PCA repents of all the sins of humanity
The PCA has been beating its breast for several years now on the subject of racial reconciliation.
The 30th GA, which I believe was in 2002, adopted Overture #20 from Nashville, which declared in part:
“We therefore confess our involvement in these sins. As a people, both we and our fathers, have failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded.”
I hope to some day deconstruct the entire overture and its backwash. Right now, I’m just stuck on the phrase “both we and our fathers.”
By their “fathers” they obviously mean their great-great-grandfathers who may have owned slaves and/or defended the practice.
They are repenting, in other words, for something their “fathers” did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of.
When someone repents of his fathers’ sins, which his fathers did not even believe were sins, is this a sign of being humbled under conviction of sin, or is it more likely a noisy bit of self-righteous posturing?
Moreover, since the statement defines the fathers’ sins very broadly (”failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded”) I presume that everyone could justly follow in the footsteps of the PCA and repent of the sins of his fathers (if the PCA can justly do so).
I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their “father” Adam and repent of original sin.
[…] The PCA has shown us how to repent of the “sins” of our fathers, which sounds kind of weird, but might be fun at parties. “They are repenting, in other words, for something their ‘fathers’ did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of… I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their ‘father’ Adam and repent of original sin.” […]
Pingback by Little Geneva - Reformed Confederate Theocrats » Blog Archive » Breeding Between the Lines — September 13, 2006 @ 10:06 am
Now the Senate follows in the PCA’s footsteps to apologize for “injustice” perpetrated by men other than themselves.
Most of these men do not believe in vicarious atonement. Yet they think they can apologize on behalf of other men; of dead men who would not necessarily agree that they had done anything wrong.
Comment by TJH — September 24, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
This is an example of how even allegedly conservative churches are taking the cue for their sanctification from their secular rulers. The “sin” is not defined as a sin by the Bible, but it is so defined by the jewish talking heads; and that is enough to set our modern churchmen into compliant motion.
Comment by TJH — August 20, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
What is the Reformed position on guilt “to the 14th generation?”
Comment by danielj — August 21, 2008 @ 9:03 pm