://missionpca.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/thoughts-on-proposed-pca-strategic-plan/
http://missionpca.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/more-on-pca-strategic-plan/
http://missionpca.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/seeing-pca-strategic-planning-through-scriptural-spectacles/
http://missionpca.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/hard-data-and-the-pca-strategic-plan/
One down year doth not (necessarily) a precipitous free-fall make...
(So far as I know, Pastor Hedman's analysis has not been refuted. Please point it out if you have seen it.)
Great post.
ReplyDeleteI also think that what is often missed is that the ordinary means 'strategy,' if you will, is a long-term one. No easy, quick solutions. As in nature, so in grace. Paul speaks of the Gospel ministry in agricultural terms. It is often the patient, habitual use of ordinary means that God ordains will yield the right results. We've got to stay the course and not be lured away by the tempting short-cuts.
I mean, I hang out with absolutely zero dentists, and there aren’t any in my church, either. But that doesn’t make me a rabid anti-dentite.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but that’s how it all starts: a critical piece about strategic action plans here, some cheeky comments about transformationism there, and the next thing you’ll be saying is that New Schoolers should have their own schools.
"What many of the PCA’s leaders have failed to appreciate is the degree to which a church’s philosophy of ministry is indicative of its understanding of the Christian life more broadly."
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this statement is not accurate. It is obvious that many of the leaders of the PCA understand that a church's philosophy of ministry is indicative of its perspective on the Christian life, else they would not be advocating for the SP. The SP is evidence that there are some who feel that the PCA has failed to live out its purpose as the church, and by changing the approach to ministry they correct the course. The proponents of the SP simply seem to have a differing view on the marks and obligations of the broader Christian life than their opponents.
All that to say, this is a disagreement on the function of the church, and to that end you are entitled to debate ideology. However, to accuse the proponents of the SP for not understanding the correlation of ministry philosophy and understanding of Church function and purpose is to say they have no idea of the implications of their actions. This is unhelpful because it assumes the complete ignorance of your opponents-not a very affective tactic for winning someone to your argument. No one believes you to be a great warrior for knocking down practice dummies. Keep it a fair fight please.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteYeah, but that’s how it all starts: a critical piece about strategic action plans here, some cheeky comments about transformationism there, and the next thing you’ll be saying is that New Schoolers should have their own schools.
"They DO have their own schools!"
"Yeah, but that’s how it all starts: a critical piece about strategic action plans here, some cheeky comments about transformationism there, and the next thing you’ll be saying is that New Schoolers should have their own schools." - Zrim
ReplyDelete"They DO have their own schools!"
With dentists? So… who has the better teeth, the French Helvetii, the Dutch, the Scots, the Puritan English, or those new-fangled Americans (ok, and Canadians)? What was dentistry like in the Old School?
Grit, it’s a “Seinfeld” reference, the Yada-Yada-Yada episode, when Jerry’s dentist Tim Whatley (Bryan Cranston, who also masterfully portrays Walter White in “Breaking Bad,” btw, the best show on TV at the moment) is converting to Judaism. The anti-dentite joke plays off of cultural sensitivity to anti-semite jokes.
ReplyDeleteJJS, “Yeeaaaahhhh!”
But I passed this article along to an Old School PCA pastor friend of mine. He responds with a general golf clap, but had this to add which I found interesting.
If you think about it, what lies at the back of the disagreement on the part of the Old-School opponents of the Strategic Plan and its New-School supporters is the relationship of the church’s mission and marks. As the (original) Strategic Plan’s suggestion for the PCA to withdraw from NAPARC suggests, it is apparently not enough for a congregation to exhibit the marks of a true church if those congregations are not sufficiently “missional.” But aren’t the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline themselves the mission? And isn’t this what NAPARC churches do?
“Not necessarily. Other than many PCA Churches, some URC Churches, and a few OPC Churches, many of the NAPARC Churches tend to be elitist, narrow-minded, and legalistic, many have a memorialist view of their infrequent Communion, for which most people are not perfect enough to participate in, and I hear of people getting beat over the head with the Law week after week, more so than the Gospel. Where that is the case, and it is, I have little interest in being involved with NAPARC. Why do we keep pretending that we have so much in common? Frankly, I'd rather have ecclesiastical fellowship with the LCMS and some of the newer Anglican denominations; AMA etc.”
Thoughts?
Grit, it’s a “Seinfeld” reference... the anti-dentite joke plays off of cultural sensitivity to anti-semite jokes.
ReplyDeleteYes, but JJS says having no dentists (or black people) in the congregation may still rightly be characterised as simply a matter of circumstance (which I’m inclined to carry into the RPW (regulative principle of worship) differentiation of circumstance and elements), where no racism or anti-dentitism comes into elemental consideration. And while this may certainly be true, the PCA’s storied history would indicate to me that we are in a state of recovery from where racism has indeed been elemental as a regulative principle in our worship (whether of blacks (genetic factors of race), Jews (either genetic, cultural, or religious factors of race), or dentists (professional, creedal, cultural, or even regional or enfranchised factors of race)). That is, like Cranston’s character Hal (or, perhaps closer in analogy to Jane Kaczmarek’s Lois character) in Malcolm in the Middle (largely with a trichotomy of children (discounting the oldest, Francis, an obviously unwilling militarist, and the youngest, Jamie, no doubt the liturgist): Reese, Malcolm, and Dewey, roughly analogous to the supposed trichotomy of culturalist, doctrinalist, pietist, in an adjudged dysfunctional family) the yada-yada-yada of pastoral parenting may graciously insist on favouring each of the sons in designs peculiar for the success of a particular child. The same philosophy of ministry may well work for all, but the implementation in functionality toward expressive affirmation of the Church’s distinctive marks may require that the variety in diversity be also given particular variety of care and attention; not a favouritism, but a diversity of equal parenting skill.
I don’t mean to wax overly confusing, but JJS is correct that the Means of Grace entail cultural sensitivity every bit as much as they do doctrinal purity and spiritual piety (it’s not an either/or). Our ‘Southern’ PCA failures over issues such as slavery have not simply been cultural in nature, but moral and doctrinal as well, though our doctrine and piety may have claimed a justification of cultural ignorance or allowance where such a thing was not of ‘spiritual’ kingdom significance. Of course an “obsession with cultural relevance” as some success in “theology of glory”, if in detriment to doctrine or piety, is imbalanced, and basic compromises to Presbyterian polity and discipline may be indicating factors of such imbalance; but a faultless failure of diversity is not our Presbyterian history, it has too often been calculated and even championed as some confessional elitism. We Old Schoolers may proudly hail the Church as of a necessity doctrinal pure, and Finney may have been right out, but few would now claim a doctrinal purity of cultural disengagement allowing American slavery. Of a certainly, slavery is a far cry from cultural engagement with many emergent trends or strategic visions, but it is in part a restoration from the former ill that focuses our recognition on emerging social demographic changes and reparations of past damages, cultural, doctrinal, and of spiritual practice. And it isn’t simply the PCA that’s in need of big-tent patchwork, though the Body has always been and remains one, but each of our groupings as each of our children require specialised attention sometimes favouring (at least in appearance) the body part of which we’re either most ashamed or most neglectful, though each cry a lack of attention.
The teeth of TR (truly reformed) biting into PCA issues ought not to be the painful shock of having been bitten or continuing to be gnawed upon, nor some flash of a dentist manufactured and culturally approved smile, but, as JJS rightly pearls, God’s smile at faithfulness, faithfulness to God and to one another, in doctrine, piety, mission and marks, as the family of unity we are.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This was a great post, very on target. I am reminded that the basic issues that we are dealing with have not changed since the early 19th century. The ghost of Finney still haunts Presbyterian church.
ReplyDelete