Does the PCA have a consensus in its theology of missions? It all depends. What constitutes a consensus is not defined in the document entitled PCA Consensus.1 Since there is no indication that it is intended as an amendment to the Westminster Standards, which process would require what may legitimately be called a ‘consensus,’ one can only assume that a consensus is being defined as 50% plus one. By that definition one would probably conclude that the PCA has a ‘consensus’ in its theology of missions with or without this new document.

If one asks whether the PCA’s theology and practice of missions is the same as our professed ‘consensus’ documents subscribed to by every officer of the PCA, then serious doubts arise. And if it is true that there is a discrepancy between our theology and our practice, then a paper purporting to be a PCA Consensus: A Proposed Statement of Identity is worthy of evaluation. Will it express with clarity our creedal theology, or will it reflect our broad church practice? Will the authors, as a matter of fact, have the ability and/or the willingness to candidly and clearly say what they mean, or, will they be like the new confession writers of liberal churches, giving vague cover to hide all manner of heterodox animals? Since the authors themselves cite "various ideological parties" within the PCA,2 it is surely not inappropriate to ask the question as to whether the document is to represent one of the parties, all of the parties, or some of the parties? Will the authors say? Will this process, if successful, represent health and reformation for the PCA, or will it be our own version of the Auburn Affirmation, a "hole in the dike" through which a flood of diversity will be tolerated, a potential "freeway to Babylon?"

Theological Foundations for Mission

I must confess to having a healthy skepticism about where this quasi-confessional statement is headed. It is not so much what the PSI says but the official actions and public statements of those who are promoting this document that gives one concern.

Who can legitimately argue with the heart of the "theological foundations" statement? The Great Commission is loudly affirmed as a necessary part of the Reformed Faith and the world-wide kingdom claims of Christ. Concern for the Great Commission does not "give us the right to disregard the Reformed Faith." The Church is correctly declared to be the "primary agent for the accomplishment of the Great Commission." Discipling of the nations is called for in the exposition. Amen. No one could be happier than I if this indeed is the consensus within the PCA.

If I agree with that and ‘We, the undersigned,’ who are concerned about the various ideological parties and the adversarial climate agree with that, then what have I and other concerned Presbyterians been fighting for in the area of missions for the past twenty years against many of ‘We, the undersigned.’ I have not changed my views. Have they?

In regard to the Great Commission, many have felt that our policy is primarily focused on only the first one third of the Great Commission, often neglecting the Church and sacraments as well as the proclamation of the whole counsel of God. As to the non-disregarding of the Reformed Faith, it is precisely a de-emphasizing of the Reformed Faith as a pragmatic consideration that has so disheartened many of us, frequently seen in our entering into cooperative agreements with organizations that not only are unreformed, but who have an officially anti-reformed doctrinal position. And what of the Church-centered-ness of missions? Our missions practice and operational procedure is overwhelmingly tilted in favor of para-church activity, and at least one field has had ongoing conflict with getting cooperation from CMTW to have a consistently Church-centered approach in "the training and empowering of indigenous leadership." I served six years on CMTW during the time heavy battles were being waged, and my perception is that much of our leadership begrudgingly accepted the level of PCA Church planting which we do have. Are we then to judge the PSI strictly by its words, or by the actions and words of the signers? Is the PSI to be taken at face value, interpreted by what the words seem to say, or is this an exercise in sophistry? Signers, please declare for all what your true position is in terms on which we can all agree. What is your agenda? The PSI and the practice combined does not clarify nor help in determining where we stand.

Before passing on to the "Principles" section, there is one further example of the words/action dichotomy that is underscored by what is said in the "Theological" section. A proper testimony is given with regard to "objective, supernatural revelation," Scripture being the authoritative Word. Yet in 1992 CMTW and Staff spent considerable time and money in flying the field coordinators home for a conference that was focused on faith healing, visions, tongues speaking and modem miracles as an aid to effective evangelism. At General Assembly that year, when a spokesman for MTW said ‘Yes’ to a question as to whether that had in fact occurred, and even been paid for from the already oppressive administrative fees, a committee member quickly tried to put a harmless spin on it. But how do you put that kind of a thing in a good light? Would that practice be acceptable in terms of the PSI, or would that kind of thing not happen again? I am not sure. Would the signers or the steering committee make that clear, please?

Principles of Mission Strategy

The second section dealing with mission, concerns "principles of mission strategy." Not unlike the first section, one can read this without undue alarm, depending on how it is interpreted. But this is supposed to be a document to interpret our official consensus statement. What help is it if it is open to immediate multiple interpretations as soon as it appears?

Affirmation and denial #6 sounds great.3 In fact, it sounds like what many have been pleading with CMTW to do for many years. Has their church centered-ness changed, or does it not mean what I think it is saying? Item #8 presses for holiness and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.4 Yet missionaries regularly have unnecessary travel on the Sabbath, arranged by the MTW office. About ten years ago there was considerable effort on the part of CMTW and Staff to get the following in the policy manual: "Success will be judged by observable church growth." Does this Lordship stress in the PSI replace the pragmatism of the numbers game, or does Lordship mean something else? I have related in other articles the struggle we had when I was on the CMTW over whether to pay for a translation of the Jesus film from the MTW budget since it was in violation of WLC Q. 109. We did not fund it then, but pragmatism was announced by ‘submissive’ brothers that they would see to it that it was funded privately so the missionaries could have use of what "worked so well" for others. Now the General Assembly has not only endorsed the idolatrous film, but have made it the focus of a large segment of its outreach. Only with much debate did the Assembly seem to say one could be a PCA missionary in good standing while refusing to be a part of the film promotion. Lordship? Holiness? What do these terms mean by the promoters of the PSI? I am not sure my concerns are strengthened here. I don’t think they intended to strengthen my concerns. But I do not think it would be asking too much for the sponsors to say what they intend vis a vis some of the specific past controversies.

I will mention only one other point with regard to the six points in this section, and close with a theological concern. The issue that hovers just beneath the surface, an issue that arises in #9 and #10 as well as the exposition, is ‘contextualization.5 Any student of missions knows of the considerable debate that has taken place on what is or is not permissible under the banner of contextualization. Throughout the Reformed community there is the same pressure which is being felt in society at large to lower standards. In our case the motivation is pragmatism. Lower the standards of Christianity in order to ‘prosper more’ in both home and foreign missions. In Spurgeon’s day it was called ‘downgrading.’ In recent missionary buzz words it is sometimes called ‘contextualization.’ In the jargon of talk radio it is ‘dumbing down.’ We are told we must disrobe the Gospel from its ‘Western’ garb and reclothe it in our host culture. It all depends!

Everyone would agree, I suppose, that there is a proper kind of contextualization that does not compromise the Gospel. But we believe that creedal Calvinism, just because it is based on the inerrant Word of God, needs only to be ‘reformed’ from Scripture and not from culture. To quote an editorial on missions some years ago, it "does not need to be either detextualized, retextualized, or contextualized! What it needs is to be preached!"

The PSI clearly advocates ‘contextualization.’ "The gospel must be communicated in the ... culture of the hearer ... to suit the context ... In order to be effective, we must ... apply biblical revelation ... in the Church’s context of ministry, i.e., in its geographical and cultural setting ... Its form of delivery ... may change depending on the context ...".6 Granted, the requisite tip of the hat to absolutes is present. "In light of the Scriptures," "biblical truth is eternal and abiding," and "it does not change" are representative.

But what is intended by the authors? Does cultural sensitivity mean acceptance of sin, a wrong mode or practice of baptism, an acceptance of miraculous gifts and visions of the culture, a soft peddling of ethical standards of the Bible when they conflict with the culture, and a multitude of other compromises? When a sermon is "packaged" (their marketing word, not mine) "appropriate to the context of [the] audience," according to the PSI, "we should expect a wide diversity of ministry styles".7 How diverse? The regulative principle of worship is quite clear and surely forbids pictures of God, yet just such pictures are institutionalized in current MTW policy. Is the reference to unchanging truth meant to stop this policy, or is the diversity meant to condone it?

It is very troubling to contemplate the continuation of the ‘dumbing down’ of the Reformed essentials. Affirmation #10 states: "We affirm that the Reformed Faith should be made intelligible and applicable to all cultures ... which entails cultural ... adaptations."8 Really? What of the perspicuity of Scripture? What of any creed that accurately contains the truth of Scripture? If the Reformed Faith is Biblical Faith (and maybe this is what we are debating), then it "is intelligible and applicable to all cultures and socio-economic classes." This is the great unifying factor, the catholicity, of Christianity. The elements of worship, the moral standards, and the precise doctrines do not vary from one culture to another.

There is also an overarching theological concern to mention in concluding this look at the middle portion of the PSIs chapter on Mission. The closing paragraph in the section on "Principles of Mission Strategy" makes this statement: "Biblical truth is eternal and abiding; it does not change because its Author never changes. Yet its form of delivery ... may change depending on the context ...."9

I spent almost seven years in theological training, much of it done under professors who were neo-orthodox and/or neo-evangelical. I have seen almost every heterodox view imaginable defended under the rubric of the form/content distinction. Some affirm the infallibility of Scripture but deny inerrancy. How? Form/content distinctions. There is a kernel that is the content, and then there is a husk which is merely the packaging for the kernel. Infallibility for them means the kernel is without error, but the packaging may be full of errors. The problem is one has no standard for saying which is which except his own autonomous choice. What one does not like or believe becomes the husk.

Now, like contextualization, there is a limited truth to that kind of distinction, but it must not impinge on the absolute plenary inspiration of Scripture or the honesty with which one subscribes to a creedal statement. ‘No women elders or deacons;’ is it form or content? ‘Sodomy is an abomination;’ kernel or husk? ‘No continuing revelation;’ truth or only a package to point to truth? If this PSI were to receive majority approval by the PCA, who or what determines what is form and what is content? Of the "various ideological parties" involved in "a perennial struggle for ‘control’ in our judicatories," who says what is form and what is unchanging content? The Vision group, the somewhat ‘silent majority,’ the Concerned Presbyterians? Who says? Right now we have a rule of law; we are a confessional church. Where does this document take us, and is it a better destination?

The Unique Strategy of the PCA

In the final section on "The Unique Strategy of the PCA’ we find again wording that may be read in an acceptable light, or, if one knows the practice, it may be read in a critical light. As contextualization dominated much of the middle section, so here one sees what presumably is meant as an apologetic for "cooperative agreements" in accomplishing the mission task. Even those who do not exclude on principle cooperative agreements and utilization of certain para-church organizations express alarm over the extent with which MTW operates in this area. With an eye to practice, let us examine just a few of the statements argued here. They may not mandate errant practice by the words themselves, but do they prevent it or clarify what the ‘consensus’ of the PCA is?

Affirmation #13 states:10 "We ... affirm that the Reformed Faith flourishes and spreads when we cooperate with and influence other evangelical Christians." Anyone may affirm something, but what is the evidence that this is so. Many would affirm that the Reformed Faith is in declension because of cooperating with non-reformed Christians and being influenced by them. At the very least, this premise deserves to be challenged. If the PCA is plagued with "various ideological parties," it would not surprise us that one party’s godly cooperation is another party’s ungodly compromise.

The denial in #13 says in part: "We deny that, simply on the basis of our distinctive theology, we should refuse to cooperate with other evangelical bodies who do not share our distinctives."11 Again, who is defining the terms? MTW has frequently defined as evangelical bodies groups who officially set forth their belief to be that faith precedes regeneration, that one is born again as a consequence of faith. On the basis of our ‘distinctive’ that man is totally depraved and dead in sin, we believe that unless the Holy Spirit first regenerates a person, giving them the ‘gift’ of faith, they will never come to saving faith. How do you define a group as "evangelical" who says faith comes first, which on the basis of our distinctive, means no one will ever be saved? Where is the Gospel in that? Surely here, how can two walk together unless they be agreed! The PSI does not make it clear where the line is drawn to exclude cooperation.

In affirmation #15 we are asked to confess that "we should be open to creative alliances with ministries that have similar biblical values."12 Again, no definition. What kind of values and what sort of alliances are envisioned? Rome shares our Biblical value on creation, the Trinity, the sanctity of life; should we sign a cooperative agreement with the Vatican? Some so-called evangelicals have recently attempted something of this sort. We share Biblical values with the PCUSA. We even have some of the same creeds. Are we to cooperate with them in a creative alliance of church planting? You say: ‘Do not be ridiculous; they do not mean it when they subscribe to it.’ What do we mean by it? That is really what we are fighting about isn’t it? We share Biblical values with the Pentecostals. They profess inerrancy, the deity of Christ and the necessity of faith in Christ. Is our mission objective the same? Is it honoring to Christ to sound an unclear trumpet?

The lack of clarity, if not candidness, climaxes in the closing two paragraphs of the "Mission" chapter. The one reason singled out for the "remarkable growth in our MNA and MTW programs" is said to be "the unusual flexibility and cooperative spirit" of the PCA. We do this "without theological or strategic compromise." "The PCA continues to commit itself uncompromisingly to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith."13 "Remarkable growth," indeed; but is it quality growth? Maybe. Is it growth without compromise? I do not think so. We have cited above some of the kinds of compromise in practice. So we have in these paragraphs not only what the authors think the PCA should be, but we see also the intimation that what the past practice has been is compatible with the new PSI.

This would suggest that the PSI is meant to give official status to the loose subscription and ecumenical cooperation to which we have alluded. The appeal to the history of growth needs to be seen in light of the MTW staff and committee policy statement that "success will be judged by observable church growth. This is the first test of our ministry." MTW tried every way possible not to have it changed to success being judged by "faithfulness to Scripture." Numbers, church growth and pragmatism have all too often guided our actions. The agenda behind this PSI would seem to be aimed at giving such practice ‘confessional’ status without coming out and saying this is the goal. We will not know for sure if that is what these words mean until the PSI is brought forth in the future to condone and/or defend heterodox views and practices.

Conclusion

Whatever may or may not be intended in the PSI and the surrounding activity, whether we have been overly concerned about what may be behind the words, the fact remains that the words are open to a variety of interpretations. This problem in a document that is meant to clarify and bring unity to the church can hardly expect to achieve its professed end.

Part and parcel of this concern is the broader question of why we need this kind of document. The current constitutional documents of the PCA serve as a statement of identity. Our Westminster standards are acknowledged by most of us as the finest creedal documents available. They are a basis of unity, of consensus, and they define clearly the principles of the Great Commission. If we truly want a consensus and a bond of unity that will be blessed of God, then let us renew our vows already taken to receive and adopt our confessional standards. It does not matter how good our laws or constitution are if there is not the integrity to honor that to which we have subscribed.

There is a real danger that by a 50% plus one vote the PSI will become the de facto constitutional authority of the PCA. The precedent for this is already in practice with the Pastoral Letter Concerning the Experience of the Holy Spirit in the Church Today. I have just recently re-read that document. While it has many of the problems of the PSI and is thus open to misunderstanding, on the surface of it one may let it pass as a harmless and perhaps even helpful document. However, it is obvious that some who voted for it saw it as a defense of the continuation of the miraculous gifts. So repeatedly, when one tries to bring our subordinate standards to bear against such charismatic practices, elders immediately jump to their feet and yell, ‘foul,’ claiming that we settled this in favor of the charismatics in 1974. A simple majority action of a General Assembly has thus not only taken on confessional status, but in practice it has superseded the Confession in authority. It is surely a legitimate fear that if this PSI gains even simple majority approval from a General Assembly, it will henceforth be used in a similar way. At such a time, any confessional consensus will have become a fiction.

Footnotes

1 PCA CONSENSUS: A Proposed Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America (PSI), Chapter VII, pp. 25-30. Carl Bogue’s paper is also going to be published in a different collection of articles on the PSI, in a forthcoming issue of The Presbyterian Witness (for copies write to 403 Whealton Road, Hampton, VA 23666-2887).

2 PSI, p. 1.

3 PS1, p. 26. "We affirm that the ultimate goal of the Church’s mission is the glory of God, and, further, that He is glorified when local churches, presbyteries and the General Assembly fulfill the Great Commission through the multiplication and edification of churches locally, regionally, nationally, and worldwide. We deny that the ultimate mission of God is accomplished when only evangelism or only social ministries are carried out without resulting in the establishing and edifying of churches, locally, regionally, nationally and worldwide."

4 PSI, p. 26. "We affirm that the Church’s task of discipling is to equip God’s people to know God and to make Him known, and, therefore, that the end of edification for every believer is holiness, all of life lived under the lordship of Jesus Christ. We deny that the Church’s task of discipleship is merely to increase factual knowledge, to discover and develop personal spiritual gifts, to build relationships, or to train church workers."

5 PSI, p. 27. "We affirm that the gospel must be communicated in the language and culture of the hearer, using a multiplicity of methods, and that the Church must constantly reform its methods, in light of the Scriptures, to suit the context (emphasis added). We deny that the ministry of the gospel is permanently encapsulated in any period of history, any one culture, or any set of methods."

6 PS1, p. 27.

7 Ibid, p. 28.

8 Ibid., p. 27.

9 Ibid. p. 27.

10 Ibid., p. 28.

11 lbid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 29.