Talk:Presbyterian Church in America

Neutrality

Much of this article reads like an advertisement for the PCA and is thus wholly inappropriate in an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Leave that stuff for the tracts and denominational materials. The interplay between racial segregation and the formation of the PCA was completely ignored until revised. History is history. Whitewashing a rather unfortunate component in the formation of the PCA because it is now impolitic is unacceptable. The denomination now strives for racial reconciliation and wholly repudiates the segregationist sentiments that once existed in the past. But, owning up to history is critical in repudiating the sins of the past. Obviously, race was far from the only issue that precipitated the formation of the PCA, but to act as if race had no part in the formation of the denomination is both intellectually dishonest and spiritually fraudulent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.159.109 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits by Mtstroud are in my opinion a mixed bag. Some of the edits make the article more neutral (e.g. the changes in the intro), but some make it, IMHO, less neutral, which is why I added the POV tag. Here are two example quotations that strike me more as value judgements:

The union represented a highly unusual move for two fundamentalist bodies, as church union was something normally scorned, if not outright condemned as heretical, in conservative Protestant circles throughout most of the 20th century.

The PCA has a reputation of being one of the most conservative of all Presbyterian/Reformed (and possibly all Protestant) bodies in the U.S. Unlike the current PCUSA, the PCA adheres only to the traditional statements of Anglo-Saxon Presbyterianism....

I don't have time to do a thorough review of the changes or to make a more neutral revision right now, but I wanted to flag the changes and possibly get the ball rolling. --Flex 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both points, and will edit accordingly. Regarding #1) The statement itself is snide; furthermore, as a PCA member, I don't think the label of fundamentalist is appropriate in the first place. Certainly there are fundamentalist elements (e.g. DJK), but overall I see a denomination that is conservative yet thoughtful, and not overly involved in politics. Regarding #2) Yes, PCA is more conservative than PCUSA (not hard), but have you seen those OPC folks? Now they're hard-core.  :) --BlueMoonlet 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more comments, as I go about editing:

• The ERA post-dated the formation of the PCA, so it could not have been a factor. Bringing up civil rights is a hot-button issue, and an unspecific reference to a collection of essays is not much of a reference, so I'm softening that paragraph until a more specific reference is made.
• Regarding "a high number of converts to the denomination have roots in other evangelical Protestant bodies...", I don't see how this is relevant, unless there is hard evidence that this is more true of PCA than it is of other American denominations.
• Regarding "These factors produce an intense, self-conscious conservatism that expresses itself..." Again, connections to Religious Right should be mentioned, but they hardly define the denomination.

--BlueMoonlet 05:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work! --Flex 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

Mtstroud added this sentence:

Nonetheless, it [the PCA] generally fits the definitions of classic fundamentalism, tolerating little, if any, significant public dissent from its stated viewpoints.

First of all "fundamentalism" is a loaded (and mostly pejorative) term that carries more emotional content and informational content and should be avoided for that reason alone. Second, the statement about tolerating "little, if any, significant public dissent" certainly needs to be justified with a citation before it could be accepted here. As a counter example, Tim Keller's church dissents on the matter of deaconesses, and so it "installs" both men and women in the "office" instead of ordaining them according to the Book of Church Order. This is clearly a work-around for a divergent view, but Keller has not received a reprimand from the denomination. --Flex 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More neutrality

I have reworded and reinserted that reference about civil rights and Vietnam with a more precise citation (cf. #Neutrality above). 71.254.39.194 has deleted it multiple times, but I have asked him/her to join us here to reach consensus about it. --Flex 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Doctrine section may need some rewording...

A Snip from that section:

The PCA is generally regarded as more conservative than the larger PCUSA, and significant elements within the PCA are enthusiastically part of the so-called Religious Right, with its cultural and political implications. At the same time, however, the PCA has always maintained a measure of traditional Presbyterian detachment and respect for academic endeavor.

I don't think that the writer meant for it to come across like this, but to me it sounds as if it was saying: "Yeah, they are Religious right, but They aren't like the rest of the religious right, because they actually respect academic endeavor"

Which would kind of be a POV statement about the religious right itself, and an untrue one to me.

I'm going to try and reword it a bit more neutrally, but I'll admit that I'm a little bit biased here myself. If someone has a better way to do it than i do, feel free to clean up behind me. Wahooker

I think that their stance toward women needs to be mentioned in more detail. Included in this would be headship, lack of ordination of women and overall hostility for any sort of opinions that deviate from their own stance on gender. I experienced this and I don't think it is explored enough in this article. They are extremely fundementalist in this regard and if someone is coming here to find information on this denomination (or any for that matter) I think they should have a balanced view of what they may be getting into. Also, the statement about the installation of female deacons is misleading. Very few churches have done this. In most cases, women are not allowed to speak in church.70.35.173.198 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)theabused

I don't think your experience is entirely typical. Certainly there are stricter churches and presbyteries, but there is also considerable variation. I am familiar with a PCA church whose standard is "a woman can do anything a non-ordained male can do" (e.g., teach Sunday school), and I'm familiar with a church in a different presbytery that didn't even allow women to be ushers and collect the offering. Tim Keller's Redeemer PCA (one of the flagship churches of the PCA with an estimated 5000 attenders) doesn't "ordain" their deacons but rather "installs" them, allowing them to have functional deaconesses. In a more conservative presbytery, this skirting the denomination's position on deaconesses might have been quashed, but it hasn't been and likely won't be in Keller's. Hence, because there is considerable variation throughout the denomination, to characterize the PCA as "extremely fundamentalist" is not a balanced view. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rick Nutt quote

The quote by Rick Nutt is speculative and impossible to substantiate. Unless you can find a source within the PCA (e.g. from its General Assembly) that confirms his statement I don't see why it ought to appear on this page. As a general rule, is it not better to build an understanding of a group's views from their own writings and statements rather than from a critic of the group? I think it would be best to delete this quote until it can be substantiated by some statement or writing from within the PCA itself. In any case, the deletion is not "arbitrary" so please don't change it back again without stating why you are doing so in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaktoros (talk • contribs)

First of all, it is not necessarily reliable to rely only on statements from the organization. Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il would have rather favorable entries if we didn't listen to the other sides. Second, the neutrality policy of the Wikipedia dictates that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." The PCUSA has a different (and published!) perspective on the church split that created the PCA, and hence their view should be represented. If we can find a reliable source that gives the PCA's perspective on this point, it should also be cited/quoted. Hence, I will restore the Rick Nutt quote. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be removed - it uses the language "likely also influential in some quarters". How likely? How much is "some"? The statement by its own admission is speculative and of uncertain scope. Furthermore, the statement itself would be quite an indictment if true, as it paints the church as war-mongering, woman-hating, racists. Due to the speculative nature of the quote and its inflammatory nature it should be removed. Tiki2099 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I agree and think the statement is too speculative and inflammatory to be included -- I don't have the actual publication but what is relayed in the included information is that the statement (of its own admission) is basically one man's opinion without any historical background or support. However, I think in the interest of maintaining neutrality, I think the statement should remain until we obtain a better consensus on whether it should be removed or not. So, anyone who has an opinion, please weigh in here! In the interim, I have edited the section a bit to clairify that the quote comes from an individual from the successor of the denomination which the PCA churches left. It seems important to know that fact -- it helps to understand the quote if you know it comes from someone with a group that "lost" and actively sought to prevent the departure of PCA churches. Hjg001 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article. The article indeed makes a good case that part of the dissatisfaction with the PCUS was increasing involvement in social and political issues, which are outside of the Biblical mission of the church. It goes off the rails with statements like "Racism as a factor in the origin of the PCA is clear when one notes that the strength of the denomination was in Mississippi, Alamaba, and South Carolina". I think it would be reasonable to say in the main article, "According to an author affiliated with the PC(USA), the successor to the denomination which the PCA church's left, one motivating factor was PCUS's increasing involvement in political affairs and social issues", or something like that. Tiki2099 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you about leaving out the claims about explicit racism (unless there's some more solid, less circumstantial evidence -- I haven't read the article), which it doesn't say anyway. Also I think the extensive disclaimer makes it too clunky, so I'd prefer to see it neutrally worded so both sides can agree upon it without the need for such qualifications. How about:

An historian of the mainline Presbyterian church which the PCA left suggests another motive was some dissatisfaction with the PCUS's increasing involvement in political and social affairs, such as their general opposition to the Vietnam War and support of the civil rights movement and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Objections? --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...I agree that my earlier edit was a bit cumbersome but couldn't come up with a better wording at the time -- your's works for me. Hjg001 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing this for the first time. I have no interest in getting into a Wikipedia argument, but I defend my statement about racism playing a role in the formation of the PCA (along with opposition to broadening of theology, women’s roles in the church, criticism of the Vietnam War, etc.) My claim is not based on the one assertion relating to the states wherein the PCA was most numerous. I cite many articles in the Southern Presbyterian Journal that denounced the civil rights movement, a quotation from Morton Smith in which he argues the biblical basis of segregation, and other evidence. It is on the basis of that entire body of evidence that I make the assertion that race played a role in the founding of the PCA. I would note, also, that Frank Smith, who wrote the first (loving) history of the denomination, notes that opposition to a PCUS memorial service for Dr. King helped feed PCA sentiment. Rick Nutt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Nutt (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

People

Should Rev. Frank Barker be added to the article somewhere (at least in the People with PCA Background) since he was one of the founders PCA? Also, should it be mentioned that Briarwood Presbyterian Church was the first PCA church? bandgeek (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A PCUSA Affiliated Author

The last sentence of the third paragraph of the History section says,

"According to an author affiliated with the PC(USA), the successor to the denomination which the PCA churches left, a less :explicitly stated motive that was likely also influential in some quarters was the dissatisfaction with the PCUS's general :opposition to the Vietnam War and support of the civil rights movement and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Who is this author? Is it the Rick Nutt listed in the citation?--72.155.113.105 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes (see prior discussion). We could put his name in the article text for clarity. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

attempted merger with the OPC

The section "Merger" ends with "In 1986 the PCA again invited the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to join them, but without success." The previous paragraph states "The PCA had originally invited ... the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (to the merger). The OPC voted to accept the invitation to join the PCA, but the PCA voted against receiving them." So are we to read that the OPC was for the merger in 1982 but against it in 1986? And why did the PCA invite them the first time, only to refuse them? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

yes and yes. The Norman Shepherd controversy ended up convincing a majority of the pca against the first merger. The second time around the opc had this big anniversary celebration so the elders weren't so keen on voting themselves out of existence. --JFH (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Out of control lists

The lists at §§ Notable churches in the PCA​ and Notable people in the history of the PCA are growing out of control -- their current length (38 churches and 42 individuals) seems (IMHO) over the top. And it also seems that many of the people, while notable in the PCA, are not in the history of the PCA. YBG (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Life issues

I did some cleanup in this part of the entry but I couldn't find anywhere if the PCA does have a stance on the death penalty, so I suppose it doesn't have officially.Mistico (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes were WERE constructive. This article has far, far too many photos of church buildings!

User:FiendYT reverted my changes calling them "vandalism" on the edit summary and not "constructive". What do you mean, Fiend, by that? Please explain. This article has far, far, far too many photographs of church buildings. There is no need for so many. Photos of church buildings add no information or knowledge to the article. Fiend's reversion is entirely unjustified. Did he even examine the edits that were made? I suspect that this is an example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." --180.191.118.56 (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I am tremendously sorry for being a complete idiot at this situation. I didn't see the text below the spaces that you added. A little hard to explain on text what I'm trying to state right now. I just undid my revert to your last revision of the article. I am also currently suffering from some mental disorders, so please forgive my ignorance and misbehaving. My sincerest apologies my friend. FiendYT ★ 05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I have often done the same. When images are moved around and wording gets pushed lower (or higher), Wikipedia often shows the wording as being deleted in one place and added in another place.--180.191.118.56 (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you understand. I just hate it when those events occur, for I usually patrol vandalism pretty quickly without taking a second glance.FiendYT ★ 06:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable lists need pruning

It is refreshing to see an issue resolved amicably as it was in the previous section, #Changes were WERE constructive. This article has far, far too many photos of church buildings!.

This brings to mind the two very long lists in the main article, one of notable churches and the other of notable churches. Both need to be pruned IMHO. But I don't think merely pruning them is sufficient, as I assume over a period of months, people would return and add more items to each list.

What is needed is a simple criterion for what qualifies an individual or church to be notable in the context of this article. I don't have any strong opinion on what the criteria should be, but I do feel that there should be objective criteria that would keep these lists manageable. I'm not opposed to starting set list articles or categories, which in fact might reduce the tendency for the lists in this article to keep growing to unmanageable proportions. YBG (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Two churches that have recently moved to PCA

Two churches that moved to the PCA were recently re-added by an IP editor. There have been other congregations that have moved to the PCA recently and over the years, I am quite sure that this article should not list each and every one. If there is something particularly significant or illustrative about particular instances, please discuss it here and reach a consensus before adding them to the article. Thanks and happy editing. YBG (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the relevant recent edits.

rev → diff	Date (2016)	User	m	Bytes	Edit summary
729283688	07-11T05:07:55	‎91.82.186.222‎		+920‎=89,761	Undid revision 728412840 by YBG
728412840	07-05T08:13:15	‎YBG		-920‎=88,841	Reverted good faith edits by 91.82.186.222: Per WP:BRD, please see talk page. (TW)
728407631	07-05T07:04:06	‎91.82.186.222		+920‎=89,761	Undid revision 726810310 by Favonian
726810310	06-24T15:12:21	‎Favonian	m	-920‎=88,892	Reverted edits by 82.141.157.174 to last version by 68.4.151.120
726802926	06-24T14:01:33	‎82.141.157.174		+920‎=89,812	Undid revision 726004912 by Favonian
726004912	06-19T10:05:21	‎Favonian	m	-920‎=89,805	Reverted edits by VerdPres to last version by Dwo
726002286	06-19T09:30:23	‎VerdPres		-1‎=90,725	→‎Nationwide Growth
726001997	06-19T09:27:27	‎VerdPres		+97‎=90,726	→‎Nationwide Growth
726001748	06-19T09:24:24	‎VerdPres		+824‎=90,629	Friend This is important because not every former PCUSA congregations join ECO or EPC few join the PCA, I think it should remain
725292081	06-14T19:20:13	‎EvergreenFir		-824‎=89,803	Reverted 2 edits by 81.182.249.44: Continuation of edit warring immediately after 2 week block expired. (TW)
725291927	06-14T19:19:11	‎81.182.249.44		+111‎=90,627	→‎Nationwide Growth
725290976	06-14T19:11:54	‎81.182.249.44		+713‎=90,516	Undid revision 723059702 by Favonian
723059702	05-31T19:06:11	‎Favonian	m	-713‎=89,803	Reverted edits by 81.182.249.44 to last version by YBG
723058379	05-31T18:56:46	‎81.182.249.44		+713‎=90,516	Undid revision 723049429 by YBG
723049429	05-31T17:57:49	‎YBG		-713‎=89,803	→‎Nationwide Growth: Citing minutes, etc. may demonstrate facts but not notability. Let's keep this section from devolving into a list of churches.
723028693	05-31T15:24:15	‎81.182.249.44		+62‎=90,516	→‎Nationwide Growth
722196450	05-26T15:26:34	81.182.249.44		+375‎=90,436	→‎Nationwide Growth

YBG (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

Please remove Pether Leithart from notable PCA members. He does not belong among the notable members of the PCA. Puritan Marine (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the list includes former members so I don't see a problem with including Leithart. StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done he was a teaching elder of the church - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

some things that need to be corrected

it was Walter Kenyon, not Wynn Kenyon. i remember reading about the case it in "The Presbyterian Observer."

the window of withdrawal for congregations of the former P.C.U.S. was two years after the merger running for 7 years, i.e., 1985 to the end of December, 1992. The closing of this window was reported in "The Christian Observer" and i may still have the article.

the "Monsey", N.Y. congregation started as the West New Hempstead True Reformed Dutch Protestant CHurch, part of the 1st secession wave from the Reformed Church in America, an area of study for me, and I believe was the last congregation in the CHristian REformed Church to have a pure T.R.D.P.C. heritage. At one time there were 4 sister congregations in the area (Rockland COunty) but they died out. Other T.R.D.P.C. congregations survived by merging with other Christian REformed CHurch congregations. (The Ramsey, Ridgewood, and 1st Hackensack Presbyterian Churches and the South P.C. of Bergenfield also originated as T.R.D.P.C. congregations but are now in the PC(USA). 2nd P.C. of Hackensack was also T.R.D.P.C. in origin but when a fire destroyed its property presbytery ordered it to merge with the struggling Maywood P.C. The Leonia P.C. had its origin in the Leonia T.R.D.P.C. which died out during the Depression. ) There were 3 secession waves from the R.C.A., the second wave and most of the first wave merged to create the Christian Reformed CHurch in 1890. The third wave brought in a few churches but more importantly redirected arriving immigrants away from the R.C.A. and to what became the CHristian Reformed Church.

that picture of 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia is really, really old. the high tower on the left hand side was dismantled when it became structurally unsound. I heard the late Dr. Boice make some humorous references to it in one of his sermons. Westjersey (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2021-Presbytery-Map.jpg
• Korean Central Presbyterian Church Virginia.jpg
• Presbyteries2019.jpg
• Sarang Church Southern Cal.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Background

I found the background section jumping around in time. 2016 is followed by 1966 then 1973. I think it should be reodered to be strictly chronological. CraigEwert (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)