"I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?"
Perhaps because that isn't the first step in our disciplinary process, even if that process were the way to resolve matters such as this. What Brad is doing here, exhortation, is most consistent with our rules of discipline. No one should be in a hurry to prefer charges. When I came into PCA, from Anglicanism, I had the lax attitude Brad addresses. Exhortations such as this served to correct my understanding. As to his supposed lack of zeal, be mindful of that 9th commandment. You wouldn't want anyone to prefer charges of defamation against you.
Thank you for your characterization of my article as excellent. I have some personal acquaintance with Brad, but insufficient for speculating about the proximity of his mindset to that of Clark, French and Moore. I think, in fairness to you both, that the difference is not that you prefer meaningful action to Brad's relative inaction, but rather what constitutes _meaningful_ action under the circumstances. The same holds for what you refer to as "resistance" to employing the procedures one espouses. As I am understanding, you want to proceed immediately from exhortation (BCO 27-5 [a]) to charges and specifications (BCO 27-5 [d]), when in fact the next move would be to personal one-to-one confrontation (BCO 27-5 [b]), with each and every individual, witnessed by Brad, performing the act. (In the cases of churches violating 2C he could write a letter to their sessions admonishing them to cease their idolatrous practices.) A trial is certainly one way to employ process to achieve one's ends, but its spirit seems rather malicious, hardly expressive of the fraternal love we should exhibit.
Your exhortation wasn't so it's good you set the term apart with quotation marks. And you cannot properly exhort someone to take an action not sanctioned by the rules of discipline, thus opening himself to a counter charge if defamation. Right now, as matters stand, there is no provision under our rules, no previous action of GA which prohibits the conduct Brad is talking about. And the charges I mentioned were not for exhortation. You are exhorting; you are being pugnacious. And possibly, defamatory.
Am I correct in understanding that there is, at present, precedent for disciplining people for watching television shows and moves such as The Chosen? I mean, some act of GA (SJC) which determined that members of the PCA are liable to be disciplined (suspended, excommunicated and, in the case of officers, deposed) for watching moves and television shows in which actors portray Jesus. If so, then so be it. If not, then I think you can make the case that Brad and his ilk (including me) should draft an overture asking GA to "make it official" no watching of television shows or movies containing portrayals of Jesus. I could get on board with that. (Heck I think we should include songs with sexually explicit lyrics: we aren't allowed to watch pornography, why should we be allowed to listen to it?) I don't know, Ryan: a litigious spirit just doesn't seem what we should be about.
"I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?"
Perhaps because that isn't the first step in our disciplinary process, even if that process were the way to resolve matters such as this. What Brad is doing here, exhortation, is most consistent with our rules of discipline. No one should be in a hurry to prefer charges. When I came into PCA, from Anglicanism, I had the lax attitude Brad addresses. Exhortations such as this served to correct my understanding. As to his supposed lack of zeal, be mindful of that 9th commandment. You wouldn't want anyone to prefer charges of defamation against you.
Thank you for your characterization of my article as excellent. I have some personal acquaintance with Brad, but insufficient for speculating about the proximity of his mindset to that of Clark, French and Moore. I think, in fairness to you both, that the difference is not that you prefer meaningful action to Brad's relative inaction, but rather what constitutes _meaningful_ action under the circumstances. The same holds for what you refer to as "resistance" to employing the procedures one espouses. As I am understanding, you want to proceed immediately from exhortation (BCO 27-5 [a]) to charges and specifications (BCO 27-5 [d]), when in fact the next move would be to personal one-to-one confrontation (BCO 27-5 [b]), with each and every individual, witnessed by Brad, performing the act. (In the cases of churches violating 2C he could write a letter to their sessions admonishing them to cease their idolatrous practices.) A trial is certainly one way to employ process to achieve one's ends, but its spirit seems rather malicious, hardly expressive of the fraternal love we should exhibit.
Your exhortation wasn't so it's good you set the term apart with quotation marks. And you cannot properly exhort someone to take an action not sanctioned by the rules of discipline, thus opening himself to a counter charge if defamation. Right now, as matters stand, there is no provision under our rules, no previous action of GA which prohibits the conduct Brad is talking about. And the charges I mentioned were not for exhortation. You are exhorting; you are being pugnacious. And possibly, defamatory.
Am I correct in understanding that there is, at present, precedent for disciplining people for watching television shows and moves such as The Chosen? I mean, some act of GA (SJC) which determined that members of the PCA are liable to be disciplined (suspended, excommunicated and, in the case of officers, deposed) for watching moves and television shows in which actors portray Jesus. If so, then so be it. If not, then I think you can make the case that Brad and his ilk (including me) should draft an overture asking GA to "make it official" no watching of television shows or movies containing portrayals of Jesus. I could get on board with that. (Heck I think we should include songs with sexually explicit lyrics: we aren't allowed to watch pornography, why should we be allowed to listen to it?) I don't know, Ryan: a litigious spirit just doesn't seem what we should be about.
Last word to you.