Talk:Presbyterian Church in America

message: 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)
thread_title: Fundamentalism

message: 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)
thread_title: More neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Doctrine section may need some rewording...

message: 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)
thread_title: People

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  attempted merger with the OPC 

message: The lists at  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)
thread_title:  Out of control lists 

message: 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)
thread_title: Life issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes were WERE constructive. This article has far, far too many photos of church buildings! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable lists need pruning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two churches that have recently moved to PCA 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, the list includes former members so I don't see a problem with including Leithart. StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  he was a teaching elder of the church - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  some things that need to be corrected 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background