The is on ecclesiology.
The church we now attend and may eventually become members of, is Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA). I am in no hurry to become member as I don't see the importance of it, neither now nor later. However, I do value the fellowship of the saints. It is, the true kind of membership.
Prior to this, I have made decisions to leave two churches. However, "leave" might not have been fully correct technically, as "leave" presupposes prior membership, and membership presupposes mutual agreement of which that is done publicly before the congregations. The memberships of both of those churches, were given to me, regardless of my consent. And I have never consented nor rejected them, due to the previous paragraph. But I was attending those churches for a rather consistent time and now I am not.
I left both churches for the same reason: The work of man has superseded the work of God. The first church has a low view on God's anointment but a higher view on friendships among men. Hence you have creation of members for the sake of a winning certain vote. The second church has a low view on God's Lordship and the Gospel but a very very high view on connections with people of repute.
The consequences of those churches, have proven that my decisions were not in vain. The first one split up, withered, perhaps even pursuing the Charismatic methodology. The second church has no true foundation. The pastor has reformed seminary background and I'd say that is about it. Meaning that the reformed background helps getting by/convincing some reformers that they are in the same gang. I've learned enough to not be fooled by such mask again. Many members left this church not knowing the difference between Catholicism/liberals/orthodox teachings. Hence, the chief fruit that can determine the tree is the likely next generation of this church - which for now, is rather lifeless. The easy way out is to make it liberal (or charismatics) but after the pastor's retirement, as if she had no hands in it, like Pilate cleansing his hands from the guilt of persecuting Jesus falsely. I cannot be in league with those who are this nonchalant, hence I severed my ties with such. But a helping hand I provide them, as a reflection of God's mercy upon me, while a gentile, a puppy dog, I was fed the crumbs from the children's table.
I'm not saying those churches are hopeless. But as for me, I shall come into the house of the Lord in the multitude of His mercy and not waste my time in things and places that do not please my Lord.
I suspect, that either 1). Rev. Lin despises any form of debates, or 2). She rather not defend on her stand on doctrines that are disagreed in the church. There is a slight but unlikely possibility that she was unsure, uncertain of the doctrine of infant baptism. But the former 2 points I suspected have been my conclusions after being in that church and knowing some people there for a while (e.g. the avoidance of dealing with universalist members/deacons/elders, in consistency in reformed doctrines by those leading Bible Studies, etc.)
So, I will not recommend this debate to Rev. Lin, based on the inconsistency of her reformed approach, lest she deprives credit away from where it is due, i.e. using the arguments from the debate yet disapproving the original source. CCCNY's non-visional direction under her leadership has been a problematic issue categorized by the servant who buried his master's talent (Matthew 25:25). so I see no reason why I should add even a second talent to them, where I am certain that it will be buried again. The only help I could provide, is direct discipleship. Hence, the Sunday School teaching, etc. which they do not seem to need much lately, perhaps due to the erroneous reason that "outsiders" are not allowed to teach. If that were the case, when they have considered me an "outsider", is rather secretive or illusive, but it exists nonetheless.
Pingback: Dr. James White vs. Bill Shishko on Infant Baptism | Timothy Law's Journal