Some may remember that in between the time that Sauls left Redeemer and the time he came to Christ Pres, he was also ministering outside the PCA in another denomination. I don't recall now which of the other Reformed denominations it was, but it was not the PCA. There was some controversy because he was involved in ordaining female deacons at that church. So it seems his "new" views are not all that new. On the other hand, maybe it wasn't controversial enough, or it was the "news that was never heard of" in the Nashville Presbytery when he went through his theological examination for entry into and membership in the presbytery. However, as a lay member of another congregation in the presbytery, and in fact, within the city of Nashville, I was somehow aware of it at the time.
You may be a bit confused here. My understanding is that he was EPC before going to NYC. Shortly after arriving in New York he "accidentally" ordained some female deacons. It was an error and there was an apology. Don't think there was anything in between NYC and Nashville. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE0Jwl4RV9o
Now that you mention it, that does sound correct. I'd forgotten the "accidental" part and that it actually happened at, what I believe to be, one of Redeemer's branch campuses. To me, that makes it all the more grievous. Again, how "new" are his new view? I'm sure you recall that one of the overtures in recent years pertaining to the ordination of women originated from the Nashville Presbytery. Coincidence?
I do actually want to commend Scott for leaving the PCA when he realized that his views were no longer compatible with our standards. It does seems to me that possibly, as I mentioned in my original post, his views may have already been so, or at least headed that way, when he reentered the PCA upon becoming the Senior Pastor at Christ Pres. However, I don't know what, if any, exceptions to our standards he declared and were subsequently accepted by the Nashville Presbytery at the time. I, for one, believe that as a denomination, we made one of our gravest of errors 20 years ago when we stopped requiring strict subscription and started allowing "good faith" subscription to our standards subject to the discretion of each presbytery. A man may sincerely believe what he believes, and while it may not be our place to fault him for his views, why does that mean that he has a right to practice his vocation in our denomination and teach something that in some way is contrary to or in conflict with our standards? There are plenty of other denominations where one can go and find that his views will align. I find, IMHO, that so many decisions at GA have been shaped by not wanting to affect the employability or employment situations of other TE's by the TE's who have mostly held large voting majorities at GA rather than by what is right. That is not charitable, but I have heard floor speeches much to that effect. The "good faith" subscription change was one of those and put us on a very slippery slope. I'm also reminded of, what I believe, was the one episode of Presbycast, on which Scott Sauls appeared. The other guest was a PCA pastor who was in the process of taking his congregation out of the PCA because of all the controversies and (at least his and his congregation's perception) of some of the left-leaning drift in the PCA. This was several or more years ago when the National Partnership was at the height of its strength and things were still dark as the sun had not yet risen with the remarkable turn of events of the last few years. At the end of the discussion, Scott made the comment to the other pastor, "I'm sorry the PCA didn't work out for you". At the time, I thought it took a lot of chutzpah to say something like that. To me it was the equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". That may not have been what he was consciously thinking, and it is not gracious of me to suspect that it could have even been in his subconscious, but that was the distinct and immediate impression it made. Anyway, what a difference a few years makes.
As an older woman who has been in the PCA since January 1974 (Westminster PCA in Roanoke, VA) I too was disappointed when the “good faith” subscription change was allowed. A pastor who wants to come into the PCA knows what its beliefs are in advance so he either agrees to all of them or goes some where else. The PCA doesn’t need TEs who don’t fully agree to what is set forth in the Westminster Standards and the BCO.
I lost my respect for byFaith when Larry Hoop, editor of byFaith, spoke against judicial referral for Columbus Metro and when he was overwhelmingly defeated, chose to skip it in his GA recap.
The theorem that the PCA is leaking left is altogether not that suprising. this isn't a critique of the PCA, it's just a demonstrated fact; Ben Inman being maybe the lone stand-out. In my opinion, he was the best guest you have ever had on your show, such passion.
I have a question: how is it that someone of Mr. Sauls ample intelligence frames the installation of female deacons an "accident." Outside of the ecclesiastical realms, this is called "spin." Lo and behold, he leaves the PCA on these very grounds. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Sauls, given time, will be shown to have other reasons to leave the PCA that will be over time, painfully obvious.
On its current trajectory, the EPC is likely to pass ECO on its drift leftward.
Some may remember that in between the time that Sauls left Redeemer and the time he came to Christ Pres, he was also ministering outside the PCA in another denomination. I don't recall now which of the other Reformed denominations it was, but it was not the PCA. There was some controversy because he was involved in ordaining female deacons at that church. So it seems his "new" views are not all that new. On the other hand, maybe it wasn't controversial enough, or it was the "news that was never heard of" in the Nashville Presbytery when he went through his theological examination for entry into and membership in the presbytery. However, as a lay member of another congregation in the presbytery, and in fact, within the city of Nashville, I was somehow aware of it at the time.
You may be a bit confused here. My understanding is that he was EPC before going to NYC. Shortly after arriving in New York he "accidentally" ordained some female deacons. It was an error and there was an apology. Don't think there was anything in between NYC and Nashville. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE0Jwl4RV9o
Now that you mention it, that does sound correct. I'd forgotten the "accidental" part and that it actually happened at, what I believe to be, one of Redeemer's branch campuses. To me, that makes it all the more grievous. Again, how "new" are his new view? I'm sure you recall that one of the overtures in recent years pertaining to the ordination of women originated from the Nashville Presbytery. Coincidence?
I do actually want to commend Scott for leaving the PCA when he realized that his views were no longer compatible with our standards. It does seems to me that possibly, as I mentioned in my original post, his views may have already been so, or at least headed that way, when he reentered the PCA upon becoming the Senior Pastor at Christ Pres. However, I don't know what, if any, exceptions to our standards he declared and were subsequently accepted by the Nashville Presbytery at the time. I, for one, believe that as a denomination, we made one of our gravest of errors 20 years ago when we stopped requiring strict subscription and started allowing "good faith" subscription to our standards subject to the discretion of each presbytery. A man may sincerely believe what he believes, and while it may not be our place to fault him for his views, why does that mean that he has a right to practice his vocation in our denomination and teach something that in some way is contrary to or in conflict with our standards? There are plenty of other denominations where one can go and find that his views will align. I find, IMHO, that so many decisions at GA have been shaped by not wanting to affect the employability or employment situations of other TE's by the TE's who have mostly held large voting majorities at GA rather than by what is right. That is not charitable, but I have heard floor speeches much to that effect. The "good faith" subscription change was one of those and put us on a very slippery slope. I'm also reminded of, what I believe, was the one episode of Presbycast, on which Scott Sauls appeared. The other guest was a PCA pastor who was in the process of taking his congregation out of the PCA because of all the controversies and (at least his and his congregation's perception) of some of the left-leaning drift in the PCA. This was several or more years ago when the National Partnership was at the height of its strength and things were still dark as the sun had not yet risen with the remarkable turn of events of the last few years. At the end of the discussion, Scott made the comment to the other pastor, "I'm sorry the PCA didn't work out for you". At the time, I thought it took a lot of chutzpah to say something like that. To me it was the equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". That may not have been what he was consciously thinking, and it is not gracious of me to suspect that it could have even been in his subconscious, but that was the distinct and immediate impression it made. Anyway, what a difference a few years makes.
As an older woman who has been in the PCA since January 1974 (Westminster PCA in Roanoke, VA) I too was disappointed when the “good faith” subscription change was allowed. A pastor who wants to come into the PCA knows what its beliefs are in advance so he either agrees to all of them or goes some where else. The PCA doesn’t need TEs who don’t fully agree to what is set forth in the Westminster Standards and the BCO.
Built for the 21st century is all you need to know.
I lost my respect for byFaith when Larry Hoop, editor of byFaith, spoke against judicial referral for Columbus Metro and when he was overwhelmingly defeated, chose to skip it in his GA recap.
The theorem that the PCA is leaking left is altogether not that suprising. this isn't a critique of the PCA, it's just a demonstrated fact; Ben Inman being maybe the lone stand-out. In my opinion, he was the best guest you have ever had on your show, such passion.
I have a question: how is it that someone of Mr. Sauls ample intelligence frames the installation of female deacons an "accident." Outside of the ecclesiastical realms, this is called "spin." Lo and behold, he leaves the PCA on these very grounds. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Sauls, given time, will be shown to have other reasons to leave the PCA that will be over time, painfully obvious.
This after Mika Edmondson (who was church planting in some sort of cooperation with Sauls) left for the EPC and took his church with him. https://www.yahoo.com/news/role-women-ministry-helped-one-100237080.html
I'm thinking of Simon and Garfunkel - Slip Sliden Away. A tune that seems increasingly popular.