Hey, Ryan! I followed the link from Twitter to your article. I think you're correct in observing a) the TE-driven history of progressivism; and b) the corresponding non-involvement of RE's. I came to the PCA late in life (10 years ago) from the PCUSA. A significant factor affecting their GA's was how influential GA staff was. They had a sway in how lay delegates were instructed and oriented to the work of the Assembly. They were the "experts" on the various overtures before the Assembly. For the average delegate, what the staff supported they supported in the voting. I don't think that situation is currently an issue for the PCA, but the "example" set elsewhere is worth noting.
Great work Ryan! Thanks to you for all of these concise and encouraging pieces. Also, thanks to your congregation and Session for allowing you the time to compile them. This is an excellent example of connectionism working for the greater good of the body.
As someone who's looking at the PCA from the outside (I'm not a member but attend a PCA church in MA), I must agree with Ryan on his synopsis of the present and future state of said PCA.
"Stones" and or "chest hair" is what is required to bring about any meaningful change in the PCA. As I see it, the GFS has been the Trojan Horse by which those who support a latitudinal shift in the PCA gained access. If this shift/attitude/political machination isn't halted by men who have even an ounce of testosterone left in their bodies, the PCA's future as a visibly orthodox denomination is over.
Mr. Johnson is the poster boy of the progressives and his tweet is the punch in the face to all those who hold anything dear in the PCA.
Will someone, anyone, for the love of God, put him out.
Call me a pessimist if you must, but I'm not entirely buying it. I'm disappointed by the failures of Overtures 23 and 37, though not because I thought they were necessary in and of themselves. They aren't. As you point out, the Constitution of the PCA already provides all of the ecclesiastical authority necessary to hold the line. I and others do see the Overtures as something of a weathervane though.
The problem all along is that there has been a well-organized (relatively speaking, anyway) faction within the PCA that has insinuated itself into positions of leadership and influence using what I'm calling "bad faith subscription." Yes, it's the NP guys I'm talking about here. There have been PCA TEs openly flouting the Standards for years. Almost nobody has had the stones to do anything about it. Those few who have have been ridiculed as "divisive" (or whatever smear is popular that week) and, for the most part, received little to no meaningful support from the supposedly confessional "majority". As evidence, consider that the process initiated against TE Johnson personally and Missouri Presbytery generally both went precisely nowhere.
In short: if the confessionalists can't muster the will to pass Overtures 23 and 37, why on earth should we be confident that there are enough men of good will with the stones necessary to do what needs to be done?
What I hear and you and me like Brad Isbell saying is that what confessionalists need to do is to "be patient" and allow time for various processes to produce meaningful results. Said processes being those that have, thus far, failed to produce any meaningful results.
Am I bothered by pressures being exerted on issues related to sexuality and ordination? Sure. Obviously. But I'm far more bothered by the fact that influential TEs are engaging in flagrantly dishonest behavior on the regular and nobody is doing anything about it. Nobody is even brave enough to call this behavior what it is. We've got guys whose commitment to the Westminster Standards barely qualifies as nominal lecturing those of us who take them seriously about "beautiful orthodoxy". Until I (and, I assume, many others), see a critical mass of elders willing to confront this cancer directly, telling us to be patient and that there is grounds for optimism is going to be an exceptionally tough sell. It doesn't look as if the people offering that sort of advice have either the eyes to see the true scale of the problem or the spine to respond with an appropriate level of vigor.
Or, at least, you certainly haven't up to this point, and I see no reason to think that anything has changed on that score.
Excellent post, thanks Ryan.
Ryan, thank you. Very good analysis
Cigars and bourbon! Wow, I may have to join the progressives.
Hey, Ryan! I followed the link from Twitter to your article. I think you're correct in observing a) the TE-driven history of progressivism; and b) the corresponding non-involvement of RE's. I came to the PCA late in life (10 years ago) from the PCUSA. A significant factor affecting their GA's was how influential GA staff was. They had a sway in how lay delegates were instructed and oriented to the work of the Assembly. They were the "experts" on the various overtures before the Assembly. For the average delegate, what the staff supported they supported in the voting. I don't think that situation is currently an issue for the PCA, but the "example" set elsewhere is worth noting.
Great work Ryan! Thanks to you for all of these concise and encouraging pieces. Also, thanks to your congregation and Session for allowing you the time to compile them. This is an excellent example of connectionism working for the greater good of the body.
As someone who's looking at the PCA from the outside (I'm not a member but attend a PCA church in MA), I must agree with Ryan on his synopsis of the present and future state of said PCA.
"Stones" and or "chest hair" is what is required to bring about any meaningful change in the PCA. As I see it, the GFS has been the Trojan Horse by which those who support a latitudinal shift in the PCA gained access. If this shift/attitude/political machination isn't halted by men who have even an ounce of testosterone left in their bodies, the PCA's future as a visibly orthodox denomination is over.
Mr. Johnson is the poster boy of the progressives and his tweet is the punch in the face to all those who hold anything dear in the PCA.
Will someone, anyone, for the love of God, put him out.
Call me a pessimist if you must, but I'm not entirely buying it. I'm disappointed by the failures of Overtures 23 and 37, though not because I thought they were necessary in and of themselves. They aren't. As you point out, the Constitution of the PCA already provides all of the ecclesiastical authority necessary to hold the line. I and others do see the Overtures as something of a weathervane though.
The problem all along is that there has been a well-organized (relatively speaking, anyway) faction within the PCA that has insinuated itself into positions of leadership and influence using what I'm calling "bad faith subscription." Yes, it's the NP guys I'm talking about here. There have been PCA TEs openly flouting the Standards for years. Almost nobody has had the stones to do anything about it. Those few who have have been ridiculed as "divisive" (or whatever smear is popular that week) and, for the most part, received little to no meaningful support from the supposedly confessional "majority". As evidence, consider that the process initiated against TE Johnson personally and Missouri Presbytery generally both went precisely nowhere.
In short: if the confessionalists can't muster the will to pass Overtures 23 and 37, why on earth should we be confident that there are enough men of good will with the stones necessary to do what needs to be done?
What I hear and you and me like Brad Isbell saying is that what confessionalists need to do is to "be patient" and allow time for various processes to produce meaningful results. Said processes being those that have, thus far, failed to produce any meaningful results.
Am I bothered by pressures being exerted on issues related to sexuality and ordination? Sure. Obviously. But I'm far more bothered by the fact that influential TEs are engaging in flagrantly dishonest behavior on the regular and nobody is doing anything about it. Nobody is even brave enough to call this behavior what it is. We've got guys whose commitment to the Westminster Standards barely qualifies as nominal lecturing those of us who take them seriously about "beautiful orthodoxy". Until I (and, I assume, many others), see a critical mass of elders willing to confront this cancer directly, telling us to be patient and that there is grounds for optimism is going to be an exceptionally tough sell. It doesn't look as if the people offering that sort of advice have either the eyes to see the true scale of the problem or the spine to respond with an appropriate level of vigor.
Or, at least, you certainly haven't up to this point, and I see no reason to think that anything has changed on that score.
Change my mind.