15 May 2015 A.D. Bryan Chapell: The State of the PCA—the “Great Battle” Will Force us to Find New Ways to Reveal God’s Grace
15
May 2015 A.D. Bryan Chapell: The State of the PCA—the
“Great Battle” Will Force us to Find New Ways to Reveal God’s Grace
Chapell,
Bryan. “The State of the PCA: The `Great Battle’ Will Force Us to Find New Ways to Reveal God’s
Grace.” ByFaith. 12 May 2015. http://byfaithonline.com/the-state-of-the-pca/. Accessed 14 May 2015.
The State of the PCA: The “Great Battle” Will Force Us to Find New Ways to Reveal God’s
Grace
I want to share with you
some recent correspondence to a friend. He is the head of a mission agency and
has been visiting a PCA church. He was impressed enough to consider membership
and asked for my honest assessment of the state of the PCA. Here, with a few
edits, is what I shared with him:
My friend, the local
church that you are attending is a fine representative of one part of the PCA,
but clearly it is not representative of the whole. Your church would be on the
“progressive” side of things and would represent a majority of the younger
pastors and the churches that are growing. It is hard to tell, however, if
that church represents a majority of the PCA as a whole. If it does, it is
barely a majority. The denomination, as a whole, is clearly divided between
traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals. The traditionalists are highly
committed to Confessional fidelity and are often worried about perceived
doctrinal drift.
The progressives are
frustrated by the perceived cultural isolation of the denomination and
the lack of Gospel impact upon the larger culture.
The neutrals are happy
(even proud) for the PCA’s biblical fidelity, are at a loss for why their
churches are not growing, and perceive that the traditionalists and
progressives fuss too much about too little.
Theological zeal and
institutional loyalty keep the traditionalists engaged despite their concern
about the church. The progressives are increasingly concerned that the church
cannot move forward without controversy, and segments of this wing
occasionally talk about whether it’s worth staying — even though most votes go
their way at the General Assembly level. The neutrals always hold the swing
votes at the General Assembly level — they can be frightened into action by the
traditionalists but generally are more inspired by, and aligned
with, the progressives.
Our
Strengths and Weaknesses
The PCA’s best features
include its fidelity to Scripture, its spiritually and doctrinally mature
leadership, its congregations of highly committed believers, and a strong
missional impulse. Weaknesses include its litigious culture, its cultural
paranoia, and its blindness to its America-centricity, making it largely
unaware or unconcerned about its role in the global Christian community.
An oft-repeated statement
about the PCA is that “it’s a mess, but it’s the best mess around.” That
statement is usually made by those who don’t know where they would go for
greater fidelity to biblical and Reformed distinctives.
Attitudinally, many younger pastors would prefer to be in the EPC or
the new Anglican denominations. However, the squishiness of doctrine in
those circles, the low likelihood of local churches changing affiliations, and,
of course, divergent views on the role of women are concerns that combine to
keep most from jumping ship and also keep them trying to contribute to PCA
health.
In a curious way, a spate
of recent controversies has actually settled down the PCA in recent years. The
controversies, while stimulating lots of rhetoric, have actually involved few
people, and that has led to an easing of tensions and some better dialogue
among leaders.
Despite this relative
peace, if more progress is not made in cultural engagement, demographic
diversity, and world-Christian involvement, my own children will struggle to
stay with the PCA (although all are presently in PCA churches). Still, the only
way I know to help her is (1) to work for the Gospel in the corner of
the kingdom where God has placed me; (2) to keep trying to help the
different strands understand each other; and (3) to work with leaders from the
different strands to develop mutual trust that will be needed to work together
for Christ’s purposes in our world.
Our
Generational Differences and Perspectives
To help the different
strands understand one another, I want to repeat previous observations about
common (not universal) differences in the generations of our church:
The generation that is
50-plus years old was raised in a time of perceived Christian-majority culture;
according to Francis Schaeffer it was the time of “Christian consensus.”
The priority of many
evangelical Christians who matured in that cultural context was to mobilize
this “silent majority” in order to control the religious and political
processes of the nation to halt cultural erosion (e.g., Schaeffer’s “A Day of
Sober Rejoicing” delivered at the General Assembly marking the RPCES’s “Joining
and Receiving” with the PCA). These dynamics created a “Halt” mission for
Christians of that generation. The goals: Halt abortion, pornography, drugs,
promiscuity, tree huggers, socialism, liberalism, and illegal immigration.
By contrast, Christians
in the generation that is 40-minus years old have never perceived themselves as
a majority but always as a minority in a pluralistic culture. As a consequence,
this generation’s calling is perceived not as gaining control, but as gaining
credibility to deal with an already eroded culture.
The need to win a hearing
for a credible faith has resulted in a “Help” mission for this generation’s
church leaders. The goals: Help orphans (to counter abortion through adoption),
AIDS sufferers (to win a Gospel hearing from gays and a gay-sympathetic
culture), sex-trafficking victims, addicts (enslaved by chemical, gambling,
gaming, body-image, or sexual brokenness), the environment (to teach the world
that we are stewards of God’s creation), and poor and oppressed foreigners
within our borders.
Perhaps nothing better
illustrates these generational differences than the way many Christian leaders
feel about major figures in prior conservative Christian movements. To mention
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, James Kennedy, and Chuck Colson is to
identify the heroes of the 50-plus generation. Church leaders of that
generation are shocked to discover that younger leaders consider these figures
exemplars of failure, representing attitudes and approaches that have led to
the church’s cultural ineffectiveness.
As a consequence:
Those older feel that younger leaders won’t “put on the uniform” of evangelical
courage to protect our children in the “culture wars.”
Those younger
feel that those older leaders will not humble
themselves enough to understand either their children or their “cultural
realities.”
The reality is, despite
the concern each group has about the other’s priorities, both are seeking to
bring the Bible’s truth to the cultural moment that dominates their own life
experience. But they differ in terms of whether the “biblical” priorities that
dominate the church’s culture should be directed toward gaining control (the
mission of “halt”) or gaining credibility (the mission of “help”).
Generational
Separation Leads to Wider Gaps
What often separates the
generations by their dominant cultural experience can also separate segments of
our church. Those whose main concern is cultural erosion perceive their
dominant mission to be protecting the church culture they love and believe is
biblical. These genuinely feel the need to combat those inside and outside
their immediate church culture who threaten its continuity.
In contrast, there are
those whose main concern is cultural impotence; these are also divided
into two major subgroups whose main concern is either spiritual
conversion or cultural transformation. Despite these differences, both
subgroups share the concern that the world has changed, left the church on its
own minority island, and death to the church will not come by doctrinal or societal
erosion but by sectarian introspection and intramural controversy.
It is important that both
main groups understand that the other’s concern is biblical and genuine. We
must learn to work for common ends across relational boundaries, loving one another
in Christ, believing that the biblical concerns each expresses are genuine, and
dealing with one another in integrity even when differences are acute.
If we do not
see pluralism for the enemy it is, then we will not make appropriate alliances,
link arms for necessary purposes, or allocate resources for the greater ends
required.
We should realize the
relational boundaries will likely continue to be defined by doctrinal wrinkles
that always create intramural debates in a largely homogenous minority culture.
In addition, differences over how to respond to the majority culture’s
challenges — particularly related to gender and sexuality — will be seen very
differently by those whose views are shaped by either erosion or impotence
concerns. I anticipate that social changes challenging our family, gender, and
lifestyle traditions will threaten to divide our church for the rest of our
lifetimes.
United
by a Greater Enemy
What has the possibility
to unite us is the recognition that there is a greater enemy on the horizon.
The issue that dwarfs our doctrinal squabbles and our persistent concern of how
to treat issues of sexuality and gender is the issue of pluralism. Nothing
comes close to that issue in being a challenge to our church’s future. The
social stigma that is already attached to us for claiming that “Jesus is the
only way” will be magnified many times for our children in a society
increasingly willing to identify minority opinions as “bigotry” and “hate
speech.” Pluralism will threaten not simply our orthodoxy, but the willingness
of many to remain in this church.
If we do not see
pluralism for the enemy it is, then we will not make appropriate alliances,
link arms for necessary purposes, or allocate resources and align priorities
for the greater ends required. If we do not recognize how seductive pluralism
will be for all of us (and all we love) with its promises of societal approval
and acceptance, then we will not embrace the means, manner, and message that
will communicate the true beauty of grace that is the power of the Gospel.
Without clear
identification of the external enemy’s magnitude, the dynamics of a largely
homogenous social and doctrinal association will only make us less patient with
our differences. We will also become increasingly insensitive to how much we
need one another to maintain a voice for Christ in an increasingly pluralistic
culture.
Right now our eyes are
not focused on pluralism as our greatest enemy. We are more focused on what
others in our ranks are doing or not doing. Debates about charismatic gifts are
unlikely to divide us. Discussions about the role of women will continue to
marginalize us but probably will not break us. Dealing with changing sexual
mores may drive our youth away but will probably not divide us. All these
issues are secondary to the challenges of pluralism.
Increasingly it will
become unacceptable in this culture to say that Jesus is our only hope. Yet
saying this against ridicule, isolation, and persecution will drive us to our
fundamentals, to each other, and to our God. This great battle is likely to
help us work past our doctrinal differences as we join hearts and minds in the
struggle to survive.
Unquestionably, the great
battle will cool some of the theological experimentation that times of ease can
stimulate. At the same time, the great battle will force us to find new ways to
show the beauty of God’s grace to the watching world. By the Spirit, the great
battle will lead to new levels of graciousness to each other and dependence
upon the grace of our Savior. The need of the hour is to believe the realities
of this great battle are real, serious, and near; and that grace and
truth are the power of our fight.
Bryan Chapell
is the senior pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Peoria, Illinois, and the
former chancellor of Covenant Theological Seminary.
Good comment, Bryan!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the answer to pluralism is to expose and confront how utterly intolerant and destructive the truth claims of cultural Marxism are?