A Sabbatical
By Travis Scott, May 15, 2023.
A ministry colleague recently reached to say, “It just occurred to me that I haven't seen anything from Semper Ref for a while. Is that intentional or is everyone just busy with real life?” In many ways, I think the answer to the question is simply, Yes.
I’m starting a much needed three month sabbatical today and since the language of sabbatical is much on my mind these days, that is how I’ll describe the current status of Semper Ref. There has been an unintentional sabbatical, and now an intentional one.
An Unintentional Sabbatical
Semper Ref has been in a period of unintentional rest and sabbatical for most of this year and the second part of my colleague’s inquiry reveals much of the reason. Everyone is busy with real life and ministry.
I think it’s fair to say that I’ve been the main driver of content, both in my own writing and soliciting the writing of others. And I’ve just been too busy with normal life and ministry. My two co-contributors, Ben and Tim, are in the same boat. The reality is that all three of us have young families, and all three of us are solo pastors of smaller churches. This means our time is limited and we want to keep our priorities in line.
Connected to that is the other reality that running Semper Ref is not a paying gig. While we think it was important to create and maintain a space for helpful Reformed perspectives on faith, life, and ministry; and we thought it was even more important to create and maintain an outlet providing perspectives on the PCA that may differ with the larger outlets which seem to be in lockstep with one another – the fact is we don’t get paid for this. Nor do we want to. Unlike some of those larger outlets and groups we have no paid advertising, we don’t think we need donations to be the group to cultivate healthy Reformed churches in the PCA, and unlike one of the most toxic and anonymous of those groups, we don’t do email blasts with links requesting support.
We don’t want any of that, but it does mean that the site is entirely voluntary and any costs are paid out of pocket. We have no one who is paid to write or to solicit and manage content. This means there will just be slow periods of publishing. We also don’t pay people to write for us which has kept a few people from submitting articles. That also means that many of those who are willing to submit articles to Semper Ref are in the same boat as us – busy pastors of small churches and plants. And we’re fine with that as well. We want this to be a labor of love for our fellow ministers in particular and for our denomination at large.
I have several articles in the works, things I’ve started and just haven’t had the time to finish. I even have some working titles like: In Defence of Being Missional, Confessional Humility, The Fatal Flaw of Strict Subscription, A Biblical Defense of Missional Contextualization, Post-Christian Pollywog, The Boundaries of the Big Tent
These are a few of the things I’ve been working on but haven’t had a chance to bring to completion. Hopefully in the future I’ll be able to bring them to fruition. There are also pieces other people have suggested that I just haven’t had the time to help them cultivate and edit.
And it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to see any of this come to fruition for at least three months. That’s because I need, and I think Semper Ref needs, an intentional sabbatical.
An Intentional Sabbatical
As I mentioned, I’m about to start a three month sabbatical from my church. If I took a sabbatical from my regular ongoing, local ministry and yet kept writing and engaging online, I think it would be a gross misuse of this generous gift God is giving me through my Session and congregation. So I won’t be engaging with Semper Ref related content, issues, ideas for the next three months.
However, if I’m honest I have to admit that apart from my sabbatical, Semper Ref probably needs something of an intentional sabbatical itself. If I’m even more honest I have to admit that a sabbatical is needed because I’m not sure the effort behind Semper Ref is worth it.
Even though there are sectors of the PCA who don’t want to acknowledge it for what it is, there is a battle being waged for the soul of the PCA. Maybe it’s because I’m a cynical Gen Xer, or maybe it’s because I’m a blunt Yankee (wait did I just disqualify myself from office by using that identity language?); but I’m just not sure it’s worth it to be a part of this battle anymore.
Let me be clear, I think there has been value in the website to date. We’ve had lots of people express their appreciation for the viewpoints that have been published. We’ve had ministers reach out to thank us for providing an outlet that reminded them they’re not alone in the denomination. We’ve had other ministers express gratitude that their parishioners stumbled onto us and found a PCA voice that wasn’t vitriolic. From the feedback we’ve gotten it seems clear that there has been some value in Semper Ref over the last several years of this battle. If nothing else, we think there’s even been worth in trying to model a different approach to our mistakes and missteps – where necessary, we’ve been committed to apologizing and retracting articles and tweets that were unfair or not Christ-like. That is sadly rare in the current climate of online ecclesial dialogue. If we continue to move forward with Semper Ref we pray that the Spirit would help us to continue to own our mistakes and respond appropriately.
However, while there has been some good in the last couple years of Semper Ref’s publishing, I’m just not sure it’s worth it anymore. The main reason for that is because while many have expressed appreciation for our voice, our voice isn’t the one that’s most important for the future of the PCA.
Though it’s several years old now, in their article “The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism”, Michael Graham and Skyler Flowers do a masterful job of describing and outlining the current crisis in the Western, primarily North American, Evangelical church. In particular, they observe that “evangelicalism seems to be fracturing into at least 6 different subgroups” and that there are significant tensions and fault lines between each of those groups.
Of particular relevance to the PCA are the groups that Graham and Flowers call the 1s, 2s, and 3s - the primary groups that make up the PCA. Here’s the description of these groups from the article [1]:
Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelical (1s) – Neo-fundamentalists are those who have deep concerns about both political and theological liberalism. There is some overlap and co-belligerency with Christian Nationalism (a syncretism of right wing nationalism and Christianity) but neo-fundamentalists do so with more theological vocabulary and rationality. Concerning threats within the church, they have deep worries with the church’s drift towards liberalism and the ways secular ideologies are finding homes in the church. Outside the church, they are concerned by the culture’s increasing hostility to Christianity, most prominently from mass media, social media, and the government.
Mainstream Evangelical (2s) – Historically this term has been Protestants who hold to the Bebbington Quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism, and cruci-centrism. The emphasis for this group is on the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Concerning threats within the church, they share some concern for the secular right’s influence on Christianity, including the destructive pull of Christian Nationalism, but are far more concerned by the secular left’s influence and the desire to assimilate since the world still remains so hostile. Outside the church, they are likely uncomfortable with the rhetoric Trump and other conservatives use but view this direction as the lesser of two evils.
Neo-Evangelical (3s) – People who would see themselves as “global evangelicals” and are doctrinally “Evangelicals” (w/ some philosophy of ministry differences) but no longer use the term “evangelical” in some circumstances in the American context as the term as an identifier has evolved to be more political than theological. Within the church, they are highly concerned by conservative Christianity’s acceptance of Trump and failure to engage on topics of race and sexuality in helpful ways, but they have not totally abandoned evangelical identification and likely still labor in churches with the broadest spectrum of these groups. Outside of the church, this group feels largely homeless in today’s world. There is equal concern, or slightly more either way depending on the person, at the threat the left and the right pose to Christians seeking to live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness.
As they assess real world groups of Christians they note that there is a deep tension and divide which they describe as existing between the 1s and 3s. While they lay out different fault lines and tensions, this is the one that I believe is the crux of the current battle within the PCA. Again here is their description:
Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelicals (1s) think that 3s have a compromised Gospel that has imported worldly ideas of social justice into the church and are in danger of apostasy as a result. These things come to a head primarily on the topics of race and politics. 1s cannot fathom that 3s might not have voted for the “pro-life” Trump and elected to abstain, vote third party, or vote for Biden. 1s struggle to understand that evangelicals would be activists on anything except abortion.
Many neo-evangelicals (3s) struggle with what they would view as ethical compromise in voting for someone with the moral track record of Donald Trump and resent the pressure from 1s to do so. 3s also struggle with the 1s view that we live in a post-racial colorblind society and there aren’t lingering effects of the awful legacy of chattel slavery and Jim Crow systems of racial oppression and white dominance. 3s struggle with the idea that 1s see ongoing positive historical legacy of the societal benefits conferred by our Constitution but that 1s see no continuation of a negative historical legacy of the much more recent harm inflicted by slavery and Jim Crow. 3s struggle with the close proximity of 1s political and national identity to their Christian identity.
The upshot of these things means significant philosophy of ministry differences in how to contextualize the Gospel in this cultural moment. Disagreements over mercy, justice, strategies, tactics, affect, and culture are not easily bridged. In many instances these differences will be fatal. (Emphasis mine.)
While Graham and Flowers are dealing mainly with the way these different groups inhabit cultural and political ideas, I think the real area of conflict in the PCA is found in differences in how to contextualize the Gospel in this cultural moment. These differences have led PCA 3s to see PCA 1s (unfairly at times) as being more interested in engaging in culture wars than winsomely living out and sharing the gospel. While, on the other hand, these differences have led the PCA 1s to repeatedly accuse the PCA 3s of compromising the gospel and giving in to progressivism. In our circles the accusations also take form in the language of 1s being “confessional” with the implication that the 3s are not.
This is the challenge, and I have to admit that where 4 years ago I thought we could work through this, I’m no longer as optimistic that the PCA can be a denomination that spans the range of 1-3. This takes me back to what I said above, that the voice of Semper Ref (largely representative of a 3 perspective) [2] is not the most important one in this current denominational crisis.
The most important voice is that of the PCA 2’s, which has been largely silent, or has been so desperate to keep the peace between 1s and 3s that they fail to make it clear what they want for the future of the denomination. What I’ve heard repeatedly is that the 2s want to work things out, to find peace between the groups, to stay connected with the 1s and 3s. The problem is that the 1s and 3s clearly don’t want this. Or, maybe more accurately, 3s like myself might be happy for that except for the fact that the 1s keep telling us we’re the ones who are the source of all the problems and who need to leave for the denomination to get back on track.
Imagine the PCA as a relationship, a marriage so to speak. There are three parties involved with the marriage - the couple (1s and 3s) and a counselor/pastor (2s). Within this relationship one partner is continuously attacking, denigrating, and gaslighting the other, telling them they are the problem in the marriage (we see this everytime the 1s claim to be the ones who are Reformed, Confessional, etc.; and then tell the 3s they are unhealthy progressives). In the midst of this the counselor/pastor (2s) keeps saying, "I'm not taking sides. I'm here for you both. I need to support you both." If this were a marriage situation, what would we think about that counselor/pastor and their understanding of marital health? What would we think of their proposed solution to the conflict? Depending on your answer to that, you might understand my growing lack of trust and patience with the middle of the PCA. You might understand why I’m not sure it’s worth it to keep fighting for denominational health when the 2s are content to ignore and enable the slander of the 1s.
In the PCA, the 1's are actively trying to push the 3's out and/or make the denomination uninhabitable for them. The 2's say they want a denomination where 1s, 2s, and 3s can all live together, but then do nothing to stop the behavior of the 1's, and actually empower it by their silence and implicit acceptance.
The message I keep hearing from 2s in private is how much the PCA needs the 3's like me and that we shouldn't leave. What I've said is that that sounds good, except for the fact that the actions/silence of the 2’s and their denominational leadership keeps enabling the guys telling us to get out. If that keeps happening then the 2s shouldn’t be surprised if they turn around someday and there are no more 3's left because they got tired. When the 1's are allowed to make life and ministry miserable for 3's (because of their expressed desire to see us leave) you can't fault the 3's for going.
The PCA needs the 2s to use their voice and tell the 1s and 3s what they want. Do you want the PCA to be the Big Tent Conservative Presbyterian denomination it’s historically been? Or do you want to see it significantly narrowed? Do you want the PCA to continue to hold a Good Faith/System Subscription approach to our Confession? Or are you okay with us slowly being molded into a Strict Subscription denomination? Do you want to see ecclesial unity or uniformity? Do you want a denomination where a Session can allow a woman and non-ordained man to read Scripture in a worship service? Or do you want a denomination where that’s forbidden? Do you want a denomination where slander is never dealt with and one group of your brothers can continue to insult the confessional orthodoxy of another group of brothers with impunity? Or would you also like to see that stop? Tell us what you want, and then back that up. That way the 1s and 3s will know where we truly stand.
What’s clear is that we can’t continue functioning as we have been. The status quo isn’t working. We need your answers to know if we are laboring with false hope.
And so, to make a short point less long, until the 2s step up and use their voice to tell us where they want to see the denomination head in ministry, mission, and tone - I’m not sure efforts like Semper Ref are really worth it. It’s likely that a few articles by others will come out over the summer and that we’ll resume publishing articles in August. For now though, it’s time for an intentional sabbatical.
[1] All taxonomies fall short at some point, and this one doesn’t perfectly map onto the divisions in the PCA. There would also be a spectrum within each of these subgroups, Graham and Flowers suggest a .5 approach. However, with regards to the tensions and general postures being experienced in the PCA, I think this breakdown is a helpful one for getting our heads around the challenge.
[2] I think I’m actually more of a 2.5 and I’d argue that most of the content Semper Ref has put out is closer to that than a pure 3. However, for the sake of discussion I think it’s fair to place us at 3 on the spectrum.
