Timothy Brindle's Floor Speeches at 2025 PCA General Assembly

On June 24-25, 2025, Teaching Elder Timothy Brindle gave two floor speeches at the 52nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), in which PCA Teaching Elders (pastors) and Ruling Elders gathered together for discussions and to make decisions regarding Christ's church.

Timothy's second speech garnered the most attention:

The scenario of Timothy's second speech

Mission to the North America is the Church planting agency of the PCA: At General Assembly, the elders present had the responsibility of voting on whether or not the Coordinator of MNA, Rev. Dr. Irwyn Ince, should be re-elected to serve for another year. The motion read as follows:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That having reviewed the work of the MNA Coordinator during 2024 according to the General Assembly guidelines, the MNA Permanent Committee commends TE Irwyn Ince for his leadership, with thanks to the Lord for the good results in MNA Ministry during 2024 and recommends his re-election as MNA Coordinator for another year."

Before it was time to vote, I knew that the moderator would open up the microphone for speeches in support of the motion, or against it. So I walked across the Assembly Hall towards microphone #6. To my delight, several other Presbyters walked up to microphones. I hoped that some of my fellow elders were arising to speak against Ince being renewed, especially because of Ince's beliefs in affinity groups and safe spaces. Therefore, I did not get on line but sat down next to the microphone to hear their speeches. What points did they make?

Earlier at General Assembly, others previously addressed concerns that "MNA's leadership erroneously allowed the posting of content that advised undocumented persons on ways to avoid being detained by authorities" (See a humble apology from Irwyn Ince). Those who spoke against Ince being renewed rightly addressed the significant budget problems, and the lack of new churches that had been planted. Those who spoke in support of Ince focused on personal strengths and accomplishments. Yet no one addressed the elephant in the room. I was very burdened to speak to the issue that was most egregious of all and worthy of mention: Ince's belief in affinity groups as safe spaces.

At that point, there was about a minute left on the topic timer. Therefore, I had to get to the point, and I did. The video footage proves that I spoke with temperance, as I was calm and patient - so I disagree that I was lacking decorum. Nor was it a personal attack that was procedurally out of order - that is because we were voting on whether a person, Irwyn Ince, should be renewed as Coordinator of MNA; and under question was this person's leadership performance and competency. For that reason, concerns were raised over his personal handling of the MNA budget and other matters that occurred under his leadership. But the man's beliefs are of the utmost importance - especially his stance on matters that touch on the gospel. Therefore, for me to address his stance on affinity groups was completely germane and totally relevant for the discussion. I disagree with the moderator, Kevin DeYoung, for interrupting me on that basis. Yet when someone else raised a "point of order," Kevin did the job as a moderator and it was right and fair for him to allow that person to speak. Although my time was short, I am grateful that in God's kind providence I was able to at least say what I said, which has brought attention to these concerns. Then the topic time ended and as an assembly it was time to vote: by a very close vote, Irwyn Ince was voted to continue as Coordinator of MNA.

Background of Affinity Groups:

In February 2025, TE Irwyin Ince accepted an invitation to speak at an event at Resurrection Oakland Church (PCA congregation): the advertisement of the event reads like this:

This received much attention because it had the appearance of being a Segregated worship event.

On the MNA podcast, Growing Together, Irwyn Ince and Chris Vogel explain and defend Affinity groups. Ince says,

"An Affinity, is generally, an attraction - something we share in common - shared experiences, background, histories, that really do give us a sense of connection." Ince and Vogel talk about an affinity they share for baseball. But the real issue under scrutiny are ethnic or racially-based affinity groups. In defense of Ince, the statement from the Mission to North America's Permanent Committee says the following,

"Affinity ministries equip and encourage minority members who worship in so many of our churches. These ministries support shared cultural experiences for the edification of the whole body. We celebrate the dynamic diversity of the PCA which includes brothers and sisters from backgrounds including: African-American, Korean, Hispanic, Chinese, Haitian, Brazilian, and Native American, among others. We affirm that fellowship gatherings or events that center on the shared cultural experiences of ethnic minority brothers and sisters can be a great blessing and serve to enable a strong sense of welcome and belonging. We affirm affinity gatherings as a part of rejoicing in our unity and diversity (1 Cor 12, Rev 7)." (See a statement from MNA's Permanent Committee).

But Irwyn Ince laid his cards on the table and gave his rationale for such "affinity groups" and the need for "affinity spaces" at the 2019 LDR Conference at Covenant College (LDR stands for Leadership Development Resource and is the annual national gathering for the African American Ministries of Mission to North America, a ministry of the Presbyterian Church in America.) In his sermon, Ince said:

"I had a conversation this week with a group of ministry leaders who are talking about trying to make their pastoral residency programs more diverse, and they want to ask me --- and I know Wy Plummer gets these questions as well --- when pastors and Churches want to diversify and ask black people and people of color into their leadership, 'Do you know any body? Should we do it? How should we do it?' And I ask the question: 'What kind of conversations have you had about the trauma that person might experience from being in your space as a black person. How are you prepared to make sure they've got some places of affinity space. Because the likelihood is, if you are an all white staff, you are not going to be enough. Your church ain't going to be enough. They gonna wear out." (https://youtu.be/gA1EhYT3nAA)

Did you hear that? According to the recently re-elected coordinator of the church planting agency of the PCA, a black person is prone to be traumatized from being in the space of his white brothers. Friends, this is a moral accusation based on the assumption that "people of color" will be abused by their fellow Christians due to sinful tendencies. Ince said that if a church has "an all-white staff," those leaders and ordained ministers will not be "enough" - Christ's appointed pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:7-11) are insufficient.

According to Ince, affinity groups and affinity spaces based on race or ethnicity are necessary because of the assumption that white Christians will hurt, abuse, and traumatize African Americans and people of color.

The three main reasons why affinity groups are unbiblical and contrary to the gospel

1. The belief in affinity groups based on race or ethnicity for the sake of a safe-space, is a denial of the sanctifying grace of the gospel, namely: definitive sanctification.

The so-called need for affinity spaces is because of the assumption that there is unsafe space: which presupposes that you need protected from your brothers and sisters in Christ due to uncontrollable sinful tendencies derived from one's race or ethnicity. It assumes that fellow Christians are prone to sinfulness that causes them to be less compassionate, more prone to bigotry, based on their race or ethnicity: this is a tenant of CRT that assumes "whites" are by nature oppressive, and they can't stop being oppressive in their desire to maintain the status quo and keep their so-called "white privilege."

As I said in my floor speech, this is a denial of the Holy Spirit's transforming grace to change His people through sanctification. Sanctification is a two-sided coin: most of us are more familiar with the 'tails' side of the coin: progressive sanctification: in which the Holy Spirit progressively conforms us more and more into the image of Christ, causing us to grow in holiness and love until we are finally perfected in glorification. But the 'heads' side of the coin is definitive sanctification, which is grounded in verses such as Romans 6:6:

"We know that our old man was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." What is "our old man"? It is who we were as slaves to sin in Adam. Through our union with Christ, our old man was crucified together with Christ so that we are no longer slaves to sin. Therefore, sin can no longer have dominion over us (Rom. 6:14). That means, if you are in Christ, the sin of bigotry or racism or having self-righteous arrogance towards others - it no longer dominates believers. Yet to assume that an African American might be traumatized from being around me, just because of the color of my skin - because of an inclination to traumatize "people of color" - is a denial of the sanctifying grace of the gospel.

Biblically speaking, space is used by the LORD to teach about His holiness. The holy place, and especially the holy of holies (or Most Holy Place) is NOT safe space for all sinners. Because God must punish sin and He is infinitely holy and pure, under the Old Covenant only the high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies by means of the shed blood of the substitute (see Leviticus 16:1-19). Since Christ our eternal high priest has made propitiation for our sins by satisfying God's holy wrath upon Himself, all Christians are granted access into the holy of holies through faith in Christ (Heb. 10:19-25). Yet to claim that some Christians have a race-based sinfulness that makes them unsafe to other Christians so that another safer-space is needed, means that there would be a division of space in the holy of holies!

2. The belief in a need for affinity groups and "safe spaces" presupposes that those of the "majority culture" don't understand how to love African Americans - at least not as well as those from the same group can care for them. Thus it presupposes a special knowledge that those of certain ethnicities or classes have obtained, that European Americans do not have. This what Voddie Baucham rightly calls "ethnic gnosticism." This is actually a tenant of CRT called "standpoint epistemology:" your experience gives you special knowledge.

But Scripture says that all Christians have the mind of Christ, and that actually it is the natural man (the unbeliever) that cannot understand the things of God. But the Spiritual man (the one born again by the Spirit, united to Christ, the new man) he alone understands the things freely given by God: 1 Cor. 2:12-16 says,

"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:12-16)

3. Affinity groups deny the oneness that we have in Christ by segregating and separating Christ's sheep based on unbiblical, worldly categories, such as race, and therefore, they are just as guilty of partiality as the "kinism" and ethno-centrism of "white nationalists."

As I said in my first speech on the floor at GA, distinctions such as "white and black" are not Biblical categories for people groups (white is not an ethnicity and black is not an ethnicity). Rather, the distinctions of people groups that God recognizes in Scripture are based on Genesis 10, quoted later in Daniel 7 and Rev 5:9 and 7:9.

Biblically speaking, family clans make up tribes, which make up nations, which live in specific places called lands, which speak different languages. Babel was primarily a confusion of languages: God came down and saw that all humanity was one race (LXX: GENOS; Gen. 11:6) who spoke one language, and He divided them, with the main distinction being language differences.

The other Biblical recognition of people groups is Jew or Gentile. But those of European descent and those of African descent - are both Gentiles. Those who have faith in Christ's sin-atoning death and His sin-destroying resurrection, are His new creation humanity: the one new man (Eph. 2)! Therefore, when Ince talks about "minority fatigue" that he suffers from, he is exalting so called Black culture (in reality there is not a monolithic "black" or "white" culture) above the culture of holiness - the culture of Christ-as-center. Ince said in his LDR conference sermon that "minority fatigue is real. Being black and tired is real. So you've gotta experience some spaces and times when you don't have to work so hard. Look, listen, while we press, we press hard against the iniquity and the strife that are all to amplified along the lines of ethnicity. We don't throw away the baby with the bathwater, what I mean is, there is a grounding and a positive sense of belonging that can come from ethnic affinity in a world of dizzying diversity. I need some cultural connection."

Has Christ not created a new culture - a culture of worship, a culture where Jesus is exalted, whom all cultures must bow to?

Dan. 7:13-14 says,

13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Potential Questions

Should there be "affinity spaces" based on gender or age-group?

Ministries can exist to specifically serve men/women, children, but these are based on distinctions that the Lord makes by giving specific, unique commandments and applications to: "husbands" "wives; children" (Eph 5-6). "Older men, younger men, older women, younger women" are specified in Titus 2. But in the covenant community, various people groups (or Jews and Gentiles) have always received the same commandments, the same requirement of beliefs, and the same sacraments:

For example, Exodus 12:48 says, "If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." Likewise at the Jerusalem Council, new Gentile converts to Christ received the same commands and gospel truths as their other brothers in Christ (Acts 15:22-29).

Is Irwyn Ince's minority fatigue an acceptable concept for Christians?

Absolutely not. Paul says the following in Colossians 3:11, "Here (in the new man Christ) there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." Paul then does not encourage the previously mentioned groups to remain seperated due to "fatigue" that comes from the difficulty of love, but rather, they are to: "Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony." (Col. 3:12-14)

Should "affinity" groups exist for language differences?

Yes - but we should not call them affinity groups: they are ministries such as a Korean speaking congregations, which is necessary for God's people to hear and understand the truth of the gospel in their language. Likewise, in France or in Japan, there are English speaking congregations consisting of English speaking people, which are British people, American people (whether European or African Americans), or Australians, etc. But once immigrants or international people learn the English language in America, they should seek to no longer designate their congregation on the basis of an ethnicity.

Should we assume that minorities who are members in our churches or who visit our churches, have "minority fatigue" or that they need special affinity groups to help them feel more comfortable?* No. Please stop treating them as oppressed people. Stop treating them like children. It is degrading and insulting: they are fellow members of the household of God. Worldly culture and society seeks to condition European Americans with a sense of ("white") guilt, and to condition minorities that they need special privileges and special care; special empathy and special acceptance; special help - special scholarships, etc: but that is partiality. We have tons of African Americans, Africans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Middle-Easterns, South Americans, Latino or Hispanic people - who do not want to be seen as oppressed and in need of special care; they do not want to be tokenized and used to check off the diversity box. They are saying, "Please - just treat us as your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ!"

Conclusion

At this year's GA, our denomination failed to address all forms of partiality: we made a loud statement against ethno-centrism and kinism, and rightly condemned belief in racial superiority. While that was good, we did not address and condemn the much more prevailing and widely accepted forms of partiality such as affinity groups, and segregated "safe spaces" for minorities. In other words, we did not condemn all forms of partiality (James 2:1).

Isn't it ironic - that in the name of "Racial Reconciliation" and ridding ourselves of the sinful segregation that occurred last century - in the name of diversity - we have practiced and condoned segregation and partiality! We condemned one kind of partiality and justified another!

For this reason, in my opinion, the most important speech at General Assembly, was by Rev. John Orlando, whom I have the pleasure of serving with at Olive Street Presbyterian Church. When we were asked to vote on adopting a statement made by the ARP and RPCNA "in condemning without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics, and does call to repentance any who promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission;" Rev. Orlando said the following in his speech:

"I stand against this well intended statement not because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't go far enough. It rightly addresses a toxic yet very small and vocal group, what some refer to as the woke right. They are also called Kinists, and are associated with so called Christian Nationalism. My problem with the well intentioned statement is that it ignores the toxic philosophy from the woke left that has had far more devastating effect both in the culture and our churches; that is, CRT and views that arise from that on "race" and ethnicity. These [views] assume and impute victimhood, or the sin of partiality, simply based on the color of a person's skin or ethnic origin. They view everything through the lens of skin color and ethnicity and form moral judgments of others based on those things, and they promote segregated groups on the bases of skin color and ethnicity within the church itself. That is just as toxic as the Kinist view. In fact, it IS kinism: we just use the sanitized phrase "affinity groups." While it may not be the intention of those who support such things, these groups are promoting racialization/ethno-centrism, partiality, and segregation, and have no place in society, much less the church of Jesus Christ. There ought to be a statement that encompasses all those toxic views as well.

For example:

"The 52d General Assembly of the PCA does on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological, social, or political teaching which posits any superiority, partiality, or segregation based on skin color or ethnicity and calls to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.' Obviously we cant do that now, but I humbly ask you to consider not approving the recommended statement so that we can craft a fuller statement that is very much needed."

Our prayer is that the Lord will have mercy on our denomination (and others) and embolden us to stand against all forms of partiality, for the glory of Christ.