If the PCA is a “Big Tent” denomination, where does that put the Westminster Standards? Do they constitute the big top, under which TEs and REs must fit, with which they must agree or are the Standards in danger of becoming the sawdust floor, spread out for the big show and then swept up and discarded afterwards?
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- How to support Heidelmedia: use the donate button below this post.
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008).
- Discovering The Reformed Confession
- Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
- Can The PCA’s “Big Tent” Hold?
- Three Vital Questions For the PCA In 2021
- GRN To Former Moderators: You Are Not Building Trust
- Confessional Concerns And Conflict In The PCA With Presbycast
- More Thoughts About The PCA: Liberal v Conservative Is The Wrong Paradigm
- How “The Letter” Reads To An Outsider
- The Confession Must Not Be A Lost Language For Reformed Pastors
- Schleiermacher In The Background: The PCA’s Struggle Over Confessional Identity
- Flashback To 2006: “Presbyterians And Presbyterians Together” As The Background To The Open Letter (Updated)
- Machen’s Response To The Open Letter
- Machen’s Other Opponents: The Moderates
- The Question Of The Hour In The PCA
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Interesting reading, all these posts and comments about what’s going on with the PCA. Kinda reminds me of things that took place 40-50 years ago with the LCMS and soon-to-become the ELCA following a spin-off of the AELC coupled with a series of mergers with smaller synods such as the ULC, ALC, LCA, etc. to form the ELCA in the 80’s. Back then the contentious issues revolved around things like biblical inerrancy, higher criticism, etc. More recently, however, the mainline ELCA blazed a new trail into its apostasy by ordaining gay clergy and performing SSM’s. That last one, though, was a straw that broke the camel’s back for many, causing the formation of a new breakaway synod, the NALC. Ironically, though SSM and clergy issues caused the split, the new synod took much of it’s erroneous views of scripture with it when it left. And, yes, CINO would be a good acronym for the ELCA, too because they are clearly confessional in name only.
Obvious answer: big tent equals little confessionalism. Really big tent means confessionalism in name only: CINO (pronounced “Sigh – No”). There you go, a new acronym for your collection, provided free of charge by a likely soon to be departing 20 year PCA member.
This has been a rhetorical question since at least the year 2000 when the PCA adopted “good faith” subscription of the standards.
In theory or in practice?