Mr. Fox has, no doubt, been deeply hurt. However it came about, the fact remains that he has been wounded. That simple fact should be acknowledged and respected. While no one on this blog will likely have any direct dealings with Mr. Fox, we should recognize and respect the real hurt—having faith-filled confidence that even a “fire-breathing zealot” intent on the destruction of the church and its leadership is not beyond the reach of God’s redeeming grace in Jesus Christ. As we respond in our hearts and to others, we should be careful to acknowledge the greater power of the gospel. After all, Saul was not exactly in his right mind as he ran, ranting down the road to Damascus.

Given that, as far as a reading of the materials goes, the only people involved in the long-running dispute were sinners with a deep, passionate desire for their own glory and self-protection. There is no doubt that some of the hurt stems from real sin; neither is there any doubt whatsoever that a significant amount of his hurt (and the circumstances in which it was incurred) came about because of his own sin. Neither is there any doubt that his current ranting against his God, the God of his circumstances, stem from his own sinfulness and are only deepening his own hurt and inflicting undue hurt on others around him.

We should be under no illusions about the PCA. If you want to find a denomination that incarnates the reality that the Church of Jesus Christ is made up of sinners, the PCA would be as rich a starting place as any other. Pride and arrogance, self-glorification and self-protection are easily found shaping, driving, and informing the ministry of the denomination. At the same time, the humiliating work of the Spirit is also easily discovered among its leadership who, themselves, by God’s tender and convicting grace, are aware of their desperate dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

All of that to say: Mr. Fox’s extremely public and pro-active gossip and slander will no doubt cause a bit of discussion, if not unfounded accusation and misinformed conclusions about the denomination. Rather than open this thread up for comments, I would ask that we respond to this in such a way that 1) puts the brakes on the gossip and slander (because none of us knows the ins and outs of the case); 2) does not show “defensiveness” of PCA leadership or “dismissiveness” of Mr. Fox; and 3) reminds any who would ask that the Biblical “hermeneutic” for properly understanding and making sense of “the Church” is “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (the hermeneutic that Paul gives us in his letter to the most notorious of “Sinful Saints,” the Corinthian church).

While the gossip will have little impact to the structure or practice of the PCA, it can do harm of varying degrees to the uninformed, unrooted and unsuspecting–not just in terms of the PCA’s reputation, but more importantly, to the reputation of the Gospel itself. Let us be ready to respond to such inquiries with honesty and humility, seeking to turn the spotlight to the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

———-

If anyone wishes to discuss this at greater length, then use this form to contact me.

Please take a look at

http://www.presbyterian.com

It exposes the cult-like activities of The Presbyterian Church in America, specifically the sham they have made of Church Order, individual decency, and the indescribable long-term sadness as the consequences. The opening page, addressing the latest travesty of February 8, 2006, from pastor Stanley H. Pace, and the comentary, regarding the email of Pastor John M. Warren, Jr. are good starters, should you have limited time, to block out to understand this long term matter.

Many continue to discus theology as an abstract, the PCA included, but only the PCA, as far as I know has permeated throughout itself, abject widely known and recognized evil, as described; and they refuse to do anything about it. It is all witnessed by official records and credible men of the cloth.

Sincerely,

Carl Fox

(owner, presbyterian.com)

Also, there are probably elders in the PCA who ought not to be elders, and so the added requirement would help weed those people out (however, it is not a retroactive amendment). Then again, this probably would happen less if section 24-1 was handled appropriately. Not that it happens a lot…you’re probably talking about a small percentage anyway.

Of course, on the flip side there are many RE’s (plus John Piper) who would say that the difference between a TE and an RE is minute. Make too much of a distinction and then you end up with the clergy and the laity–just like the Catholics. I’ve often heard the argument that RE’s ought to be able to administer sacraments, give benedictions, etc. If you are going to say that, then I suppose you would want to insure that RE’s have the same level of knowledge that we require of TE’s. You should have heard some of the questions that were asked of those undergoing licensure and/or ordination. I would have been stumped on a few of them, although most of the candidates “study-up” for the exams.

I would probably be more open to the amendment in the future, preferably if it were modified as to not be so open-ended.