Denominational Accountability and the PCA

I made a comment on the blog Johannes Weslianus concerning Dr. Bryan Chapell's membership on the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA, reflecting that it represented a problem with accountability in our denomination. A brother gave me a well-stated and kindly challenge on my comment and I explained my concerns in more detail as follows:

Mike,

I don't think that Bryan Chapell is ill-intentioned by any means. As far as I know he is a godly guy. I am simply pointing out that denominations in our age tend to fall through their seminaries. If anyone thinks that age is over, they should cast an eye towards Erskine and the ARP. Dr. Chapell's position on the SJC violates both the principle of layered accountability and the principle of separation of responsibility.

Since seminaries are a danger point for a denomination, what does it mean for him to be on the SJC? Well, does anyone think that if he were to fail to deal with a professor as the president that he would be vigorous on the SJC? Accountability doesn't mean much when everyone's well-intentioned and responsible, it's meant to provide protection when people are NOT well intentioned or responsible.

So if Dr. Chapell were NOT doing his job well, then someone would catch it. Except in this case all the people dealing with the problem would either be the one who was asleep at the switch or part of the problem (Chapell) or people who had very close relationships with the guy who was either asleep at the switch or telling them "everything's" fine (the rest of the SJC). It's just a really bad idea.

Accountability means that there's some kind of system or structure to catch things is there's ever a problem. I don't have a half-glass office door because my elders don't trust me, I do it for accountability.

If you want another PCA example, look over at MTW. Dr. Kooistra serves as the coordinator (CEO) and his brother serves as CFO. In accounting, this is called "an issue of deficiency in control." To compound that, I understand that the Permanent Committee on MTW operates with a much smaller Executive Committee which makes the key decisions. Roger Kooistra is on that Committee, which increases his influence and power within the organization.

Now, I am confident that Dr. and Mr. Kooistras (did I say that right?) have the absolute best of intentions. But accountability is not about intentions, it's about wisdom and the acknowledgement that the best men are still sinners.

Does anyone else find it uncomfortable that the Strategic Planning and old PPLN process was dominated by Committee Heads (otherwise known as the best paid denominational employees) and their closest allies and that said process resulted in less functional power for the Committees of Commissioners (otherwise known as the accountability structure for the Permanent Committees)? Nobody sold it like that. It was for "efficiency" and "encouragement of ruling elder attendance." But if we cut all of the talking points away, the employees of the denomination spearheaded an effort which resulted in their oversight structures being less powerful.

Did they do it for bad intentions? Probably not. Is it a good idea? Not at all.

Insider Study Committee Passes Overwhelmingly

This picture has nothing to do with the Insider Movement Study Committee

The MTW Committee of Commissioners brought a revised motion back to the floor of General Assembly on Friday morning, recommending (with MTW) that the Assembly condemn "Insider Translations" which remove references to God as "Father" and Jesus as the "Son of God." They also (against the wishes of MTW) revived Potomac Presbytery's suggestion to create a study committee. Dr. Paul Kooistra spoke against the study committee, saying it was unnecessary.

Dr. Kooistra's speech against the study committee proposal did not seem as polished as usual. He is a very gifted communicator and effective leader. But I think he lost people on a couple of points. He admitted that MTW had not produced any materials for churches (not that it was their job to do so). He told the Assembly that MTW had been aware of the issue for seven years. When asked by a sympathetic commissioner what MTW's response had been and what materials were available, Dr. Kooistra said that Scott Seaton (author of the overture calling for the study committee) had first made MTW aware of the issue and that "an article that has been helpful to me has been 'Five Problems with Insider Movements'."

One brother speaking against the study committee said that pastors could just study for themselves. The chairman of MTW's Permanent Committee said that such a committee would need a theologian, exegete, missiologist and Muslim background believer on it. Opponents of the motion seemed to be saying that the issue was too hard for a study committee, but easy enough for a pastor to read up on.

Scott Seaton, former MTW missionary, spoke of the vital gospel issues being raised. Travis Hutchinson testified to his unsuccessful efforts to get materials from MTW and the unique gifts of the PCA in examining such an issue. Finally, Bill Nikides, visibly shaken by the issue, spoke of his interviews with over 200 "Insider Christians," and the reality of baptized Christians leaving the church for the mosque with the encouragement of Western missionaries.

The overture passed strongly on the first vote and overwhelmingly on the second. Praise God.

And Being Nice Ends...

The Committee of Commissioners on MTW (CoC MTW), whose responsibility it is to provide representational supervision to the Permanent Committee on MTW, overwhelmingly voted to restore the Potomac Presbytery's language in their overture which called for the General Assembly to erect a Study Committee on Insider Movements. This is perhaps the most important theological issue for the evangelical church in our time and most of our churches and churchmen are largely ignorant of the issue.

When the CoC MTW presented its report, the chairman of the Permanent Committee moved that the section of the CoC report dealing with the Study Committee was out of order, effectively seeking to wipe it off of the Assembly's business without debate. The chairman found the chairman's motion in order and a commissioner from the floor challenged the ruling of the moderator. The commissioner challenging the chair admitted that the chair was probably technically correct, as was Dr. David Coffin, the perennial procedural watchdog who weighed in supporting the moderator. But, the commissioner said, this was a issue wherein the letter of the law was being used to kill debate on an issue of vital importance.

The Assembly almost overturned the Moderator's ruling - very unusual since the commissioner argued that Moderator was in fact right.

With the issue now headed to the dustbin for the next year, another commissioner moved to recommit the item back to the CoC MTW to fix the technical problem with their resolution. An explanation here is in order. The CoC on MTW was RESTORING the language of the Potomac Presbytery. But they formatted it wrong and it was considered "new business", which it wasn't, and it was ruled out of order without debate.

Another commissioner moved to recommit the business to the CoC MTW so that the Committee could "fix" the formatting errors and bring it back to the Assembly. This was certainly a brotherly solution to the problem. The Chairman of the Permanent Committee immediately spoke against the motion to recommit.

While this all may sound confusing, it isn't that hard to understand. The Potomac Presbytery gave an Overture to the General Assembly expecting (or at least hoping) that the Assembly would get to vote on their whole Overture. The Permanent Committee is a small group of men who necessarily function in very close relationship with Dr. Paul Kooistra. The Permanent Committee, together with Dr. Kooistra decided that a Study Committee was not the best way to deal with the issue (and there's NO disagreement that the denomination should stand against radical Movements) and deleted it from Potomac's motion. The Committee of Commissioners, which is a large body of men appointed from their presbyteries to oversee the work of the Permanent Committee restored the Study Committee to the Overture so that the whole Assembly could debate it and vote on it.

The Assembly overwhelmingly voted to allow the CoC MTW to fix the formatting problems and bring their concerns and motion to the floor for open debate.

Please pray that the men of the Assembly will judge these matters on biblical principles and be led by the Spirit in love.

More Truth Comes Out

The Aquila Report reveals that the "emperor has no clothes" so to speak. Clements writes:

Dr. Kooistra was invited to explain CMTW’s recommendation of removal of the study committee from the overture. MTW had issued a statement saying that a committee was unnecessary given the fact that MTW was already equipped to assist churches deal with insider movement issues. Upon further questioning, Dr. Kooistra said that the statement did not originate from him and was not strictly accurate. Further questions determined that materials available through MTW were very minimal and included much material that was written by insider movement advocates.

Is this really the best that we can do? With the wonderful Study Reports that the PCA has produced on Creation and Marriage should we not produce one on the most important theological issue of our time? Should we not bring to the table some of our wonderful theologians, missiologists, Islam experts and missionaries and produce a report that MTW and our churches can use in thinking through these vitally important issues?

Read the entire Aquila Report article here.

Note: Dr. Kooistra is not the "emperor" here, the idea that MTW has produced all of the needed materials on Insider Movements is.

Correction

With the Assembly Internet currently down I'm correcting a post from earlier today. A friend who is one of the Former Insider experts at MTW asked me to correct my statement that he claimed that MTW didn't have any studies on the Insider Movement. He said that Dr. Kooistra states that he has three articles on the Movement. I initially thought that meant Mr. Kooistra has WRITTEN three articles, but it turns out that he simply HAS three articles, presumably for distribution to interested parties. Maybe this is the material that MTW "has available to the churches to help evaluate Insider Movements"?

All of this seems a far cry from level of study and evaluation most pastors would expect from our denomination concerning the most important theological/missiological issue of our time...

The Study Committee passes through committee: Praise!

Praise God that the overture to erect a study committee on Insider Movements passed out of the Committee of Commissioners (CoC) on Mission to the World this evening. The CoC reversed the Committee on MTW which struck the proposal from the Overture because they claimed that MTW had already done the studies and had materials ready to assist churches in evaluating Insider Movements. The problem with MTW's opposition to the study committee is that a) MTW seems to not be responding to requests from churches for the material (see below); b) at least one former MTW Islam specialist is claiming that comprehensive studies don't exist; c) since this is a missiological heresy would we not want people outside of MTW doing some of the work so as to give accountability and oversight to MTW?

This news means that the overture will hit the floor of General Assembly intact and the commissioners we get to vote on the study committee as the main motion.

It is entirely possible that MTW just saw this as an unnecessary action because MTW has already decided against Insider Movements. Now they may shrug their shoulders and let the Assembly decide. If they, and their representatives, fight this one hard from the floor, however, it will leave many people wondering what possible dog they have in the hunt? What would motivate them to oppose it? The natural answer would be stewardship - the denomination doesn't need to spend the money. But since Paul Kooistra hasn't gone on record opposing ByFaith Magazine or the CE&P Bookstore, calls for stewardship would ring pretty hollow.

MTW has puzzling opposition to Study Committee on Insider Movements

On May 9 of this year the Committee on MTW passed a resolution recommending to the GA that it PASS the overture condemning "Insider" Bible translations but STRIKE the language calling for a study committee. The rationale is, in their own words, "MTW has conducted extensive research and has numerous resources and tools available to
assist local churches in evaluating insider movements."

What is the "Insider Movement"? Well, in some forms, it's bad, bad, bad... It's heresy, and we're not talking about paedocommunion heresy or Federal Vision heresy (which don't really fit the category of heresy) - it's completely give up the Gospel heresy and destroy the Church in the Islamic World, straight from the Pit of Hell heresy. Insider Movements tell Muslims that they can be good Muslims and believe in Jesus. They don't have to join a church, reject Mohammed, or get baptized. All they have to do is believe in Jesus. Brothers and sisters, since Islam is a religion created explicitly to reject Judaism and Christianity, that would be like saying that you can be a Christian and a Satanist (except you'd do a LOT less harm to others as a Satanist).

What my missiologist friends are telling me is that the Insider Movement, rather than adding to the number of Christians, is growing by luring Christians out of churches! There are also rumblings that MTW has been less than vigorous in dealing with this in the mission field. Now, Paul Kooistra (head of MTW) has apparently rejected Insider theology without reservation and written a short article or two about it. The problem is that there are Insider experts who are criticizing MTW's manner of dealing with this issue.

Do we really need a denominational study committee on this? Here are some reasons why we MUST have a study committee.

1) While they are claiming that they have material available to the churches, I wrote them as a pastor of a church asking for it and got no response. People I know who are "in the know" say that there's nothing they have besides an article or two by Dr. Kooistra. Maybe they have more, but they aren't giving them to the churches.

2) Since there's some rumbling about the cleanliness of MTW's hands in all of this, it would be most proper for people outside of MTW to deal with this. Not that MTW is always concerned about proper accountability and being beyond reproach in appearances. This is the agency which has Dr. Kooistra's brother as CFO (Dr. Kooistra controls the organization and his brother controls the money). My wife is a CPA and she doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the church finances because of the possible appearance of impropriety. It is important with money, but even more with the accurate teaching of the Gospel.

3) This is THE most significant theological issue since inerrancy. Do we wish to be asleep at the switch when this train comes bursting out of the tunnel?

GA 2011 Virginia Beach

Well, next week is the PCA General Assembly. I'll be blogging during the Assembly (GA) again; I hope more than last year - it'll keep me from speaking as much. This year's GA is in Virginia Beach - nice. The best deal my assistant could find was a beachfront cabin near the Assembly. [[Turns out, beachfront is not so beachfront. 10 minutes from the beach.] Life is hard.

Here are some initial impressions on the issues for this year:

1) Funding of the Administrative Committee - Last year's debate centered on AC funding and the vision for our denomination. The supporters of the AC were able to push the plan through, very painfully. The rancor left a bad taste in everyone's mouths and it got voted down resoundingly in the Presbyteries. I have no idea why the members of the AC thought is was appropriate for our denominational employees to come up with a plan to force us to give money for their initiatives and salaries and then decide how to punish or "forgive" individual churches. Aren't we supposed to be telling them what to do and not vice versa?

2) Vision for the PCA - The "powers that be," who for good and ill got us where we are today and consist mostly of middle-aged white guys, are going to continue to "lead us" in adopting strategies to reach racial and ethnic minorities, young people and the poor. They will be largely opposed by pastors who work with racial and ethnic minorities, young people and the poor. Since the pastors who matter most are the ones who pastor the largest and wealthiest churches, the wealthy pastors and their friends in the AC and other denominational agencies (which they control), they will likely continue to take the lead in fixing the problems which they have both identified and created. We all hope that this year they actually use data in examining the problems and Scripture in looking for solutions.

3) Heresy in Missions - The "Insider Movement," which is a missiological strategy for reaching Muslims by telling them they do not have to leave Islam, join a church or get baptized, has been a hot topic for discussion in mission circles. One presbytery has submitted an overture condemning an Insider Bible Translation and calling for a study committee.

I have been told by a reliable source that Mission to the World (MTW), our denominational mission board, supports the condemnation of the translation but not the study committee because they have already studied the issue. Don't take my secondhand report as gospel, but if it is true (which will be revealed on the floor, most likely) there are several troubling things to consider. [Update: On May 9, the Committee on MTW passed a resolution making minor editorial changes to the motion on the translation and striking the erection of a study committee. The language is troubling indeed: "Rationale for Omitting the Study Committee MTW has conducted extensive research and has numerous resources and tools available to assist local churches in evaluating insider movements."

First, one of MTW's experts on Insider Movements left MTW in frustration over the issue, dissatisfied over MTW's handling of Insider situations in the field.

Second, I contacted MTW weeks ago for copies of their "studies" on the issue and have never received any response. Do any actual studies exist? Their former expert says "no."

Third, Dr. Paul Kooistra is a godly man and an effective administrator and fund raiser, but he's no theologian or missiologist. With the most important controversy in missions now brewing, we need to bring in the big guns in scholarship and missions. And, since a study committee would examine our denomination's involvement with Insider Movements, it would warn us or clear MTW of any problems. But if MTW is doing all of the examination, the fox is watching the henhouse.

Of course this is a common failing in our denomination, witness the placement of Bryan Chapell (the head of our seminary) on the Standing Judicial Committee. Denominations almost always fall by way of the seminaries, so why would you put the head of the seminary on the commission whose purpose it is to provide judicial oversight over the seminary? In the PCA it doesn't matter, because they're all Good People - until they're not.