Editorial

Why I’m Angry About This Meeting of Understanding

by Sam DeSocio on Jan 23, 2012 • 4:54 pm 23 Comments

A week and a half ago, around 50 pastors and elders in the PCA met in Atlanta. Atlanta is our denominational headquarters, and Presbyterians love meetings. At first this doesn’t seem like it should be news worthy. Then byFaith put out a short article explaining what happened at the meeting:

The meeting had two specific goals: “To discuss charitably and forthrightly the causes for conflicts in the PCA that hamper our ministry and unity.” And to discuss solutions to those conflicts. The meeting was conducted under Chatham House Rules, meaning that “participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant may be revealed.”

All of a sudden a lot of people were confused and thought it was odd to have a meeting that was off the record. People started writing about the meeting. Saying things like:

“Secret meetings which invite a selected few will not bring unity to the PCA.”

“Denomination-wide yet unannounced and discriminate meetings of this nature are contrary to the intentional character of presbyterian government. This kind of thing should be discussed in the prescribed venues of presbyteries and General Assembly.”

“Give them a royal imprimatur joined with a British accent and the PCA’s leaders are off to the races. Never mind that it’s lipstick on a pig, the ecclesiastical equivalent of “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” They’re the “Chatham House Rules” after all and, if they’re good enough for royalty, they’re more-than-sufficient to assuage the guilty consciences of bounderish Presbyterians.”

“‘Denominational leaders’? What was this, a conclave of bishops in the PCA?”

“The rest of us out here among the Great Unwashed get to know what was said (according to official denominational reporting, of course) but not who said it.”

Many people are really upset about this meeting, and when I first heard about it so was I, but I have to confess the real reason that made me mad wasn’t because there was such a meeting or because it was private. I must admit my reasons for being angry at this meeting are far less mature, and I think there are others in the PCA that share my reasoning.

I was angry about this meeting because I wasn’t invited. I want to be considered influential, and a leader in our denomination. I want to go to a meeting and know that other people see me as important. I wanted to go to that meeting so that at some point I could stand up and say something so thoughtfully orthodox, and at the same time so pastoral that men like Roy Taylor would swoon. The reason I’m angry is because I want to be considered part of the inner circle (even if it’s a circle that only exists in my head).

Honestly a lot of my frustration with this meeting makes me feel like I’m back in High school. This kind of thing makes me want to camp out in my mom’s backyard and read S. E. Hinton with the aim of developing a persecution complex. Yet, we aren’t in High school, and I wonder how many of us “Outsiders” would be as angry if we had been invited. Even more to the point, my anger about this meeting shows me how easy it is to seek the approval of men over that of God. There might be valid reasons for being upset about what happened at this meeting, but that is not why I’m angry, and I don’t think that I’m alone in having this problem.

Side note – Vintage 73 has been quiet during the holidays, but as we move toward General Assembly, I think we will begin to see more and more activity.

Written by Sam DeSocio

Sam lives in the city of Pittsburgh, with his wife Jo, and their sons Augustine & Gabriel. Sam is the pastor of Grace & Peace Presbyterian Church, a new PCA church plant. You can find him on twitter @sdesocio, and desoc.io.

kennethos

I myself am rather “ticked off” at the various uncharitable attitudes I’m hearing in various quarters. I’m wondering if (tongue firmly in cheek…mostly) we shouldn’t just bus everyone to the nearest pub, spent an hour imbibing, and THEN have our conversations! Maybe then the tone might be better…or at least more slurred.
Carlcr

Good article and insightful. It may be that others who are angry about the meeting are like you and others are angry for other reasons, but in the end — anger is a sin as is pride and selfishness and many other attitudes and reactions that we have put into the ‘acceptable sins’ category.

Anonymous

Carl, I totally agree. I don’t think everyone who is upset shares my prideful bent, but I think there are some who share more with me than they would like to think.

Chris Hansen

I’m not sure it’s fair to discuss the reaction to the meeting without discussing the content of the meeting. A very significant amount of the negative sentiments I came across were primarily in reference to the reports on what was discussed in the meeting. I think if the meeting had been about missions strategies or had come in a different context there would be far less uproar. But rather, it appeared (accurately or not) to be about advocating a more liberal attitude towards confessional subscriptionism in a manner that recalled for many the sentiments expressed during the liberalization of the mainlines. When people at the meeting were reported to be saying things like this:

“The proper goal, he stressed—rather than that level of precision—should be love. If the goal isn’t love we don’t have a vehicle for patience and we get scared. If our goal is precision, he told the group, then our goal is too low.”While those comments could easily be innocuous and reflecting a healthy pastoral concern, they also sound much like the kind of statements that were thrown around in the PCUSA 80 years ago. And this in a secret meeting, set against the backdrop of the recent and ongoing battles over justification, inerrancy, creation, etc., it’s easy to see why many might be alarmed–even if those topics are not what these comments were in reference to. Again, I don’t think the reaction, in general, is so much against the format of the meeting considered in itself, but a combination of the content, format, and the manner in which it was reported.

Anonymous

Chris, so do you think that some of the statements from a very short article are enough to create such a concern? I’ve heard a little bit more from a few folks and knowing a few of the guys it is clear that it wasn’t a left only meeting.

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/ Sean Gerety

As someone who was nearly quoted verbatim in the byFaith piece, I think the article by the official publication of the PCA is more than enough to raise the concerns that Chris and others have raised. Frankly, and given the nature of the meeting, anything you may have heard from a few unnamed folks is hearsay. Are the entire minutes of the entire meeting and will they be released (I assume with the names of the participants blacked out)? Were minutes even taken?
Chris Hansen

I think it’s enough to create concern, though not enough to draw anything approaching firm conclusions. No one who wasn’t privy to the actual conversations can say that it was a cabal of left leaning strategists working to undermine the denomination’s confessionalism or anything close to that, but for those who’s only knowledge comes from the brief official reports, we simply don’t know.

The problem with the brevity of the article, the secrecy of the meeting, and the particular quotes that were released is that they *could* be interpreted that way and without knowing who was there and what else was said, it’s hard to alleviate that concern. It raises questions that many would like answered.

Now maybe we should try to adopt the most charitable interpretation possible of the rather ambiguous data we have and leave it at that. However, I do think, given the present and historical context of the PCA, concerns are understandable and, if the meeting was purely innocuous, those reporting from it did a poor job of considering how these statements might be taken when reported ambiguously and with little context. It behooves those, to borrow a turn of phrase from Carl Trueman, that are in positions of leadership in the church to write in such a way that is not only clear enough to be understood, but also precise enough to not be misunderstood. I think that may have been what was lacking here.

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/ Sean Gerety

I have no doubt that the nature of this meeting stroked some egos, and I’m glad to see you admit that it would have stroked yours (such honesty is always refreshing), but as someone who has spent his career in politics it’s safe to say that very little good comes from secret meetings. So in addition to tension, the PCA is now wrought with suspicion and rightly so. Admittedly, it would have been nice had you been there to say something so thoughtfully orthodox that it would make Roy Taylor swoon, because at least from the report, there was very little orthodoxy there.

http://twitter.com/joeholland Joe Holland

Sean, did you really mean to say that the By Faith article catalogs a departure from orthodoxy? Can you point me to the parts of the article that you think are unorthodox, unbiblical?

http://www.facebook.com/sgerety Sean Gerety

Yes, Joe, that’s exactly what I meant. Read the article for yourself. The complaints came down to basically two: 1) Those within Presbyteries who are “overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy” when examining candidates seeking ordination, and, 2) bloggers who are openly critical of PCA pastors who write unorthodox and heterodox things.

http://twitter.com/joeholland Joe Holland

Questioning whether exams are “overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy” is not the same thing as being unorthodox. And a meeting that mentions that bloggers are being called heretics does not make the meeting unorthodox. I still don’t see what grounds you have for saying a meeting of 50 PCA pastors lacked orthodoxy.
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/ Sean Gerety

Joe, I don’t know how the message can be clearer. It’s time for conservatives (those who believe that justification by belief alone, inerrancy and the biblical doctrine of creation matter and are issues are worth fighting and dying for) need to go. I really don’t know how the message sent by the establishment can be more transparent (even under the guise of the Chatham House Rule).
http://www.facebook.com/sgerety Sean Gerety

Just to clarify so there can be no misunderstand, I am not saying anything as sweeping as 50 PCA pastors lacking orthodoxy secretly met together in Atlanta. I know there are good men in the the PCA, and some were even at that meeting, but also in attendance were a few wolves as well (even if Sean Lucas, who reported he too was there in violation of the Chatham House Rule, thinks such men are our “brothers” even those who deny justification is by belief alone).

RBerman

Sean Lucas had some comments about this today:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/01/i-believe-in-the-church.php
Blair Smith

Sam,

Was your motivation for writing this a personal confession, or as a kind of spark for a more general confession? Given that you put this out publicly, and state you think you are not alone, my guess is it is the latter rather than the former.

I confess, too, that I wish I would have been invited; but, then again, I wish everyone who is a RE or TE in the PCA would have been invited. And there’s the rub. The problem wasn’t the meeting, or what was discussed at the meeting. The problems were the selective invitations and “The Chatham House” rules. Talk about feeling like one’s back in high school!

If discussion of matters of import for the whole denomination are going to take place among her leaders – those who covenant to submit to one another – then all those leaders need to be there, or have the opportunity to be. Our polity is inimical to self-selection, and so meetings such as this naturally – that is, according to our way of being together – lead to mistrust.

It seems those who are upset at those who are upset want to talk *above* this problem (read the Lucas post linked above) and make this into another taxonomy of the innards of our denomination. What I want to hear or read is a reasonable defense (with reason defined according to our polity) for how this meeting took place.

http://twitter.com/TimTaylor_Sr Tim Taylor

Blair: fortunately our polity neither commands nor prohibits voluntary meetings, so asking for an ecclesiastical defense for a meeting of the minds baffles me.

D. Blair Smith

In a strict sense you are right, of course, Tim. When I speak to polity, though, I’m speaking to the framework and underlying principles by which we order our life together. According to my understanding, that does not include official leaders (permanent committees/agency heads/stated clerk) joining with unofficial leaders and calling a meeting with others they identify as leaders in order to discuss matters of great import within the denomination, all the while under a shroud of secrecy.
My rationale for why this is inconsistent with our polity starts here in the BCO:

11-4. For the orderly and efficient dispatch of ecclesiastical business, it is
necessary that the sphere of action of each court should be distinctly defined.
The Session exercises jurisdiction over a single church, the Presbytery over
what is common to the ministers, Sessions, and churches within a prescribed
district, and the General Assembly over such matters as concern the whole
Church. The jurisdiction of these courts is limited by the express provisions
of the Constitution.

Every court has the right to resolve questions of doctrine and
discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth
and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend
to the injury of the peace, purity, or progress of the Church. Although each
court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters especially
belonging to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the
higher courts, in regular gradation. These courts are not separate and
independent tribunals, but they have a mutual relation, and every act of
jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the
appropriate organ.

Given the supposed topic(s) discussed at this meeting, and their relevance for the whole church, wouldn’t it be most consistent with our polity for this to have taken place in or around GA?
Further, those matters delineated under BCO 14-6 demonstrate the most appropriate place for a meeting of this kind is in and around GA.

That said, I understand that the context for this meeting is the recently approved Strategic Plan. The relevant section is copied here:

THEME #1: CIVIL CONVERSATION

Goal: Establish places to enter into civil conversations about the best ways to advance the
PCA’s faithfulness to biblical belief, ministry, and mission.

Means #1: Provide public forums at GA to discuss difficult subjects or new ideas
without vote, offering charitable judgments among elders in the fellowship of
ministry.

Means #2: Encourage similar forums in the presbyteries (possibly continuing discussion
from each year’s GA).

Means #3: Encourage gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves to discuss major
denomination-changing or culture-changing ideas, and how to live together
with differences. Means #1 & #2 don’t apply to what took place. I could see an argument for Means #3, except for some key problems which stem from the ambiguity of the language. First, does “encourage” mean officials of the denomination initiating and orchestrating? Does “gatherings of non-agreeing enclaves” refer to unofficial theological or ministerial parties within the denomination who come together for discussion? If so, why the secrecy? I do find the word “enclaves” curious as it could actually refer to this secrecy, but that doesn’t seem to be the most straightforward reading. I was not at the GA where the SP was discussed and voted upon. Was Means #3 deliberated upon or clarified? I guess if this meeting is the natural outcome of Means #3 what I’m struggling with, admittedly, is reconciling this means with our polity. I’m fine with means #1 & #2, and think they have potential in helping get to the spirit of the goal here. But if the orchestration and manner of this meeting is the natural fruit of #3, then I have a hard time seeing how this is going to produce the peace and trust that I assume is a key goal of the theme of civil conversation.

Anonymous

Blair, my hope was to see more men take a step back to realize that for many, the real problem was their egos and not what did or didn’t happen at this meeting.

http://www.facebook.com/sgerety Sean Gerety

Why would anyone think the real problem was with their egos when the message, at least as reported in the official publication of the PCA, was directed at those, or so we were told, who are overly concerned about measuring orthodoxy in prospective candidates for ministry and blogs that are openly critical of unorthodox and frankly heretical things said by some PCA ministers (some of whom have even been brought under process for their statements or will be shortly). While I’m sure wounded egos might be an issue for some, it seems a pretty minor concern at least to those of us outside looking in.

Jed Paschall

One of the consistent sticking points on this meeting has been the Chatham House Rules. I wonder if the opinion of this meeting changes at all if the attendance list and minutes were to be released.

I am just not sure how the public problems in our denomination are ever solved in secret. If there is a way forward for the disparate elements in the PCA, there has to be a better way of going about this.
Rberman

Roy Taylor wrote this about the meeting:

http://www.fpco.org/news/view/12-01-29/Voting_Results.aspx

sdesocio

Im not sure how that has any connection to this article?

Chris

Sam,

CS Lewis’ “The Inner RIng” should be required reading of all ministerial candidates. Read it and you will find that he has nailed you and me exactly. And then, thankfully, gives a prescription.

Chris Hutchinson
Blacksburg, VA

Why I’m Angry About This Meeting of Understanding

Written by Sam DeSocio

Recent Posts

Email Subscription

Archives

Twitter

Social Connections

Tags