Posted on 02/17/2011 6:14:50 PM PST by Gamecock
An AP article was sent to my computer which many might find interesting. Sometimes my computer dates things incorrectly, but never before has an article appeared this early. You will of course note that the writer shows a typical secular reporter’s ignorance about the Reformed faith, but otherwise it seems to be fairly written, though poorly edited in parts. Also, it would have been strengthened by more direct quotes from the actual participants, but I guess we should be glad for any press.
Here is the AP story: July 1, 2020
Classical Protestant Resurgence: how the PCA got its mojo back Part 4 of the Series, “Religion in Post-Obama America” Associated Press, Atlanta
Ten years ago, many thought that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was at a crisis point. Years of stagnant growth and divisiveness had taken their toll. In an effort to stem the tide, many prominent men within the PCA urged it to change her tack or risk irrelevancy. An effort was made to broaden the PCA’s appeal by severing its ties with doctrinally similarly aligned, but smaller denominations in favor of cooperation with larger and growing movements.
However, a surprising thing happened. Unconvinced that such a change in tactics was called for, the denomination instead chose to reemphasize her distinctives -- doctrines such predestination of an “elect,” the baptizing of infants, and the necessity of churches being connected in regional bodies called presbyteries. Many feared that such a doctrinal approach would weaken the PCA and make it less appealing to the newer generations of Christians which appeared to be flocking to newer movements such as the so called “emergent” churches of the day and the Acts 29 Network (now on its third iteration as the Acts 31 network).
Perhaps a greater challenge to the PCA came from allies within the Southern Baptist Convention. A renewed interest in Calvinism among Baptists of various kinds – ironically fueled in part by the success of the PCA – stemmed some of the PCA’s momentum as many younger Calvinists chose to practice their faith in a Baptist context. The PCA was no longer the newest and coolest Calvinist kid on the block. It had lost its mojo.
It was understandable then that some of the PCA leaders, wishing to keep up a perceived momentum from its earlier decades of rapid growth (due in large part to whole churches transferring in from other denominations), pushed for the PCA to accommodate herself to changing demographic trends.
What could not have been foreseen was the growing cynicism of the newer generations towards the marketing which had been directed towards them by these newer movements. Many recognized that the “emerging” churches had essentially employed the same strategy of the much maligned Willow Creek “church growth” strategies popularized in the suburbs of the 1980s and 90s. Only this time, instead of syncretizing Christianity with the American suburban sub-culture, the emergents syncretized the Christian faith with the gentrification sub-culture of American cities. (See Part 2 of this Series: “How religion played a role in the re-segregating of the American urban landscape.”) As sociologists have since shown, both rounds of syncretism served to accommodate evangelical Christianity to the predominant relativism of American culture, to the extent that doctrinal distinctives were often played down in hopes of churches appearing more open minded and relevant to the issues of the day.
At the same time, many of these disillusioned younger Christians found themselves attracted to the bold Calvinism found among a variety of Baptist preachers of the time, men such as John Piper of Minneapolis, Mark Dever of Washington, D.C., and Marc Driscoll of Seattle. These ministers supported doctrines such as predestination and held to a strong view of the church, and yet rejected Presbyterian principles such as standing presbyteries and baptizing infants in favor of local church autonomy and baptizing only those who could recount some sort of credible conversion experience. And while these popular Baptist ministers cooperated with other denominations, they made no bones about their distinctive Baptist convictions. Such humble confidence in the midst of the emergent, relativist landscape proved attractive and successful.
Against this backdrop, the PCA held their annual General Assembly in late June of 2010. Leaders from across the denomination were urging a new direction and a renewed emphasis on numerical growth in order to “be part of what God is doing in the world.” After days of debate, the denominational rank and file rejected such an approach in favor of a return to their roots as a Calvinist denomination, including those convictions which distinguished them from both the emergent churches and their Calvinist Baptist allies.
At the same time, there was a renewed emphasis across the PCA on doing the simple things well – preaching from the Bible, emphasizing the doctrine of “justification by faith alone” as central to the Christian life, praying in small groups, and taking church discipline seriously (that members must uphold their vows to follow Christ or face correction from church leaders). An emphasis was placed on local ministry rather than embracing a one-size-fits-all national strategy.
But this counter-intuitive approach to church growth paid off. Younger Christians of all backgrounds were attracted to the authentic, simple approach to faith which did not overly concern itself with marketing or social trends. At the same time, they were drawn to the certainty and stability which the PCA presented, and increasingly convinced of the Biblical rationale for infant baptism and standing presbyteries, once the PCA began to aggressively promote its views. Of course, a fine line had to be walked, both not to alienate other Christian denominations and to ensure that its own members did not confuse secondary matters with more essential matters such as the divinity of Jesus. But somehow, they pulled it off, and have seen steady numerical growth 7 of the past 10 years.
With the precipitous decline of the historically larger PC(USA), the PCA now appears on the cusp of becoming the largest Presbyterian body in the United States, with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church not far behind.
>> I hear kids can get a free copy of “Being Friends, Being Safe” at their local parish, but the coloring book cost the Catholic Church over three billion dollars to produce! <<
Please tell me you’re joking, and you don’t really believe that, because otherwise I’d have to say something jokingly like, “Well, I heard that the PCA tore down 2.5 million square miles of Brazilian rain forest because they were afraid someone might try to build a cross.”
“So how do they eat???”
The ministers in the Mennonite (Old ORder) Church as well as the Amish ones consider their preaching something that God has directed them to do, and they take no salaries. These men have regular jobs during the week as farmers, carpenters etc. That is how they “eat”. Although it is an exemplary way of church organization, other churches do not have the same arrangement. Let me give you a little history lesson: For the most part in America until the late 19th century ministers in America who were in charge of a church were usually Presbyterian or Congregationalist ministers who had to be highly educated. This was during a time when the minister was the most educated person around. He often taught school and certainly was responsible for teaching latin to young men who were headed for the universities in order to become ministers themselves. So it was essential that he receive some kind of “living” from the community. It was not much but it kept him going. After the Revolutionary War the itinerant minister, primarily Methodist ,favored a more common man approach to preaching and the university trained preacher was not encouraged. However, these hardworking circuit riders needed encouragement in the form of support in order to live and continue to ride thousands of miles bringing the gospel to remote areas. By no means did any of these noble men get rich. It was only in the late 19th century and the advent of industrialization on a large scale that created a more affluent society who in turn, wanted an affluent minister. Of course, the Episcopal Church took the lead in this, but even the more rural Methodist churches began to tear down their dear old meeting houses in favor of more “respectable” buildings. A terrible shame. Unfortunately, not all ministers of God’s Word are saved Christians and there were and are many whose intentions are not to provide the means of salvation to a sin sick congregation. However, that does not discount the many fine and godly men who consider it their mission in life to lead the ungodly to Christ. The apostle Paul wrote in Corinthians and in Timothy that it is not wrong for elders to receive compensation for their labors, although he personally would not accept any and continued to make tents for money. It is true that many churches sadly have missed the mark and have left their first love, and often this goes hand in hand with a highly paid clergy. Of course, this is wrong. But to dismiss compensation generally even for those who tirelessly labor in the work of the Lord is not right and requires some further reflection on your part.
bump
I suppose that somewhere, out there, there may a Calvinist who possesses enough faith in his spin-off religion to NOT try to convince people that there's no convincing people.
Hitting the nail on the head!! Calvinism believes that everything's already pre-willed by the great robot-maker in the sky, who has already pre-programmed every robot (us) to do good or evil and who has already marked each robot to go to everlasting torment or to heaven.
The robot can't do anything but this program (no free will) and at the end of time, the robot maker laughs at the robot who was programmed to do evil and says "you did the evil I programmed you to do, now burn, burn for all time"
MM, GC, BB -- did you all hear anything? I thought I did, but not sure....
Oh -- wait.
Nope.
Hoss
>>>>Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 1(ranked 9 last year), 2,844,952 members, down 3.28 percent. <<<<
>>Let’s see, the PCUSA was down 3.28% i.e. it lost 90,000 members, but the PCA only gained 5,500 members, so that means that 84,500 Presbyterians left Presbyterianism for good.<<
Cronos brings up an interesting point. By separating themselves out from the heretics of the PCUSA, the PCA and OPC has been able to point to a more theologically pure denomination (at least relative to the theology of the Calvinist fathers) as representing “their” Calvinism/Presbyterianism.
On the other hand, the FR Calvinist swarm deliberately conflates the heretical Left in the Catholic church (and even Catholic-identifying non-Christians) with the teachings of the Catholic magisterium.
I might argue that the departure of the small portion of Presbyterians (PCA, OPC, etc.) from the larger body doomed the larger body to theological collapse. If the PCA were truly replacing the PCUSA as the dominant Presbyterian body, that might be worth it. But given that only a tiny fraction of the disaffected Presbyterians ever found their way to the PCUSA or the OPC (, etc.), the tactic doesn’t seem successful. And in 100 years, if the PCA does become dominant, who’s to say it won’t find the same wax bees spoiling the new hive?
Or maybe I’m wrong, and it might be better off for the PCA to have held out from the PCUSA. But you gotta at least give a little respect to us conservative Catholics who (because of other doctrinal issues, not necessarily any grander strategy) are fighting to improve their church, rather than splintering it.
Go ahead. I take far greater pride in seeing something I’ve coined repeated than in proper attribution.
No one earns their way to heaven. God does not demand our money to get there. You can still get to heaven without ever giving a nickel to any church.
However, bills need to be paid and pastors need to be supported. We give because we understand the need and want to.
I don't know what happened in your past to make you so cynical about churches, but if you want to start a thread about your POV, go ahead instead of hijacking another one.
You know, this unfathomable load of nonsense would be funny if it weren't so sad; you have not the slightest idea about what you speak. This statement should be put on a billboard as evidence of total lack of comprehension.
Really.
But, I tend to forget that your background doesn't involve actually reading and seeking understanding of scripture. This post is evidence of this fact. I do continue to hope and pray that The Lord will open your heart as I pray He opens MrPiper's heart and mind.
You both need it.
Now... GC, BB, MM -- I still think I hear something, but it's not making much sense... ;D
Hoss
>> when someone else may say that “Well, I heard that the PCA tore down 2.5 million square miles of Brazilian rain forest because they were afraid someone might try to build a cross.” <<
Yeah, but who would write such a terrible thing? :^D
| 2009 membership | 2010 membership | Lost | Gained | |
| PCUSA | 2,934,952 | 2,844,952 | 90,000 | |
| PCA | 2,934,952 | 340,000 | 5,500 | |
| Disappearing Presbyerians | 84,500 |
Ooohhhhh. I KNOW that left a mark.
:D
Hoss
“c. “If you do not know the Five Points of Calvinism, you do not know the gospel, but some perversion of it...” Fred Phelps, “The Five Points of Calvinism, The Berea Baptist Banner, Feb 5, 1990.”
Ha HA, really? Remind me to quote Mel Gibson or a lesbian “priestess” as a Catholic authority in a future thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.