When is it time to leave?

As a follow up on the previous post for conservatives to leave the PCA, I will enter into a short discussion about why and what I think governs the decision of when it is time to leave.

The decision to leave a denomination hinges upon the marks of a true church: faithful preaching of the word, right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline (as found in Belgic Confession of Faith second paragraph of Article 29).  The reason it is time to leave the PCA is because they have forsaken these marks.  And as Article 29 somewhat lesser known continues to state a true church should "in short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of God, and all things contrary thereto rejected . . ."  The PCA has failed to reject things contrary to the Word of God.  

The situation in the PCA is a good example to us all about knowing when we should leave.  It started with people who were professing and preaching doctrine that was unfaithful and heretical.  Now just because it turned it that the denomination had a fairly sizable minority that disagreed on the basic premise of salvation is not in and of itself grounds to leave the denomination.  This is because there are three marks, one of which is discipline.  The correct thing to happen to bring these unfaithful preachers up on charges, to begin discipline.  One might could argue that the PCA waited to long to start this process, but it was a process they started eventually.  And the wheels of discipline grind slowly.  I would argue purposefully slow.  The slow speed gives people a chance to catch their breath, biblically evaluate, and if need be repent.  The goal of discipline after all is restoration and reconciliation.  So, one must wait for the process to finish before conclusions can be reached.  

However, what has happened is the highest and final court in the PCA has declared the Federal Vision theology of one of its preachers to be acceptable preaching and beliefs in the PCA.  Thus, there not only has been a failure to practice discipline, but that failure has enshrined a unfaithful preaching as acceptable, and many of these questionable beliefs are also about the sacraments.  So what mark of the true church is left?  If there are no marks left, then why stick around?  

There are others who have a much more gracious opinion to what has happened than I do, such as Rev. R. Scott Clark.  He presents a nice syllogism that he thinks got confused somewhere.  I suppose I think the only way this verdict can be read is that the PCA no longer rejects the doctrines of the Federal Vision.  It does not matter what happened in 2007.  Judicially this is the first big challenge, and the PCA has accepted rather than rejected the FV.  

Are there still plenty of faithful, biblical churches left in the PCA?  Absolutely.  Could I recommend the PCA church to someone who was moving to another town?  No.  Because even if the PCA pastor there now was faithful, who would be next?  And what does it say about a church that stays in communion with other churches that have a fundamentally different gospel?  

That is the question for conservatives to answer (and for anyone who is thinking of switching denominations), is the Federal Vision of Peter Leithart a fundamentally different gospel?  If so, then how can one continue to be in the same denomination with them, and now with others who think that it is an acceptable gospel?  If it is a different gospel (and if it is not why was he on trial), then at least two of the three marks of a church are missing, distorted, or ignored.  When that happens it is time to go.  

PCA: 1973-2013

The Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA has handed down its decision in the case against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery and their decision to clear Dr. Peter Leithart of all charges.  The SJC of the PCA has agreed that Leithart is confessional and orthodox.  The PCA is now the only church in the NAPRC to not condemn Federal Vision, or at least to judicially clear its biggest proponent.

Add to that the slow removal of conservative influence on important PCA committees.

Add to that yet another group seeking to direct and lead the PCA in an obvious non-confessional direction.

And I am not even going to bring up intinction or Biologos or the denominations inability to make a stand on Genesis 1 or 2.  I could go on.

The main point here is that it is time to leave.  The conservatives probably won't, but they should.  The time is now.  Join the OPC.  You could easily double the size of that denomination, and could help the OPC avoid the same mistakes the PCA made.

You would think a denomination full of Southerners would be quick to leave a union they had no control over, but they are not quick to leave, and that is okay.  The fight was fought.  But it has been lost now.  The Study Committee Report was always a distraction.  It was the conservative view and it passed widely, but it passed widely because it was pointless.  The only thing that ever mattered was the judicial process.  And that process is now over.  Leithart and the FV won.

The PCA is now about inclusivism rather than confessionalism and Gospel Eco-Systems rather than . . . well there really is not an opposite of Gospel Eco-Systems, that is how bad that idea is.

I have a lot of friends in the PCA.  I feel for them.  Most of them probably would not make good fits in the RCUS because we are not Westminster based, but I think neither is the PCA anymore.

Scholar Pastors and the decline of Conservative Presbyterianism

I want to interact for a moment with William Evans's article about the Decline of Conservative Presbyterianism.  I want to interact with it because I think it has missed the boat entirely by misplacing where the influence flows.

You should read the article, but in summary he has 5 reasons for the supposed decline: declining prominence of conservative scholarship, intramural squabbles, unfinished theological business, tenuous situation of Presbyterian seminaries, splintering of the Presbyterian and Reformed presence into denominational locations.  

Do you notice anything about these complaints?  Let me help.  They all revolve around the academic world.  If one can draw conclusions from his list of problems the solution to greater Presbyterian and Reformed influence is fewer seminaries with greater cooperation among denominations in order to produce great scholars who focus on finishing the Reformation rather than petty debates.  Is this really the way churches grow?  I hate to break it to Dr. Evans, but the days of the Princeton Review are gone, and the days of people reading that review are not coming back.  The culture is not drifting away from Christianity because we do not have a strong intellectual arguments.  Churches are not going away from the Reformed Faith because we lack a new Calvin.  

Let me quote a sentence from his article.  "Concurrent with this we see the rise of the "scholar-pastor" model in Presbyterian circles".  While I was at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary they often talked of the importance of the "scholar-pastor", so I agree with him that this model is on the rise and in the ascendency in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  However, unlike Dr. Evans, I see it as the problem.  

The scholar-pastor breeds the intramural squabbles (though I disagree that some of the things he has listed are intramural, some are quite fundamental).  It also leads to the breeding of Presbyterian Seminaries.  If I am a scholar, then I am able to teach at the seminary level.  And if no seminary currently supports my view, I can start my own.  It is really quite logical.  And thanks to rose colored glasses we use to look at Princeton Seminary, we all think a good seminary can do great things.  

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a strong academic rigor to our theology.  But, I think it is time we split the "scholar-pastor" back into "scholar" and "pastor".  Or at least get the order right and be "pastor" first because ultimately that is where the influence is best applied.  It is the pastor not the academic who is on the ground fighting the fight.  it is the church planter who is out in the field gathering the harvest.  It is the church to which Christ has entrusted the Word of God, not the seminary.  

Too often we forget this important fact.  We forget it everywhere.  Take for example our great love for Calvin.  And love him we should.  But do we realize that Calvin never took a city from Romanism to Reformed.  Geneva had already declared for the Reformation long before Calvin came to town.  Does anyone even know who the pastor was who helped led Schaffhausen into the Reformation?  The Reformation happened not led by a seminary or a scholar from afar, but rather pastors on the ground, often working together, to transform the world for Christ by the gospel.  And that is the hope for the future too.

If it were up to me, I would encourage less small seminaries, and instead use Log College models or better yet Swamp College models, and return to the mentorship model of educating men for the ministry.  Sure there would always be a few of those grand professional educational institutions, and they play a role, but not THE role.  No, that is done on Sunday mornings from the pulpit and by the members of the body Christ "equipped for the work of the ministry" not by reading scholarly works but by the "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11-16).  

2K Discussion Points?

An interesting point-counter-point has developed.  It seems like a good place for discussion to start, and it still makes me think I don't fit either group.  However, it appears to be a series of points based off solely Van Drunen.  I still think the 2K/Transformationalism is a spectrum  or a sliding scale.  But, it is a nice thing to read if you want a starting point for discussion.

That is not to say I think it is great.  Because I also think that the Counter-Point is occasionally squarely and unhelpful.  Take points 8-10.

Point 8 lays out the 2K claim that Lex Talionis governs the Common Kingdom.  Point 9 then admits that it is flexible, imprecise, and capable of softening.  Point 10 is then "Principles of Mercy and Forgiveness do not govern the common kingdom".  Straight forward enough.  The Counter-Point is "Principles of mercy and forgiveness do operate in the common kingdom, if one understand the common kingdom to include families, personal relationships, etc."

Now that is unhelpful in my opinion.  First, "govern" and "operate" are not exactly parallel.  Saying one governs does not mean that the other cannot operate.  Second, Point 9 admitted that mercy and forgiveness can and do operate, they just don't govern.  At least that is how I read  Point 9.  So, I feel that sometimes the guy wants to disagree and make a point and does so in less than upfront ways.

Still, it is a place to start the discussion.  Enjoy the reading.

Movie Review: Les Miserables

You are not supposed to be against classics.  It just means you are a jerk if you say what everyone is thinking about Les Miserables (Les Mis from now on).  But I don't mind being a jerk.  That movie was just plain awful.

Look, I knew it was a musical.  Fine.  I have seen many a musical.  West Side Story for instance.  People randomly burst into song.  It is what it is.  However, in Les Mis no one talks.  Every other musical I have ever seen (like Grease) people speak and then sing and speak again.  No, not in Les Mis.  Only song.  I guess I can chalk that up to taste, but if you are going to make a movie where there is only singing, get good singers.  Forgo the big name actors and focus on people who drive home your song.  No offense to the guy from "A Beautiful Mind" but he can't sing.  While everyone else in the theater was crying, I was rooting for Jean Valjean to die so he would stop singing.  I had had enough.  I know, I am heartless.

But there is more, and it gets worse.

Everyone raves about the Christian message of Les Mis.  And there are clearly some very beautiful moments of grace.  Of course the abbot purchasing Jean Valjean freeing him from going back to prison, Jean Valjean confessing they have the wrong man in front of a crucifix.  Yes, grace is clear and presented.  Of that there is no doubt.  But is it clearly a Protestant message?  I don't think so.  I still think this is a Roman Catholic message of grace and works.  Now, I confess I have not read the book in ages, so I am only speaking of the movie.  But the Valjean death scene where the dead are returning and conversing with him he sings a line about "did I do enough".  They comfort him with the assurance that he will see heaven.  And that is the problem.  Jean Valjean was trying to earn his salvation and on his dying day he still does not know if his good works were enough to out weigh his bad ones.  And the movie down plays his bad ones.  Jean Valjean did steal bread.  But it is portrayed as something the poor do because they have to do it.  This is not how God's law operates.  He stole.  He also ignores Fantine when she needs someone to aid her.  A sin he has to pay for.  He was too worried about himself.  In fact, he is worried about his lies unraveling.  Another sin.  

I could go on, but the point is that Jean Valjean is constantly asking himself what must he do, can he let someone else bear his punishment.  Can he let Javert go?  Can he save the boy?  Should he?  He makes the right choices, but not out of thankfulness for the salvation he has received, but in hopes of paying off his sin.  At least that is how I saw it.  Which led me to believe Javert had the appropriate response to a world where salvation was based on doing right.  Javert killed himself because he knew he could not pay of his debt, and he realized he had debt for the first time.

So I am not gaga over Les Mis.  Victor Hugo as a Roman Catholic, and I think it comes across in this movie.  Sure, it is a better message than "Brokeback Mountain", but that is not the same as being a movie about true redemption.  We do not earn anything.  In a movie culture that is starved for a message of grace and forgiveness, let us not accept a Romanist version of it.

Go and enjoy the movie if you like singing that much, but do not forget the shortcoming of Catholicism while you watch it.  

Heidelberg Anniversary

This year, 2013, is the 450th Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism.  It was printed in January with the seal of Frederick III of the Palatinate, so this is the month to celebrate.  I do intend to put some stuff up here about the catechism throughout the year, but let me encourage each and every one of you to read the Heidelberg.  See how the Catechism again and again points to Jesus Christ.  Over and over, it turns to the only comfort in life and in death . . . Jesus Christ.

Go read it now.

And yes, I do plan on posting more this year.  I have decided that occasionally working things out by writing can be a helpful skill.  One that I need to develop a bit more.

October 31st - Reformation Day?

Today is a day that many will celebrate as Reformation Day.  Now, I don't have problems with people and churches looking for days to remember and celebrate the Reformation.  I want to be clear about that.  In fact, the church I pastor often has a celebration, a joint service with the OPC church in town, and it is great.

  But historically, is this the day the Reformed ought to be lifting up?

No, I think we have to say no.  October 31st is the day that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, so it is a nice and easy day to point and say here it begins.  But, really the 31st is the day the Lutheran Church is born, and in reality that has little to do with the Reformed Church.  In fact, the Lutherans hated the Reformed Church for centuries.  Luther said we were of a different spirit, the Lutheran teamed up with the Romanists to try and kill us in the 30 Years War.  Some of their ministers actually said we were worse than Islam. 

Our Reformed forefathers always pointed to a different day . . . January 1st, 1519.  This was the day that Zwingli proclaimed he would preach straight through the book of Matthew throwing out the Lectionary.  The 100th Anniversary was celebrated at the Synod of Dort on January 1, 1619.  The RCUS Directory of worship suggests that churches may keep several days if they wish, and one of those days is January 1.  Now, I have always assumed it was because of the New Year, but it may actually be because it is the anniversary of our Reformation.  Hard to say.

In the end, the point is remembering October 31st only points to the Lutheran Church, and it is very different than the Reformed Church.  Very different indeed.  Remember this in a few years when people want to celebrate 500 years of the Reformation in 2017.  That celebration has to be focused on Luther.  The day we want is January 1, 2019.  That way we can focus on the Reformed Church. 

Two Kingdoms Escondido Theology Wrap Up

I ought to come back and offer some concluding thoughts on the Frame book.  Let me start by just stating again that if you are wanting a book to deal with 2K in a serious way from a Transformational view point this is NOT your book.  If you are looking for a book that is a deep insight into Frame's hostility toward his former employer then this book is worth the money.

So in my quest to look into 2K deeper this book was not all that helpful.  It did point out one very big problem in trying to learn more about 2K Theology, and that is Westminster West itself.  Let me explain.

The book is called Escondido Theology, and it is a common name for the 2K teaching because those guys are pushing it and publishing about it.  However, it really clouds the issue.  Mainly because the Westminster West guys teach and push other things that are not necessary to 2K theology, and often not even related to 2K theology, yet because it is often called Escondido Theology they get mashed up together.

The full title of Frame's book is "The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology".  The problem is the Escondido theology and Two Kingdoms really can be two separate issues.  And in my opinion, often are.  Go back to the introduction.  No, not the first introduction.  Not the second or the third.  The one entitled Author's Introduction.  Frame gives a big list of grievances.  They include several points that are what we would call Redemptive-Historical Preaching.  A few more are simply about traditional worship.  There is at least one about the interpretation of the Sabbath.  And a couple more about the "absolutizing" of a certain traditions and declaring them to be the only Reformed tradition.  He does actually have a few about 2K such as whether or not the cultural mandate is fulfilled in Christ or by us still today, and whether or not the Christian has a mandate to seek change in the political order.  But the majority are simply lies like saying that Escondido teaches "We should take no interest in our inner feelings" or that "Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones are not Reformed".

Frame does not prove most of these points, and thus his book should be considered a failure.  But more importantly, Frame spends a lot of time on the worship complaints and the Absolutizing complaints.  These have nothing to do with being a "Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology" as the sub-title advertises.  Frame does not deal enough with the Two Kingdoms.  And it needs to be separated out from some of this other stuff.  Horton's book on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms.  And I can agree that Recovering the Reformed Confessions seeks to absolutize certain positions that the Reformed world has never agreed upon (no hymns for example and framework creation).  I can agree that Redemptive Historical Preaching is off in its understanding of preaching (although I think Frame does not deal with it fairly in this book).  So, in a lot of ways, I am not in line with the Escondido Theology.  But Frame does little to convince me to be a transformationalist.

If anyone out there knows of a decent book criticizing Two Kingdoms, let me know.