Update Me

This is an open invitation to post links in the comments section to comments made on this blog that you feel have not been answered, or that need my attention. I have no wish to make anyone feel that they have been ignored. So, please direct my attention to your good arguments, and I will look into it. Thanks much.



  1. NHarper said,

    May 29, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Since this is a general comment, for convenience, I posted it on this most recent blog. Thanks Lane!
    I know that many of these questions have been asked and answered before in some shape or form, but with the GA coming up soon, I would just like some final clarification as to the practical consequences of the report.
    1. It is my understanding that according to the new rules of assembly operations, that the report will be either approved or rejected with no revisions, modifications, or motions to amend.

    If the report is rejected, does this mean:
    • These errors do not exist in the PCA, and that the committee came up with wrong conclusions about the FV?
    • These errors do exist, but they are not considered errors – but accepted teaching and practice of the PCA – within the bounds of the WCF?

    If the report is approved, does this mean:
    • That presbyteries must follow through on the recommendations by clearly identifying these errors within their own presbytery?
    • That sessions must do the same?
    • That presbyteries and sessions have the privilege of not following through on the recommendations, since recommendations do not carry any binding authority?

    If the report is rejected:
    • Is a member in good standing required to accept these errors as accepted teaching and practice of the PCA – within the bounds of the WCF?
    • Is a member allowed to speak out if this decision violates their conscience? Or, will they be silenced so as to maintain the “peace and purity” of the church? Will they be disciplined for speaking out against their denomination?
    • Should a member leave the PCA if they are opposed to these errors or “accepted teaching” so as not to disturb the peace?

    If the report is approved:
    • Can a member in good standing require their presbytery and session to clearly identify these errors to their congregations? Can a member require that the presbytery identify and discipline those sessions who hold to those errors?
    • Since these are just recommendations, is a member at the mercy of the decisions of their presbytery and/or session?
    • If the presbytery and session choose not to follow through with the recommendations, should the member leave the PCA (since in most cases, they are not able to move to another presbytery for job reasons)? For, in reality, if presbyteries do not follow through, they are rejecting the report.

  2. greenbaggins said,

    May 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

    I think that almost no conclusions can be drawn of the report is rejected, since any number of reasons could be the reason why it would be rejected. It could be rejected on procedural grounds, or on some other grounds. However, if the report is approved, then it will have moral authority in SJC cases, for instance. Ultimately, however, the recommendations put the ball in the court of the presbyteries, which, however, should be listening carefully to the will of GA. No, the report carries no constitutional authority. But, if approved, it would be the will of this GA. This GA will have spoken. How that shakes down into individual sessions, I am not quite certain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: