We Need to Support the PCA’s Agencies
Other than prayer, the best way Old School Confessionalists can support the agencies of the PCA at this time is by searching for more men who share a commitment to robust, Old School Presbyterianism who will be willing to serve on the permanent committees to help shape the policies and priorities of the College, the Seminary, MTW, MNA, etc. It’s not enough to serve on a General Assembly CofC! Instead of neglecting the Agencies of the PCA, let’s be willing to serve them on the permanent committees.
The PCA is comprised largely of three groups. In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell described these groups as “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” I don’t like the label he chose for my segment of the PCA; I prefer the label “Old School” or “Confessionalist.”
By the way, I don’t think anybody likes the label he chose for their group, but – as I have written elsewhere – the unified dislike of the three labels suggests TE Chapell was at least over the target.
Regardless of what label is proffered, there are largely three groups who are united together in the Presbyterian Church in America. The two groups on each end of the spectrum both profess a love for the PCA, but their interests in the PCA are shaped by different concerns.
Love for the PCA
But there are others in the PCA who are drawn to the PCA not necessarily because of her robust Westministerian theology and her historic polity. They are eager to see how the PCA with her institutions and cultural cachet can influence society to restore people, places, and things. Their love for the PCA seems more centered on the PCA’s Agencies and Institutions and what the PCA represents for the culture. Their love for the PCA is exhibited especially in an unflinching and enthusiastic support for the PCA’s College and Seminary because of the opportunities for witness and cultural engagement that are afforded to the PCA through the institutions brought in to the PCA with the RPCES. Likewise, this segment of the PCA seems excited about the possibility of planting 120 churches a year until 2030 and are therefore wholeheartedly committed to MNA’s models, assessments, initiatives, and programs.
This is not to say the “traditionalists” are not motivated for evangelism or that those on the other side are not committed to the essentials of the Reformed Faith. The “traditionalists,” however, have been rather lackluster regarding enthusiasm for the institutions brought in with the RPCES as well as the other Agencies of the PCA. Their attention is to doctrine and the slow, but steady growth from discipleship in the ordinary means of grace.
A Pointed Critique of the PCA’s Agencies
On a recent episode of the Westminster Standard Podcast (WS Pod), we discussed the change that has taken place in the PCA since 2018 and the role of blogs and podcasts in that transformation.
In 2018, the National Partnership reflected on the success they had enjoyed in shifting the trajectory of the denomination. But six years later, former members of the now defunct partnership are decrying the General Assembly as “broken” and others share their disappointment with the PCA’s renewed commitments expressed in confessional fidelity and clarity.
In the episode, one of the guest commentators relayed some anecdotes shared with him based on experiences church members had with a couple of specific PCA Agencies (i.e. Covenant College and RUF) as well as his own perception of a Covenant College promotional video.
He pointedly expressed concern that some of the PCA agencies were failing to disciple men in particular, but instead accommodating cultural values he viewed as having diverged from historic Christian emphases.
At least one employee of the College has understandably expressed strenuous objection to the guest commentator’s critique. I note several things in this regard.
First, the opinions and views expressed on the WS Pod are not necessarily those of Jude 3 & the PCA, First Presbyterian Church, the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, or the PCA, but only those of the individual speaker who offers a particular opinion or viewpoint.
-
The Compromised Church – Ungodly Discernment
We must walk in repentance always seeking the Lord’s will. This obedient walk is one of spiritual growth. Instead of works righteousness we must obey the Lord in our good works all for His glory. We will do good works, but as a product of Christ’s Righteousness in us not earning salvation by those works. Also, when we are blessed by godly pastors, elders and deacons who refuse to compromise with the World or become part of the Compromised Church, we should thank the Lord for them, pray for them, help and support them as God leads.
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. 1 John 2:1-6 (NASB)
One of the most tragic aspects of the Compromised Church, which is a product of its emphasis on numbers, baptisms. relavance, and worldliness is its complete lack of correct theology pertaining to salvation and assurance. Those who are believing they became part of the Kingdom of God in these churches are, for the most part, responding to a doctrine of salvation based upon some form of works righteousness which is the belief that one’s standing before God is founded and maintained by works of merit. These works begin with walking an aisle at an invitation then praying a sinner’s prayer followed by baptism. Assurance of salvation is then always looking back at that moment as when the believer chose to be “saved” by obeying the call at the invitation.
The need to repent is never mentioned in this type of “evangelical” church. It is never mentioned because no mention of why it is necessary is ever mentioned either. These preachers never mention God’s Holiness, Righteousness or Justice. His wrath against all sin is not mentioned either. Instead God is presented as a loving god who wants all people to simply seek Him and do some religious work so they can become part of His Kingdom. When people do respond to this “evangelical” invitation they are never counseled about their sin and their need to repent, deny self and take up their cross as they follow Jesus. Instead, they simply assent to whatever doctrinal statements the church wants them to agree to and that’s that. There is never a call to biblical discipleship.
Since this type of “salvation” permeates the Compromised Church their numbers are dominated by simply religious people who are, for the most part, unregenerate. They base their assurance of salvation on their religious work at that moment when they assented. They may have even prayed a “sinners prayer” before they were presented to the church for membership and baptism. However, there has been no regeneration by God because the genuine Gospel is not preached in these churches.
These works righteousness Christians, being unregenerate, are basing their salvation on their own work at the moment of their spurious conversion. When they doubt, and they will, they are told to look back to that day when they knelt and prayed that sinner’s prayer and were baptized. However, if they are ever presented with Bible passages such as the one I placed at the top of this post (1 John 2:1-6) they struggle because they have no real spiritual power to keep God’s commandments. They don’t grow in grace because they are unregenerate. They are religious, that’s all.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Romans 1:1 & 1:5 and the Direction of the Minister’s Work
God’s grace in the gospel…must lead unto the obedience springing from faith. God wants obedience. He wants heartfelt allegiance. He wants submission. He must take the place of Lord and be sovereign over one’s heart and life.
Romans 1:1 and 1:5
1:1—Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ,
1:5—δι᾿ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.
[Author’s translation: Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart unto the gospel of God…(1:5) through whom we have received grace and apostleship leading unto the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake.]
The preposition εἰς (into) has the notion of moving into a certain direction. It can have the indication of moving away from one thing and moving towards something else.
As a minister of the gospel, I learn from Paul in 2 areas in these opening verses from Romans. Paul described himself as a slave of Christ, sovereignly called/summoned as an apostle, and then set apart unto the gospel of God.
This describes a whole new direction of life. It speaks of a new purpose, a new mission, a new ambition, a new calling. Paul’s calling consisted of the reality that the Sovereign God, the Lord of heaven and earth had set him apart away from living life for himself (even as a Christian) and doing his own mission and he must now live for the new directional mission, the purposeful ambition, the submissive lifestyle pressing hard after and proclaiming fully the gospel of God.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Toward a Protestant Theology of the Body
In September, Protestants gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss, in a first-ever conference of its kind, what a Protestant theology of the body might look like. Topics ranged from singleness and celibacy to CRISPR and surrogacy, with much in between. I lectured on the history of contraceptive technology, considering Protestant theology for the female body. And there was much we could have covered but did not in our short time: disability, infertility, abortion, adoption, suffering, death, and so much more. There is rich ground to till. The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.
In a recent essay for First Things, Carl Trueman said that we exist today in “a battle for the body.” “The status of the body as it relates to us as human persons,” Trueman posits, “seems to be the issue that lies, often unseen, behind many of the other more prominent debates of our age.”
Take, for example, the debate about what a woman is. Or, to be more church-centric, the many denominational splits that occur over issues of sex and gender, including the issue of same-sex marriage. Likewise, consider one of the primary reasons Christians (some of whom identify as “ex-vangelical”) “deconstruct”: The church’s teaching on sex, marriage, and gender. Debates about abortion, or IVF, or surrogacy—all these are related to Christian teaching on the body. Trueman is right: There is a battle for the body. But Protestants are late: the battle has been raging for a very long time. If we are to meet our secular, post-Christian culture with grace and truth on these matters, it will be the defining task of our age to embrace a robust and comprehensive theology of the body.
Read More
Related Posts:
