Talk:Presbyterian Church in America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Presbyterian Church in America falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Neutrality

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.  :) --Tisco 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.

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)