Thread by @CAHutch1990

PCA 🧵 This article is a political analysis, rather than one on the merits of the proposed changes to our BCO.

Which is fine. I'm sure Dr. Trueman doesn't want to delve into our BCO anymore than we want to delve into the OPCs.

But in the end, this is a debate about polity. 1/19

https://twitter.com/firstthingsmag/status/1413137042561589256

(I should first warn y'all that literally no one in the PCA is going to like this thread. I am going to win no friends here, except perhaps those who appreciate the cautions built into Presbyterianism.) 1.5/

And on the polity question, wording matters. Necessity matters. And we are allowed to have questions on both.

On necessity, appeals within our judicial system regarding the situation in St. Louis are still under way. Presbyterianism has not yet exhausted its avenues. 2/

So does a message about Revoice need to be sent now? Perhaps - I absolutely get that.

Which is why we had a Study Report, passed overwhelmingly.

Yes, it is only "pious advice", but Study Reports have proven to be remarkably unifying documents for the PCA (e.g. Creation). 3/

But changing the wording in our BCO - to pinpoint one sort of identity, and one sort of sin - is that wise? And is the wording done well?

We are allowed to slow down and ask that question. It's called Presbyterianism. 4/

Back in 2002, the G.A. overwhelmingly passed (~80%) two BCO amendments - Good Faith subscription & increasing the # of presbyteries for original jurisdiction.

Good Faith passed the presbyteries. The other one failed, despite getting a huge majority. Why? Presbyterianism. 5/

But we were subjected to argumentation from an openly political group within the PCA - the PPLN - to get with the program since it had been overwhelmingly passed.

I called it the "argument of the bandwagon," similar to the "appeal to force" or popularity fallacy. 6/

(Long story short: I wrote a 25 page paper critiquing the PPLN's politicking and mailed it to some of them. Most ignored it, but several were very gracious, including Dr. Chapell, who very kindly engaged me.

In time, tensions lessened, and the PPLN disbanded. 7/

But it took a lot of dialog between parties, and mutual understanding. I hear lunches were had, and compromises reached - leading to such things as the new Overtures committee. Parties working together.) 8/

So when, according to Dr. Trueman, "the little guys" have spoken (based on his anecdotal reports), we need to get with the program, I demur a bit.

(To be fair, he does recognize the BCO change is still in process but the force of his argument is that the "church has spoken.") 9/

And when Dr. Trueman says the National Partnership is "un-presbyterian... a lobby group that operates outside the courts of the church," he ignores the organizing done by others outside the courts.

There were plenty of "noisy pulpits" on both sides. 10/

To be clear, I am not on the NP email list, and don't want to be. I am not a fan of texting voting advice as votes occur.

And I didn't sign the "Open Letter." I have friends who did, but personally I thought it was partisan, rambling, & made unfounded charges. And backfired. 10/

But y'all. The Gospel Reformation Network rallied their folks as well. Outside the courts. They advocated for these amendments. As is their right. These are my friends.

But it is was also a lot of Big Steeples. As in the biggest in the PCA. These are not the "little guys." 11/

It's not that simple. IMO, if anyone is the little guy here, it is @PcaMemorial, risking the ire of an entire denomination. That of itself does not make them right or wrong.

But that gets to my point. Dr. Trueman gave a political narrative of what happened, a "hot take"... 12/

... based on anecdotal evidence, without (yet) statistical verification (numbers of churches, location, etc). He may be right, but he has not yet provided actual evidence. He is, after all, a historian, so I'm sure he appreciates my point. 13/

I have anecdotes, too. I can see who spoke at the GRN conference & what they said. I know of large churches that funded their pastoral staff & REs to get them to G.A. to make sure they voted for these changes (as is their right). Are they the "little guy?" 14/

Now who cares? This all gets into the politics of it all, and is neither helpful for unity in the Church nor helps us to debate soberly the merits of the actual wording of the proposed changes.

But that is what this online article does. In that regard, it was not helpful. 15/

Our job now is to be Presbyterians. To listen well, as Dr. Trueman right says, especially those who oppose these changes. Why did the majority think this added wording is both necessary and helpful? 16/

Do we really want to add to our BCO every time a new cultural challenge arises?

Or could that actually undermine our claim to stand for timeless, stable truth and instead make us subject to the whims of whatever crusade comes next?

(That's a big question for another time) 17/

But now we need to get into the weeds of the polity changes itself, presbytery by presbytery.

We are allowed in good conscience to say things like, "the wording here is too problematic." It would be nice to not be subject to partisan dismissals as either "noisy" or elitist. 18/

After all, in the end we are all little guys.

See, I told y'all no one would like this thread.

I am glad to be part of the PCA. Let's continue a good, fair and brotherly debate - with less political analysis and more discussion of the merits of the wording itself.

Peace. 19/