Category Archives: PCA

PCA Overture about Diaconal Ministry and the Participation of Women

Leave a reply

Teaching Elder D. Marion Clark, the Executive Minister at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, has posted on his blog DMC News a summary of one business item at last weekend’s presbytery meeting.  At this meeting the Presbytery of Philadelphia approved an overture to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s upcoming June General Assembly that would ask for a study committee to clarify the office and practice of deacon and the participation of women in that ministry.

First, it is useful to look at the “official” status of the office of deacon in the PCA.  The PCA understands scripture to teach that the office of deacon, like the office of elder, is open only to men. [ Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-3 and elsewhere]  The deacons of a church, in addition to the ministry of “sympathy and service,” also have oversight of the church property although approval by the session may be required of certain actions. [BCO 9-2]  In addition to those called to the office of deacon “It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.” [BCO 9-7]

This overture revolves around that last phrase and how it is implemented and individuals recognized in a congregation.  For example, at Tenth Presbyterian Church their web site lists, in addition Deacons, a group of Deaconesses.  From my understanding of PCA polity, and from checking over the BCO, I am aware of nothing that prohibits this position, it is just not an ordained office of the church.

Turning to the text of the overture that TE Clark has posted, it asks for “an ad interim study committee whose members are representative of various positions within the PCA with respect to women’s involvement in Diaconal ministry, to study and report back to the 37th General Assembly.”  The first task of the study committee would be to study scripture concerning women’s eligibility for election and ordination to the office of deacon and recommend any changes to the BCO.

If no changes are recommended the overture then asks for clarification of a number of issues.  These include: Must there be male deacons?  Could deacons, male and female, be commissioned instead of being ordained?  If you commission, what questions may be used?  May ordained men and commissioned women serve together on the Board of Deacons?  And can Teaching Elders be licensed to serve if they believe women should be ordained as deacons, but agree to abide by the BCO?

Interesting overture, interesting questions for clarification.  This could be a significant discussion at the GA.  Or it might be quickly dispensed with one way or another since it only calls for the study committee and not an actual BCO change yet.  I have been reading a lot between the lines from this overture and the Tenth web site, but it pretty much amounts to speculation, so I’ll save any of that for another time.  In light of what else is happening in Presbyterian branches right now this could say a lot about the PCA.

Federal Vision Controversy News — Report that Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Has Voted to Leave the PCA

2 Replies

Rev. Doug Wilson, a prominent proponent of the Federal Vision Theology, in his blog “ Blog and Mablog,” reports today that the congregation of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana, yesterday voted unanimously to leave the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and affiliate with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  There is no confirmation of this on the Auburn Avenue web site.  This comes in the wake of Louisiana Presbytery being indicted and choosing to plead guilty over their improper examination of Auburn Avenue’s Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins.  They also voted to turn over the trial of TE Wilkins to the denomination’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).  (For more on this see my post yesterday on this topic.)

While we are waiting for confirmation and more details, there has been reaction, particularly about whether TE Wilkins would be released to CREC and if this would stop a trial before the SJC.  David Booth, in a post on his blog post tenebras lux, raises these questions and argues in favor of the trial saying: “Trials are painful, but I believe that it would be healthier for the PCA to actually have held a trial of Pastor Wilkins in an actual church court rather than on the Internet and through administrative
maneuvering.”  And the blog Green Baggins has confirmed an e-mail from Doug Wilson with this information as well as the announcement by the blog’s owner, the Rev. Lane Keister, of his resignation from the PCA prosecuting team since his services there will no longer be needed due to these developments.  Stay tuned to Green Baggins both for its spirited discussion of this topic and, I am hopeful, that Rev. Keister will provide some insight into the process and proceedings he helped with.

UPDATE January 29, 2008: As of today the front page of the web site of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been updated to reflect, both in the body and in the headlines side bar, the move from the PCA to the CREC.

UPDATE January 31, 2008:  Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has now posted a letter from TE Steve Wilkins explaining the rationale for leaving the PCA.

Louisiana Presbytery Enters Mixed Plea in SJC Case

Leave a reply

The Louisiana Presbytery decided, after four hours of debate, to enter a mixed plea to the indictment by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission according to HaigLaw in his blog entry of January 19.  This one seems to have really been under the radar and my thanks to JHG for bringing it to our attention in an entry on his blog In Light of the Gospel.

Specifically, the presbytery voted to plead “not guilty” to the charge that they failed to properly handle the differences that Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins declared with the “Confessional Standards.”  On the other hand, the presbytery voted to plead “guilty” to the charge that the failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in TE Wilkins’ views being out of conformity and with that vote are forwarding the case of TE Wilkins to the SJC.

It is important to note that count 1 was a technical charge (see my previous post on the subject for more details) so pleading not guilty to that one seems to be more about the precise wording than the intent.

HaigLaw reports that several proposals were floated during the meeting but other approaches, including having the LA Presbytery conduct the trial of TE Wilkins and a vote of confidence for TE Wilkins, could not garner a majority.

I would quote HaigLaw about the meeting: “…I was impressed with the charity with which these
elders debated their divergent views on these issues, and the courtesy and fairness extended to Pastor Wilkins. “

Needless to say, there is also analysis over on Green Bagginses.  I will let that (mostly) speak for itself, but read through the comments if you care about this stuff because HaigLaw contributes to the discussion comments and provides more detail than he did in his original post.  Thanks HaigLaw, or “Grandpa David,” for all of this info. I just added you to my regular reading list.

From that discussion I would state here one point made by HaigLaw, that it was conveyed to them that the SJC would likely drop charge #1 if there were a guilty plea on charge #2.  Also, the discussion touched on the point that TE Wilkins might not be able to avoid trial by resigning from the PCA since the resignation must be accepted.  I have been involved in two cases in the PC(USA) were the pastor resigned, or in polity language “renounced jurisdiction,” to immediately avoid trial.

PCA SJC Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and other developments

Leave a reply

Within the last couple of days the initial documents related to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission case against Louisiana Presbytery related to their examination of Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins have been published on the web.  We are indebted to Bob Mattes for the documents as well as an analysis.

The story so far:  The Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the 2006 PCA GA that Louisiana Presbytery had as a member TE Steve Wilkins who held theological views that differed from the Westminster Standards.  The GA SJC ordered Louisiana Presbytery to examine TE Wilkins, which they did and the GA SJC reviewed the case in October 2006 and said that they did the examination wrong.  Over the winter of 2006-2007 Louisiana Presbytery did an exhaustive reexamination of TE Wilkins and found that his views did not differ substantially from the Standards.  The GA SJC ruled again that this time the examination process was appropriate but in judging the examination the presbytery did not properly examine the differences in theology.  The result was that the Louisiana Presbytery is going to trial concerning their examination finding.

The prosecuting team has now issued their indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and Mr. Mattes has posted it on his regular blog Reformed Musings.  Specifically, the indictment has two counts:  1)  That the presbytery “failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’s differences” with the Westminster Standards.  2) “Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution…”

To summarize the remaining bulk of the two counts, Louisiana Presbytery was responsible to not just examine TE Wilkins and take his word that he viewed his theology in conformity with the standards, but they also were required to critically examine what he wrote and said, and “classify the differences” according to the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)  16-3(e)(5) (The RAO can be found towards the end of this online PCA Book of Church Order.)  In this section the RAO has three categories of differences: semantic, not out of accord, out of accord with the Standards.  Presbyteries must assign the differences to one of these as part of the examination process.

The indictment is a long document that also lays out large pieces of TE Wilkins’ responses to support the “strong presumption of guilt.”

In addition to the indictment, there is also a citation from the PCA SJC ordering a plea to be entered by February 1, and if a “not guilty” plea is entered, ordering the trial to begin on March 5, 2008.

In addition to the indictment and citation, Bob Mattes also provides a commentary as one of the guest bloggers on the Green Bagginses blog.  This is a great discussion of the details of the case and analysis of what Louisiana Presbytery did versus what the RAO requires.  I want to highlight three of his comments.

First, regarding the significance of this case he writes: “This is a landmark case in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the likes of which one nobody wanted to see but one which has become absolutely necessary for the peace and purity of the church. As such, the SJC is being absolutely scrupulous with its procedures, following their guidance to the finest detail.”

Second, it is important to remember who is on trial, not TE Steve Wilkins, but Louisiana Presbytery.  However, Mr. Mattes points out:

Of course, TE Wilkins isn’t on trial here, Louisiana Presbytery will be if they plead “not guilty.” However, it is LAP’s incorrect handling of TE Wilkins’ examination at the core of this case, which naturally involves his views in a major way. TE Wilkins doesn’t have to be on trial for his views to play a major role in the case.

Finally, in terms of possible results if Louisiana Presbytery is found guilty, he says this:

…LAP has two options open to it:

1. LAP can repent of its errors and demonstrate this by conducting a fair and impartial trial of TE Wilkins; or

2. LAP can leave the PCA with the churches that agree with TE Wilkins’ errors.

The Federal Vision theology is being discussed in several of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed branches in North America and how this case plays out could (will?) have far reaching consequences.

In other developments, one of the things the blogosphere has been a-buzz over is a great summary of Federal Vision Theology by Prof. R. Scott Clark at Westminster Seminary California.  It is of moderate length but does a great job not only laying out the basic structure of the Federal Vision theology but discussing its historical background.

In one other interesting development, Pastor James McDonald in his blog Family Reformation posted an article by his friend R. C. Sproul Jr.  that was originally published elsewhere.  In this reprinted article Sproul is pretty clear that his beliefs are not in line with the general tenets of Federal Vision Theology, but he is still gracious to his friends in the Federal Vision camp.  He does not clearly come out and say they are wrong, he just says that he does not accept those theological ideas.

PCA SJC Federal Vision decisions: Update and Correction

Leave a reply

After doing some more reading and seeing some developments on this topic, I need to bring a correction and update.

But first, the story so far…
As I talked about in my last post on the Federal Vision controversy, in October the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America delivered two rulings concerning Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of the Rev. Steve Wilkins concerning his adherence to the Westminster Standards.  Specifically, they found that while they conducted the required examination by the correct procedure, they did not judge Rev. Wilkins by the right standard.  Both rulings can be found in posts on Puritan Board.

In my last post I had left it there and said that I did not find in the decisions what the next step would be.  Well, I did not read carefully enough and was looking too closely at the second decision and should have been looking at the first.  There it is, after a reference to the second case that threw me off:

Amends – Pursuant to BCO
40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery
to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in
question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby
appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the
case, which is designated as Case 2007-14;…

And additional notes about the case including preparing an indictment, Louisiana Presbytery entering a plea by February 1, 2008, and going to trial March 5, 2008 if they plead “not guilty.”  It is important to note here that it is Louisiana Presbytery that is on trial here not Rev. Wilkins directly.

So that is my new findings and update there, but I also wanted to point out that one great source of information on the Federal Vision controversy, particularly thoughtful criticism, is the Rev. Lane Keister and his blog Green Baggins.  Well, Rev. Keister has been asked to be an assistant prosecutor on the case and therefore must now recuse himself from the discussion of the Federal Vision controversy.  So he has brought on board a set of equally eloquent interim bloggers and changed the name of the blog to Green Bagginses.  Because of the focus on Lane as an assistant prosecutor this is now a great source for information on the polity and procedure of the PCA SJC which might be of interest to other GA Junkies, whether or not you are following the Federal Vision controversy.  I would highlight Lane’s last post “ Major change to Green Baggins” where he announces he will be an assistant prosecutor and others will be filling in.  I would also recommend two posts on the process, “ Lane as assistant prosecutor: Good, Bad or Ugly?” and “ The PCA SJC Process in Brief.”  Happy reading.

Federal Vision Controversy: Current Events and Judicial Decisions

Leave a reply

As I follow the developments of the Federal Vision Controversy I see that there have been a couple of recent events that make a new blog entry worthwhile.

The most significant of these are two associated rulings from the Presbyterian Church in America‘s (PCA) Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in the two cases related to the Federal Vision controversy.  To make a long story very short… Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the GA to have the SJC investigate Steve Wilkins, pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA, or at least to have his presbytery, the Louisiana Presbytery do it.  The SJC had the presbytery do it, the presbytery did it, and reported back to the SJC last spring that there was not a problem.  In the mean time the GA adopted the report critical of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology.

With that as background, a couple of weeks ago the SJC unanimously decided these cases and they have just become available on the web on Puritan Board.  You can either read them in a post to the board with some interesting follow-up discussion or as links to documents on their server. ( Central Carolina complaint decision, Louisiana response decision, agreement to copyrights will be necessary)  And if my very crude description of events in the paragraph above makes no sense to you, each of the decisions has the respective time-lines in them in great detail.

To give a one-line description of the SJC decision:  Louisiana Presbytery did it right, but came to the wrong decision.

Now, the detailed version:
In the SJC Report on the Memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery the SJC originally found a year ago that Louisiana Presbytery had not properly “dealt with the allegations that TE Steven TE Wilkins’ views are out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms” and as a result the Louisiana Presbytery “has not met its responsibilities under BCO 13-9.f and 40-4, 5, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and purity of the Church.”  The SJC then directed the presbytery to conduct an examination with six specific requirements.

Part II of this decision then examines the actions of the Louisiana Presbytery in response to the original decision.  The SJC found that while the presbytery complied with the directives of the SJC, they did not reach a decision “consistent with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America.”  And this is were we jump off to the second decision released…

In the presbytery action on the examination the vote was 13 to 8 to exonerate Pastor Wilkins.  Following the vote Teaching Elder (TE) James Jones filed a complaint that quickly found its way to the SJC.  TE Jones was joined by one additional Teaching Elder and five Ruling Elders.  The points in the complaint are that it is a matter for the GA, that TE Wilkins redefined theological terms, and that TE Wilkins had “serious variances” with the Westminster Standards.  This became the second SJC decision that was released.

In their decision, the SJC ruled that the Louisiana Presbytery had failed to apply the correct constitutional standard and that in doing so it had erred and should have found a strong presumption of guilt that some of TE Wilkins’ views were “out of conformity.”

Now, here is where I am not sure what happens next.  Problems were declared with Louisiana Presbytery and TE Wilkins, but I have not found in these decisions an order about what to do next.  I will keep looking around but my guess is that it will return to the GA and this year’s Assembly will determine the corrective action.  (Let me know if I missed this somewhere.)  It should also be noted that while the SJC found the strong probability that some of TE Wilkins’ theology is out of conformity, the actual decision only says that the presbytery did not use the correct standard.  The problem is not the Federal Vision theology itself but how the presbytery decided if there was a problem.  Judgment on the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology has not been directly rendered.

In a related action, on his blog De Regnis Duobus (Concerning the Two Kingdoms) the Rev. Jason Stellman posts a letter from the Pacific Northwest Presbytery declaring that the Rev. Peter Leithart, in compliance with the fifth recommendation of the Federal Vision report adopted by last year’s GA has posted a public letter declaring the differences in his views.  Rev. Stellman also reports that he was elected to be one of the members of the study committee to look at Rev. Leithart views.  It is interesting to note that Peter Leithart, while apparently a member of Pacific Northwest Presbytery and therefore a PCA Teaching Elder, is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho.  The church is a member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  The committee is to report back in January.
 
I think that to no one’s surprise the conversation about the Federal Vision controversy continues in the blogosphere.  In some cases it contains harsh criticism on both sides producing more heat than light.  But in others it is very civil and even sheds light on the nuances of the controversy.

One of the more interesting was a well as enlightening was a discussion held on the blog De Regno Christi back in late September.  If you look at their Federal Vision thread you can find a multitude of posts and comments about very specific points under discussion.

In another twist Jeff Meyers reports that an overture is being introduced in different presbyteries of the PCA about informing the presbytery if ordained individuals views differ from the standards.  The twist is that while the constitution and ordination vows refer to differences with the “Standards,” that being Westminster, the overtures refer to differences with the Federal Vision report, raising it to the level of constitutional standard.

Well, I think that is enough for now.  The discussion continues and will undoubtably surface at the PCA GA in June.

Developments in the Federal Vision Theology debate

2 Replies

Our story so far…

There is a theological perspective that has been gaining some recent popularity known as Federal Vision Theology (FV) with ties to another, longer established view called the New Perspectives on Paul.  For background on all this you can go to my original post or a great web site at www.federal-vision.com.

This past June the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approved, by a wide margin, a report critical of this theology and its errors in orthodoxy relative to the PCA standard, the Westminster Confession.

There was considerable discussion about the report before ( 1, 2, 3), during, and after the GA, not just by PCA members but by those in other reformed denominations who are also wrestling with this.  (It probably goes without saying that the PC(USA) has its own controversies and is probably the one reformed denomination in the US that is not looking at this.)

Being some distance from the PCA GA I wanted to look at what has happened since then on this topic.

First, I was very impressed how few “knee jerk” reactions there were.  Responses and commentary were very reasoned, and for the most part respectful, and seemed to shift somewhat from a specific argument about the report’s points and process to a more general and “big picture” view of the situation.  Essentially “here we are, what does it mean.”

One of these reasoned responses was a Joint Federal Vision Statement issued about July 30 and signed by eleven ministers, including all that I would consider the “usual suspects.”  (movie reference – not intended to be negative)  There is one page of introduction, six of doctrinal statements in the form of “We affirm… We deny…” and the final half page with the signatories.  It should be noted that about half of these pastors are with churches that are in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, the CREC acronym that is found within the Statement.  Most of the remainder are PCA churches.  One point that I found confusing is that the intro to the statement describes CREC as a “confederation” not strictly a denomination but the web site is loaded with denomination language.

Following the issuance of this statement there has been some analysis of it and it has served as material for debate and rebuttal in the blogosphere.  The most comprehensive critique of the statement has to be by the Rev. Lane Keister in his blog Green Baggins.  I will not even attempt linking to individual posts since he went through the statement with separate posts analyzing and critiquing each individual section.  Lots of reading there if you are so inclined.  Click on his topic Federal Vision.

A second multi-part, but slightly less extensive analysis can by found on the blog Reformed Musings and there is another by the Rev. R. Scott Clark on The Heidelblog.  This latter one has an interesting twist since the Rev. Clark is at a church that is part of the United Reformed Churches in North America www.urcna.info or www.covenant-urc.org/urchrchs.html whose General Synod this past summer adopted resolutions on three points of “sola fide” and nine points of the Federal Vision Theology and he discusses those in his blog as well.

While the blogs above are generally critical of the FV, the signatories of the statement are not silent and you can find the defenses and responses of Douglas Wilson on his blog Blog and Mablog and those of Jeff Meyers on his Corrigenda Denuo.

On the general topic of the FV controversy, one of my favorite blog posts since the report was adopted is by Kevin D. Johnson on July 2 in his blog Reformed Catholicism.  It is a long reflection titled Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice.  What strikes me about his viewpoint is first that it comes from his own experience over multiple years as a one-time FV defender and second that his concerns include the pastoral aspects of the theology and controversy.  He writes:

[A]ny critique of the Federal Vision theology should at least first deal
with the pastoral context with which it was originally framed. Is
Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the
nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed
world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably
addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in
calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

Finally, I would like to note one other blog entry, but with a bit of hesitance since it is a bit polarizing and strongly worded.  However, I found the information in the article “ Ligonier Ministries Responsible for Federal Vision Converts?” interesting and, as far as I know the history, accurate.  This article describes how the now defrocked (for other reasons) R. C. Sproul Jr. provided a platform for major FV advocates such as Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins in the Ligonier Ministries publication Tabletalk while he was still the editor.  It raises the interesting question of why the Rev. R. C. Sproul Sr. Ph.D. (a PCA pastor and professor) allowed this to happen while he, at least based on his two minute speech that I listened to during this year’s debate on the FV report, favored the PCA report.  The bottom line of the article is that by promoting the FV theology the result was actually to lead people away from the Reformed faith and into either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches.

Interesting stuff.  But as multiple observers are now wondering, when will enforcement of the report begin?  And will FV proponent pastors and churches stick around to be heard or quickly move to the CREC.  Similar dilemma to the PC(USA) controversy, different topic.

Headlines

Leave a reply

No, once again I have not fallen off the face of the earth, and I have not given up on being a GA Junkie.  But between work, family, and getting myself into a presbytery issue and also a synod issue, I have little time left to report on Presbyterian happenings here.

So today, I give you a selection of recent happenings in their barest form with links to more information.  My integration and analysis will have to wait.

In the Church of Scotland news, the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the son of a Church of Scotland minister, is still dropping hints about cutting state oversight of the Church of England.  But what about changing the law so a non-Protestant can be monarch the Scottish Catholic bishop asks?

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America adopted the report declaring that the Federal Vision Theology is out of line with the orthodoxy of the Westminster standards.  Now the discussion is getting hot.  The Rev. Steve Wilkins (or TE Wilkins as the PCA’ers would say) has issued a response to the adoption of the report.  That and much more is available at his church’s Federal Vision Page.  There is also a public response from the Rev. Peter Leithart, another proponent.  In addition, the blogosphere is alive

At the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America there was a special motion “that a study
committee be created to read and evaluate reports and responses from other
Reformed denominations and institutions regarding recent controversies on the
doctrine of justification.”  In other words, they will also be studying the Federal Vision theology.

The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church spent a significant amount of time revising their Directory for Public Worship.  This was a monumental task and after multiple sessions revising and word-smithing the document, they in the end only got through the Preface and five of the eighteen sections.  The whole project has been referred to the 2008 GA.

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church took the unique step of electing co-moderators of the GA.

And finally, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church GA approved the proposal to create the New Wineskins transitional presbytery for churches interested in leaving the PCUSA and exploring membership in the EPC.

More on these and other stories as my time permits.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America: Approval of the Federal Vision Report

Leave a reply

The 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has just voted to approve the Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies.  The vote was by a show of hands and from the view on the webcast it appeared to pass by a very wide margin.

The time for the delivery of the report and debate was set at one hour and was subsequently extended twice, once for 30 minutes and once for five minutes.  The third vote to extend debate failed.

The debate was decent and in order, but also emotional and strong.  There was a procedural motion that I did not get the exact wording on but which would have referred it back the study committee and added two Federal Vision proponents to the committee with a new report to next year’s GA.  This procedural motion was actually what most of the debate was on. That motion failed by a narrow enough margin that the hands had to be counted.  Sorry, I did not get the count from the webcast.

I’ll give a more comprehensive account of my impressions of the GA as a whole at another time.  At this point the GA moves on to more routine business and we will see what the blogosphere does.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America: Federal Vision Report

Leave a reply

With the 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America beginning in Memphis this coming Tuesday, June 12, clearly the hot-button issue is the Federal Vision Report.  I have three previous posts on the report from April 26, May 1, and May 31.  In that last post I mentioned a letter signed by ten pastors (Teaching Elders or TE in PCA terminology) that urged caution in approving the report.  A comment to that post from Andrew Malloy, author of the blog A Submerging Church, alerted me to another letter posted June 5th on the blog Humble Answers that supports approving the report. (It is also available as a PDF.)  Furthermore, by e-mailing the blog you can add your name to the letter in support.  The list of signatories has now grown from the original eight pastors and one ruling elder to 36 more teaching elders, 18 ruling elders, and five who did not specify but were usually in academics.  And the list is growing.  It was interesting to note that in several cases several of the ruling elders were from the same church as a pastor who had signed ahead of them, either originally or in the add-ons.

This open letter is long and the content generally addresses the points in the first open letter and some comments on the web.  Specifically, they defend the breadth, if not the diversity, of the Study Committee, the unity of the committee and the lack of a minority report, the completeness of the report, and the narrowness of the interpretation of the Westminster Confession.  Finally, they address the issue of whether the PCA has had the necessary time to discuss and study the issue.  They point out that several other reformed denominations have spoken and that now is the time for the church to speak authoritatively on the topic.

There has been a low level of response so far, most so far it seems is positive.  But it is looking like the lines are being drawn and the politicking is going on.  When it comes to guessing what action the GA will take few seem to be sticking their necks out.  But, in our Presbyterian system, we pray that the commissioners to the Assembly will be guided by the Holy Spirit.