Numerous elders have attempted to explain the current moment in our beloved PCA family. TE Derek Radney recently offered his own assessment attempting to explain the reason for the differences and tense discussions within the PCA of late.
His essay was published on the SemperRef collaborative.1 Radney identifies the trouble in the PCA not as one in which doctrine is disputed, but rather how the two sides “handle difference relationally.”
Radney winsomely counsels that both sides need to learn to
“stay connected to each other amidst our differences and to remain in the struggle with charity and humility that seeks to understand and learn before critiquing.”
Radney explains further, urging all sides in the PCA to ask:
“Do our words accurately represent the positions of our opponents? Do our words assign motives to our opponents?”
On the surface Radney presents a beautiful way forward for a less fractious Assembly and life together as the PCA.
But as one reads his essay, it becomes clear Radney not only has ignored his own counsel, but uses his counsel as a club to beat those with whom he disagrees in the PCA.
I. Identifying the Parties
Radney seems to identify the two major groups in the PCA as what he describes as the “Reformed Catholics” and the “Reformed Fundamentalists.” The group with whom he affiliates is the former. Everything wrong in the PCA apparently comes from the “Fundamentalist” portion of the PCA and everything good, beautiful, winsome, and hopeful seems to be expressed in the “Reformed Catholic” portion of the PCA.
Radney asserts:
“Reformed Fundamentalists hold Reformed distinctives in such a way that they cannot stand to stay connected to others relationally amidst disagreement of almost any kind. Rather than humble curiosity that slowly seeks to gain understanding about difference, distrust grows, motives are assigned to others, and many, if not all, disagreements are treated as matters of orthodoxy. This posture involves constant suspicion of outsiders and regularly seeks to purge insiders who appear to be compromisers.”
But he’s not finished describing his brothers in the PCA:
“The posture lacks generosity and charity through its inability to listen well such that others are really heard and understood. More basically, it lacks humility because this radical suspicion of others is absent in regard to one’s own motives or possible ignorance”.
In contrast to these “Reformed Fundamentalists,” are the “Reformed Catholics,” who are the only hope of a “beautiful future ahead” for the PCA. Radney characterizes “Reformed Catholicity” as
…a posture of curiosity, charity, critical appreciation, and cooperation grounded in and faithful to Reformed distinctives.
That’s quite a contrast. I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of those mean, ignorant, suspicious, proud, fearful “Fundamentalists.”
“Fundamentalist,” however, is an odd way to describe Reformed people given that “fundamentalism” in Christianity is more typically associated with folks who “don’t smoke, drink or chew, or run with girls who do.…”
I suppose describing one part of the PCA as “fundamentalists” might be an easy mistake to make, since the side opposite Radney is not known for its vocal appreciation for alcohol. By contrast a look at the National Partnership (NP) documents reveals one side of the PCA certainly has an affinity for whiskey and other adult beverages:
Whiskey - and the willingness to share it - even seemed a factor in the NP candidate for moderator in 2019:
Radney acknowledges he’s not using the term “fundamentalism” in a “strict historical sense.” But on the other hand, Radney recently did assert he sees one of the major challenges of the PCA is how many are stuck in last century’s crisis (presumably the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy):
Recent cautions from Jon Payne about excessive alcohol consumption and his calls for pastoral piety when contrasted with the statements in the National Partnership documents cited above might, I suppose, lead the uninitiated to conclude one side of the PCA is a bunch of “Teetotaling Fundies” and the other takes care to “SCHEDULE YOUR DRINKING” during General Assembly. But that seems a bit of a stretch and not very nuanced.
II. Projection and the PCA
My seminary education at RTS Jackson didn’t have much training in psychology, but I can recognize psychological projection when I see it (I did, after all, watch a few Frasier episodes back in the day).
What is “psychological projection?” Britannica defines it as, “the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds.”
While Radney warns us all not to misrepresent the positions of our opponents and not assign motives to them, he does exactly that. First he describes his opponents with a pejorative “fundamentalist” label. But then he goes further.
He asserts his opponents are dominated by “relational anxiety,” grounded in “pride,” and motivated by a fear of “losing control” over the denomination. And - he asserts - that is the reason they are opposed to what he calls “the presence of difference.”
It’s hard to believe the author of those allegations is the one who also - in the very same article - cautions about assigning motives. Is it acceptable to assign motives if one does so in the spirit of “Reformed Catholicity?”
But Radney turns from psychoanalysis to spiritual analysis. Even going so far as to suggest those with whom he disagrees at best have no confidence in Jesus:
“If we have confidence in Jesus, the presence of difference will not throw us into combat mode (at least not right away), nor will it lead us to distance ourselves from other Christians over our differences in fear of a slippery slope.”
And at worst do not even know the gospel:
“Rather than being filled with pride and fear, the good news of Jesus can fill us with humility and hope. Because we are saved by grace alone, we have nothing to boast about and no ground to stand on to exalt ourselves above others.”
Shockingly it is Radney’s opponents whom he accuses of trying to exalt themselves above others. Even as he as the audacity to imply their lack of acquaintance with Christ is the reason for their “Fundamentalist posture.”
III. Reformed or Evangelical
It is clear in his essay Radney desires a PCA that is more broad than what those whom he caricatures as “Reformed Fundamentalists” will allow. He calls us to a “Reformed Catholicity” instead, which he believes is the panacea for the PCA’s problems of “relational anxiety.” Radney insists his side of the PCA - in contrast to those “Fundamentalists” - is marked by “curiosity, charity, and critical appreciation:”
Radney claims Reformed Catholicity is able to cherish and practice what is distinctively Reformed in faith and practice, but at the same time also gladly accepts
“the gifts and insights of the whole body of Christ throughout time, space, and tradition.”
He cites an example of this as incorporating manmade traditions that were otherwise “absent from Presbyterian practice for most of our history.”
Here Radney seems to misunderstand the Reformed Distinctives related to Reformed Worship and Christian Liberty. While it may be permissible to observe feast days privately or in one’s family, to impose such things upon the public, stated worship is to abandon the “Reformed Distinctives” and “rich resources of our tradition” for which he claims such fondness.
At this point it is difficult to discern whether Radney is trying to prescribe a way forward for getting along in the PCA and maintaining our Reformed “Doctrinal Distinctives” or is he talking about getting along ecumenically with Anglicans, Lutherans, and Baptists.
It seems Radney has conflated the concept of ecumenism and true catholicity with theological broadness within a denomination.
It is one thing to appreciate some of the beauty of Anglicanism or the enthusiasm of the Non-Denominational (i.e. Baptists with a website), but it’s quite another thing to demand the right to impose one’s Lutheran or Anglican views (e.g. regarding the Second Commandment, Lent, the role of women, etc.) upon the congregation, the presbytery, or the denomination.
Yet that is exactly what Radney is demanding the right to do under the guise of “Reformed Catholicity:”
“Reformed Catholics will be careful to speak clearly where Scripture speaks while leaving room for Christians in various contexts and with various judgments to disagree in how we should speak, vote, sing, read Scripture publicly, gather input as Sessions from female congregants, organize seasons of Scripture reading, feasts, and fasts as a local congregation, and much more.”
That is not a plea for genuine catholicity, that is a demand for latitude and broadness. Radney claims the difficulty in the PCA is rooted not in elders thinking differently, but simply “relational anxiety.” Yet throughout his essay he cites several ways in which he argues elders and congregation should be permitted to deviate from historic Reformed orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Radney claims he does not want to “abandon or neglect our Reformed distinctives” or cast off our “theological standards,” but at the same time he pleads for the latitude to disregard the practices and piety that are distinctively Reformed (e.g. eschewing purported images of Jesus, recreation on the Sabbath, etc.).
It simply can’t be both distinctively Reformed and at the same time view practices rejected by Reformed and Presbyterians for generations as a “gift” to incorporate in our churches. It is one thing to appreciate practices from wider Protestantism, but quite another to meld practices from Reformed Christianity and wider Protestantism together. At that point it is no longer distinctively Reformed; it has become broad evangelicalism.
These are not merely relational issues, but truly issues of thinking differently.
Broad evangelicals are Christians, but they’re not Reformed. And it is inaccurate (at best) and disingenuous (at worst) to try to portray broad evangelicalism as “Reformed Catholicity.”
IV. True Catholicity
It strains credulity to think his essay passed any sort of serious editorial assessment. But then again, at least he submitted it to an editorial process at SemperRef, unlike this author who just blogs ‘Mid the Pines in Georgia.
Radney’s essay contains two fatal, critical errors, which cast doubt on whether Radney truly comprehends the issues of contention in the PCA.
First, his essay commits the very offense he accuses his “Reformed Fundamentalist” foes of doing: he caricatures or misrepresents them (Fundamentalists!!) and assigns motives (anxiety, fear, pride) to them as he psychologizes them.
Second, his essay misunderstands what catholicity is; he conflates his broadness and desire for theological and practical latitude with catholicity.
Genuine Reformed catholicity (let’s try it with a lower case “c”) appreciates the wider tradition and heritage of Christian churches both past and present. It acknowledges both the areas in which Reformed Christians agree with various historic Christian traditions and areas in which the Reformed are distinct.
True Reformed catholicity is committed to robustly expressing the beauty of Reformed worship, piety, and theology as well as winsomely engaging and working with those outside of Reformed churches.
Reformed catholicity acknowledges differences with other Christians and maintains our distinctiveness while at the same time graciously and charitably acknowledging there is room in heaven for both Reformed Christians, broad evangelicals, and others.
But genuine Reformed catholicity also questions whether there is room in the PCA for Reformed Christians, would-be Anglicans, and Broad Evangelicals.
The Editorial Team of SemperRef consists largely of members of the secret ecclesiastical organization known as the National Partnership.
Without realizing it, Derek Radney may have just made the case for why, if things do come to the point where a split in the PCA becomes necessary, it should be the National Partnership and like-minded individuals that leave. Why do I say that? The catholicity of the church universal describes the many beliefs and doctrines that we share in common. Yet the various denominations do have differences over less essential points. If certain members don't want to hold to historic Presbyterianism as defined by the Westminster Confession, then perhaps they are the ones that belong in another denomination? Don't even get me started on the slippery slope we created when we started allowing good faith subscription in lieu of strict subscription. But then again, I guess they could argue that we belong somewhere that stands by a strict subscription.