Dr. Timothy Keller

I joined the PCA when I was 24 years old, fresh out of seminary, in 1975. The PCA was still brand new--just 19 months had passed since the birth of the 'National Presbyterian Church'. It was a very exciting time. Reformed U.S. Christians up to that time had to choose between being members of a liberal mainline church, or of one of the very small Reformed bodies, or of one of the heavily ethnic confessional Reformed churches. The PCA was so refreshing because it promised to redraw the truth-unity line. What do I mean that?

THE NEED FOR A TRUTH-UNITY LINE

Every church has to decide how it will practice Christ's mandate to be apostolic and holy as well as the mandate to be one and catholic. Apostolicity/holiness means that we have to stand for the ancient truth without compromise; unity/catholicity means that we should not allow unnecessary division over secondary issues. (The High Priestly Prayer of Christ in John 17 shows that unnecessary division from other Christians is a sin.)  A Christian body has to decide the number of "essential" truths that are worth dividing over and which issues are secondary and not worth dividing over. Absolutely every single Christian body has drawn this line somewhere. The further you draw the line over (leftward???) toward being more unified and catholic--i.e. decreasing the number of "essential truths"-- the broader the church tends to get. The temptation in this direction is to compromise the truth so you can be bigger and more powerful and look broad-minded. The further you draw the line over (rightward??) toward being more holy--i.e. increasing the number of "essential truths"--the smaller and more divided the church tends to get. The temptation in this direction is to drive out or withdraw from anyone who differs with you so you can feel very pure and superior to people who do not have all the "right" doctrines. It is interesting to notice that in both directions, the temptation is to pride and power--albeit in different forms.
 
THE ORIGINAL PCA "LINE"

When the PCA came along, we had either Reformed churches that had drawn the line very far toward unity or else very far toward holiness. Many of the PCA founders felt that, as a result, Reformed Christians in both settings were ineffective in reaching North America for Christ. They felt that if you are lost in a huge pluralistic church or trapped in a narrow tiny church, you cannot minister very well. So when the PCA was formed, they determined to re-draw the truth-unity line in a way they thought that was more biblical and (therefore) more conducive to effective ministry. They wanted to avoid the mistakes of both the mainline church and the smaller Reformed bodies.

Thus there was what I call a kind of 'contract'--a mutual understanding among the founders--that the PCA was going to allow for Reformed diversity at more points than the smaller denominations had done, but also to insist on uniformity on far more issues than the mainline churches had done. The result was a unique 'PCA balance' of diversity and uniformity, of truth and love, which was going to be an alternative to any other American Reformed body.

Points Of Diversity

First, it was understood that a diversity of positions would be accepted on the millennium and on eschatology. This was one of the points that had split the OPC from the RPCES and its forbears, for example. Everyone realizes that eschatology is very significant. As an a-millenialist, I have concerns that pre-mils do not understand the presence of the kingdom and tend therefore to have an individualistic, pietistic approach to the faith. On the other hand, pre-millenialists have had concerns that a-mils have a hermeneutic that plays loose with the Scripture, that they don't believe in taking the Bible literally, and so on. So no one was saying that one's position on eschatology was inconsequential. Rather, we simply decided not to divide over it as others had. It was not put in the list of 'essential truths' for unity. Despite our differences in this area, we wanted to stay together and work together. (It was interesting to me that a-mils in the PCA have never pressed their advantage in the Confession. Chapter 33 probably teaches a single judgment and resurrection of the righteous and the wicked at the same time. But, unlike in the creation controversy (see below), one side has not started insisting that the other side begin to register exceptions to the Confession.)

Second, it was understood that a diversity of positions would be accepted on creation and the days of Genesis 1. There was from the very start a good number of ministers who believed that the first chapter of Genesis was not describing 24-hour days. Many believed a version of Meredith Kline's 'framework view' that he got from other Dutch Reformed thinkers; others believed in the day-age view. But it was very clearly understood in the early days that the PCA was not going to be split over this issue either. In this case, Chapter 4 of the Confession seems to indicate that the authors believed the days of Genesis 1 to be 24-hour days, but that the seventh 'day' was not. So the Confession probably sides with the hermeneutical literalists in this case, (while it does not in the eschatology issue!) Yet it was generally understood, that whether a candidate took an exception to Chapter 4 on creation or not, we expected people on all sides of this question to stay together and work together. We would not split over this position either.

Third, it was understood that a diversity of positions would be accepted on our practice of the Sabbath. In this case, the Confession clearly articulates the Puritan approach to the Sabbath day in strictly forbidding not only work but all forms of recreation. Other very old and ancient Reformed traditions (leading back, of course, to Calvin himself) allowed more flexibility in Sabbath practice including leisure and recreational activities. Despite the strict Sabbatarianism of the WCF, and despite the continual protests of some original PCA members, most Presbyteries have regularly allowed ministers to take exceptions to the standards at this point. The result was, again, to allow a diversity of historic Reformed positions.
 
Points Of Uniformity

Just as significant to the identity of the new PCA were those points at which diversity was not allowed. As our greater diversity made us more broad than some smaller Reformed bodies, so our greater uniformity has made us more unified than other bodies, such as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which drew it's truth-unity line more broadly, more toward the "unity" side.

First it was made clear that there would be no divergence from Reformed soteriology (the doctrines of how salvation is accomplished). Election, definite atonement, forensic justification, sanctification by faith, and perseverance of the saints are all contested by non-Reformed branches of evangelicalism. We early on determined not to grant exceptions here. It is not enough to be 'generally evangelical.' Everyone who ministers in the PCA must be committed to the full Reformed system of salvation.

Second, it was made clear that full-blown charismatic ministry would not flourish in the PCA. The second GA approved a "Pastoral Letter" on the charismatic gifts that took (what I call) a 'soft cessationist' view of tongues, healing, etc. It did not insist that miracles and the extraordinary gifts had necessarily ceased, but it insisted that there is no new revelation coming from God through any spiritual gifts and rejected the idea of the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' as a second stage of spiritual experience. The gist of the letter was to make it impossible for anyone truly in the mainstream charismatic movement to practice a classic Pentecostal ministry in the PCA.

Third, it was made clear that there would be no diversity on women's ordination. Though there has always been some difference of opinion about whether women can be deacons (especially after the entry of the RPCES churches in 1982), there has never been even a hint that the PCA is open to diversity on the ordination of women to the ruling or teaching office.  Even here, there was allowance for some diversity.  At a couple of key places, the BCO could have precluded women from reading Scripture in worship or teaching in public, but it never does so.  So, though women’s ordination to office is precluded, what women do within the church as laypeople has never been prescribed specifically. So some churches forbid women to speak in worship or teach groups with men and women in them. Other churches assert that what non-ruling elder males can do in the church, a woman can do.

How has the PCA ‘balance’ worked?

I think it has worked rather well, generally.  Both the EPC (to our ‘left’) and the OPC (to our ‘right’) have grown and flourished considerably less than we have.   

Yet there are chronic, continual tensions between a minority in the PCA who has never been happy with where the line was drawn versus the majority which generally defends the line of holiness-unity balance.  For example, the Sabbath is a continual sore spot – and I can understand it.  The Confession speaks very clearly to a Sabbatarian position and if I was a Sabbatarian, it would break my heart to see so many churches in the PCA violating the standard.  I often feel something of the same heartache when Christians I respect and love support women’s ordination, a position I think is a significant mistake.   

Also, in the last couple of years, it appears that many in the PCA want to redraw the line with regard to the days of creation.  Again, if I felt strongly about eh importance of taking Genesis 1 literally, I would be exercised to promote my view.  But I don’t think we can go about our discussions of these issues in the PCA without remembering our historic context.  Every church draws the unity-diversity line somewhere.  If we insist that all churches in the PCA become Sabbatarian and hold to 24-hour creation (or if we insist that every church have a hard cessationist view or preclude women from public reading and teaching) we are drastically re-drawing the line between holiness and unity and we are going to significantly change the original 'contract' that made the PCA what it was. We will also significantly change the size of the PCA.

Some people know this very well--and that is exactly what they want. They have never liked the original consensus. They would prefer to split the PCA into at least two or three smaller bodies by insisting that old points of diversity now become points of uniformity.  But many others don’t seem to realize the implications of what they are doing.  They may think they are just trying to keep the PCA theologically sound, or to keep it from drifting toward liberalism.  Of course, it is very important to hold people accountable should we drift from our original position.  It would be very serious if someone was trying to change our view of Scripture or trying to say that we don’t need to believe in election/definite atonement, or to promote the ordination of women to the ministry – but no one is.  Rather, from what I can tell, most of the controversies are not efforts to keep the PCA pure, but rather they are attacks on the original position, the original ‘holiness-unity’ balance of the PCA.  I don’t think many people arguing for the 24-hour creation-days or other such issues fully realize this. 

 So, what can we do about the chronic tensions and the continual effort to re-draw the line?

1) The most prevalent response of those in the majority (who affirm the original balance of the PCA) has been to hope that those who want to re-draw the line would eventually 'mellow' or at least come to accept and see the wisdom of the degree of diversity and kind of unity that we have.  This hope has begun to dim as we pass our 25th anniversary and there seems to be no sign of the tensions moderating at all.

2) Another prevalent response of those both in the majority and the minority has been to hope that many on the other side will tire of the battle and leave. This is seldom said out loud of course, but there are plenty of people who argue that a respectful division is the best way to seek peace. But this view means that each 'side' has lost hope for the growth in grace of the other. In the Bible, loss of hope for a fruit of the gospel (unity, maturity) is never a good thing.

3) A third insists that we should declare tension and conflict as an acceptable cost in the business of ministry.  This approach says: "Even if there was a split, then the new denominations would simply develop their own tensions and counter-balances and we'd be back to square one. So let's not be so upset about the conflicts, nor hope for the other side to leave. Let us strengthen our personal relationships and carry out our debates with civility and let's not talk about splitting or leaving (or strangling!), but let us learn to live with the tensions that are inevitable."

4) A fourth possible response I've heard is to do work on revising the Confession itself. Why? As we have seen, the original PCA 'balance' was arrived at through a decision to allow more Reformed diversity than the Confession itself allows at several points. One of the reason that many in the minority feel driven by their consciences to re-draw the line is because at several key points they feel the compulsion of the Confession. So this view goes like this: "We have allowed widespread exceptions to the Confession at certain agreed upon points, as well as widespread divergence from the strict Puritan view of worship that is behind the Confession. But if we are going to grant regular and constant exceptions at certain points, shouldn't we amend the Confession at those points, so that it reflects the truth-unity line that we have in fact drawn?" In this process, people might find their minds being changed, greater unity occurring. Or, on the other hand, when the revision is done, some people might find themselves conscience-bound to leave, but even that may promote peace and integrity, if it is done properly."
 
CONCLUSION

I hope it is evident that I do not think any of these approaches are a 'magic cure', and there may be other approaches that I can't see right now.  I personally go back and forth between the third and fourth view.  I used to be of the first view, but now I have lost my belief in that.  I am happy with my connection to the PCA.  I am often deeply discouraged by the state of the US Christian church and evangelicalism in general.  The PCA has many of the same traits that so discourage me about the broader church, but I am in the PCA because, in general, it has fewer of them.  I would like to see the PCA grow, especially in its understanding and practice of mission. That will not happen if the truth-unity line is redrawn to make us a 'tighter' and more narrow church than we have been historically.

 

 Tim Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City