These remarks were shared at the Presbyterian Church in America's first ever Millennial Forum held earlier this week in Richmond, VA ahead of the church's General Assembly.
What is my hope for the Presbyterian Church in America over the next 10 years? What are the potential obstacles we face? And what can we, especially as future leaders in our denomination, be doing to work towards this vision?
The vision I seek to paint is not intended to be definitive and final. Instead, I hope to contribute to a picture many have been painting before and that many others will contribute to moving forward.
My vision for the PCA is that we would be a home and a refuge for sinners and sufferers in this present evil age. To put it differently, my hope is that the PCA would grow into a church of hospitality, one that embodies and reflects the hospitality of our Creator and Redeemer because we ourselves are living in the joy and rest of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
What would this mean and look like?
I long for our churches to be communities where those experiencing deep estrangement, oppression, alienation, and lostness, because of their own sin, the sin of others, or both, can find refuge. And in that refuge, I want to see our churches become places where people can grow into the maturity of godliness and wisdom that enables them to effectively welcome others into the life of God found in Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, my hope is that Christians in traditions, denominations, or churches that lack theological depth, healthy church polity, and clear moral guidance will find the PCA a welcome church that can connect them to Jesus, to the rich history of the church catholic, and to the stable, life-giving way of Jesus.
I believe this vision to be a hospitable church is in line with the founders of the PCA who wanted us to be a broadly Reformed, “Big Tent” Presbyterian Church that is conservative, evangelical, and mainline (that is, a national, not regional church). And I believe this vision is consistent with the stated mission of the PCA to be “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed faith [branch of the Christian faith], and Obedient to the Great Commission.”
To be a hospitable church, several necessary conditions must be true.
First, it’s impossible to be hospitable unless we have a defined identity, set of practices, and clear moral vision while also possessing the ability to make room for those not yet fully aligned. We must be defined yet open.
Having a defined identity, practice, and moral vision makes it possible to welcome others into a common life that is true, good, and beautiful. Without these things, we have no home into which we can welcome people.
It’s on this point that the doctrinalist wing of the PCA is so helpful. This stream of our denomination sees the importance of articulating and guarding our doctrinal standards, our distinct practices in worship and piety, and our fidelity to the moral vision of Scripture. This group is right to be frustrated by those in our denomination who do not take our doctrinal standards seriously, who violate our distinct practices, or who downplay or seek to obscure our moral vision.
However, this desire to be clearly defined and uncompromising in maintaining our identity, practice, and moral vision can easily lead us to be closed off, to become imbalanced, and to slide into defensiveness, reactivity, and self-righteous posturing making it difficult or undesirable for others to enter in. This is especially tempting when the cultural conditions around us are, at least in many arenas, becoming more hostile to who we are and what we stand for. Secularization, pluralism, and radical ideological movements do pose a real threat to our churches, and that can lead us to become overly concerned with purity, protection, and safety for ourselves and our families while we overlook our call to welcome others in and to live with one another in love, trust, and humility.
My hope is that we would develop increasing peace in God’s protection, humility in the grace of Jesus Christ, and confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit, which together, would enable us to be patient with one another and with those we are welcoming into our churches. Hospitality is messy, so while we must have a defined sense of who we are, we must also learn to be patient with those who have not yet fully embraced the gospel or our Reformed distinctives. In other words, a hospitable church is one that allows people to experience some measure of belonging while they are in process, not demanding they immediately and wholly embrace our doctrine, conform to our practices, and abide by our moral vision.
As I have argued elsewhere, I believe this balance can only be achieved if we embrace a posture of Reformed Catholicity, by which I mean a posture of curiosity, charity, critical appreciation, and cooperation grounded in and faithful to Reformed distinctives. Reformed Catholics are able to remain distinctively Reformed while also learning from other Christians inside and outside their denomination and throughout church history even when there are large disagreements over important issues. They are eager to work together with others where there is common ground and comfortable being clear on where there is disagreement and even concern. They possess the wisdom to distinguish between things essential to the Christian faith, those things necessary for us to order our churches and remain a distinctly Reformed and Presbyterian denomination, and those things on which we can disagree and still remain partnered in gospel ministry in the PCA.
So, a hospitable church requires that we have a defined identity, set of practices, and clear moral vision while also possessing the ability to make room for those not yet fully aligned.
The second condition necessary for us to be hospitable is that we are healthy, safe, and virtuous. Or to put it differently, we must be a holy community that treats one another in love, facilitates trust with one another, and cares for the vulnerable.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how defined we are, we cannot be a hospitable church if our common life is unhealthy and characterized by a refusal to tell the truth about ourselves. If our fellowship is ugly and dangerous, why would anyone want to be welcomed in?
It’s on this point that the culturalist wing of the PCA is so helpful. This stream of our denomination sees the importance of spiritual formation and the pursuit of justice. They are attuned to the dynamics of relational distrust and dysfunction. Those with these instincts are right to be frustrated by those in our midst who seem so concerned with being right that they are willing to unnecessarily alienate others both inside and outside the church.
However, this desire to be emotionally and relationally attuned to others and to pursue justice can sometimes slide into an unhealthy emotional enmeshment that seems embarrassed by the truth and unwilling to stand confident on God’s Word. This embarrassment is especially tempting anytime you log on to Facebook or Twitter and see how horribly PCA elders treat one another.
The sad truth is that our interactions as elders both online and in and around our courts suggest that our life together is not as healthy, truthful, or beautiful as it should be. This is perhaps one reason this forum was needed in the first place. On one of the PCA Elders FB group, you can find some of the most cutting, dismissive, mischaracterizing, mocking, accusatory, and uncharitable comments you will find anywhere on the internet. The way many elders talk to one another online should be considered a scandal, yet most never bat an eye. Worse still, many celebrate this online interaction as manly and necessary. This should not be so, and I hope the PCA will eventually demonstrate a higher degree of godliness in our online interactions than the world.
But our online interactions are not the only problem. In our courts, there are many examples of tension, distrust, and ill-will toward fellow elders evidenced by frivolous charges, pointless disputes, fear-mongering, and self-righteous posturing.
If this is how the elders of Christ’s church behave and treat one another, then we cannot expect the members of our churches to embody the sort of hospitality we’re called to. If we do not discipline elders that are unable or unwilling to be slow to speak and quick to listen, to speak temperately to and of one another, and to pursue peace and unity, then we have nothing worth welcoming others into.
In short, we need godly leaders, leaders that hold each other accountable and who possess godly character.
If we move this direction, we will be in a better position to address another critical dimension of our common life, that is, improving our ability to prevent and address abuse (spiritual, sexual, or physical).
It is my hope that we will not shut our eyes and ears to the abuse being exposed in churches today. Certainly, there are some who seem intent on tarnishing the reputation of the church or destroying it altogether, but there are many who are simply calling for the church to take seriously the ways our polity, rules of discipline, and culture facilitates and perpetuates abuse. My prayer is that we will listen carefully to these voices, even ones we feel are against us, and take tangible steps toward learning about the dynamics of abuse, improving our Book of Church Order, and courageously confronting anything that makes our churches unsafe. Scripture warns against a focus on proper worship while neglecting justice.
My hope is that we would take godliness seriously enough to discipline immature and ungodly leaders for their sake, for the sake of the church’s witness and holiness, and for the good name of Jesus. That we would strive to trust one another and to live in a trustworthy manner. That we would take abuse seriously. In short, we must strive to become a healthy, safe, and virtuous church so that welcoming others in will actually be for their good.
The third condition necessary for us to be hospitable is that we must be going out on mission in order to welcome people in.
We must focus on planting churches! My hope for the PCA is that every presbytery would always and at all times be involved in the process of planting at least one new church together. That means the presbytery is either identifying a target area, raising/saving funds, identifying and developing planters, or praying specifically for the next plant. We cannot be a healthy and hospitable church if we are not actively partnering in mission in our presbyteries.
It’s on this point that the pietist wing of the PCA is so helpful. This stream of our denomination focuses its energy on personal piety, evangelism, and church planting. They’re usually not bogged down in the latest doctrinal controversy, or in disputes over Robert’s Rules or the BCO, or in the latest call for justice in this or that case. Those with these instincts are right to be frustrated by those in our midst who seem to lose sight of the lost because they’re busy recording yet another podcast or smoking a cigarette.
A real obstacle to us being obedient to the Great Commission by planting churches is the way we get bogged down in fruitless controversies over previously adjudicated issues. It’s true that we will continually need to attend to clarifying and refining our doctrinal identity, practices, and moral vision, but a house always under construction or always being inspected for structural weakness is not a house that can focus on welcoming people in. We must stop giving so much energy to rehashing where our tent pegs have been placed and start focusing on planting so the PCA can be 3,000 churches strong by 2033 (per the goal set by the PCA's church planting ministry, Mission to North America).
One obstacle to us planting churches and being hospitable is the way regional, socio-economic, and ethnic norms dominate the culture of the PCA such that different types of people and groups can find it hard to enter into our churches. We must improve at planting churches outside of the dominant linguistic and ethnic culture, not because that is fashionable, or woke, or something the world will approve of but because the gospel is a message for all the nations and for all tribes and tongues. The gospel is a message that transcends and transgresses cultural, national, and social barriers. My prayer is that we will intentionally seek to learn why we struggle to plant churches outside of white-middle-class contexts and that we will make adjustments financially and otherwise to see the gospel advance into new contexts and with new people groups.
In order to be hospitable, we need to live as a sent people on mission to our neighbors.
So what’s the vision? A hospitable church.
What are the obstacles?
Similar to Jake Meador’s argument at Mere Orthodoxy about the importance of the 3 streams of the PCA, I’m arguing the same is true if we are to be a hospitable church. We need the doctrinalists to guard our theological, practical, and moral vision while avoiding the defensive, reactive, and condemning behavior that will drive away fellow elders and repel visitors. We will need the culturalist to help us stay relationally attuned to the culture and focused on godly formation without getting hijacked by cultural trends, acting too cool for other household members, and compromising our distinct life. We will need the pietists to help us maintain a pious and evangelistic fervor without neglecting good order and the work of church courts because they are sick of the infighting.
What can we be doing?
One of the reasons why the late Tim Keller means so much to so many of us is because of his hospitality. Because Keller listened to others so well and created space for them to struggle, to questions, and to challenge, he helped so many of us to see Jesus clearly enough to love and trust him. In my view, Keller had such a huge impact because he was grounded in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition while his ministry focused on the main thing, Jesus.
Now, I know that many in the PCA lament his influence because they feel he did not emphasize or even understand our distinctives. But I think this is misguided for two reasons.
First, I think this perspective fails to see how many he brought into the PCA that never would have been there. So yes, many of those he influenced ended up EPC, or ACNA, or Baptist. But many people would not have been in the PCA and grown to embrace the Reformed tradition without him.
Second, I think this criticism of Keller is a mistake because we should be grateful for his kingdom impact above all, even if we don’t think he moved people into the fullness of theological and ecclesial maturity.
I believe the hospitality Keller embodied can be a guide for the future of the PCA, because, at the end of the day, my hope for the PCA is that we would be hospitable in introducing people to Jesus Christ, for God has welcomed us through him.