The Federal Vision's Liturgical Movement

As long time readers will know, I believe that the Federal Vision is nothing more than a second coming of Mercersburg Theology, including the foundation of Historical and Theological Development. There is a rising parallel in the way the debate is headed as well. In the original Mercersburg movement, the debate began with a discussion of Theological Development. It was the closest Schaff and Nevin ever came to being convicted of heresy. Schaff actually found himself on trial. Federal Vision managed to skip this dangerous portion of the debate. Something I hope that will be remedied one day. Next, the Mercersburg controversy went to the sacraments and justification. Nevin’s book The Mystical Presence spearheaded that campaign. That is when the Mercersburg movement began to be noticed across the spectrum of Presbyterian and Reformed churches even earning a rebuttal from Charles Hodge and Princeton. Federal Vision began at that step, and they too have taken heat from every corner of the Presbyterian and Reformed spectrum. Perhaps not as much as many would want, but they still have taken it. Thus the third step. The Mercersburg movement then began to concentrate on a liturgical movement. They reformulated the German Reformed Church liturgy from a pulpit dominated liturgy to an altar based liturgy. The Theological Development step was dangerous, the Sacramental theology step was hazardous, but the liturgy step won the battle. Yes, a long fought war, but in the end, all the goals of Mercersburg were accomplished. The altar liturgy sneaks a sacramental theology in the back door, and it prepared the way for Christian Union with other churches, which Schaff said was the great goal of Theological Development. The Federal Vision men are beginning that step.

Yes, it is harder and harder to find the Federal Vision men propagating or openly defending their views on Covenant and Sacraments. Yet, they appear to be eager to expound on elements of the liturgy such as kneeling and clerical collars, and robes. Admittedly some of these men have long been promoting High Liturgy, but others are just now leading their churches through a change. Others promoters of liturgy are Jeff Myers, Mark Horne, and Tim Gallant. It appears as though the church will suffer through a tumult over the liturgy. Churches such as the OPC and PCA may soon find themselves making room for high church altar based liturgies. In so doing they will give away everything. I hope the Federal Vision liturgy movement will end better than the Mercerburg liturgy movement ended.

St. Bartholomew’s Day

This is a blog that hopefully will come to a point. I did want to post something more about the mass murder that took place on St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24th, 1572. That day King Charles the 9th ordered the slaughter of the Reformed believers in France. It was worst in Paris where Admiral Coligny was slain. 10,000 men in that city alone were executed in the streets. Many of the murders went around singing the Psalms from the Reformed Psalter of France to mock the dying, and Lord might I add. Henry of Navarre, a Protestant with a claim to the throne, did not die that day, but at knife point he had to take Mass and recant. So too did the Duke of Conde. Others were not as fortunate. Some who took Mass to avoid death were forced to murder their friends in order to prove their loyalty to the Roman faith. King Charles himself is said to have shot some that came to his palace seeking refuge.
The order went out to all of France, and while some refused to do the work, others did it joyfully. 70,000 people total died on account of their faith that day. The leading preachers in Navarre were put to death. In one region the Reformed were put into prison to keep them safe, but the people found them, broke down the jail, and murdered all inside. All because of a differences in their religion, a different faith.
The world reacted differently to this massacre. England refused to have relations with France for quite sometime, but in the end did nothing. John Knox of Scotland pronounced the King of France a murder and asked God to pay him back. The Pope commended the King of France and celebrated a High Mass in honor of the deed. Spain took heart in the murders and stepped up their own persecutions. The King would commission a coin minted in honor of the Massacre. All because of a differences in their religion.
Murder should always be condemned, and religion is no excuse but those Romanists took it serious enough to kill. The Reformed men took their faith seriously enough to go to the grave. Both sides saw a difference, a real meaningful difference between Protestantism and Romanism. Is that belief that there is a real and meaningful difference in Protestantism and Romanism around today? There is a Reformed Catholicism movement in the Protestant Churches. There is a new spirit of ecumenicity breaking out all over the evangelical spectrum. Romanists and Protestants are joining hands across the nation in order to win political victories. Big evangelical leaders refuse to condemn the Roman Catholic Church. The late Pope John Paul II saw acclaim from most Protestants when he died. In small towns, like mine, ecumenical services take place. Protestants worshipping as Romanist preach their version of the gospel, which is not a gospel. Why the difference between the two ages? Why now do people view the difference so small as to be insignificant, and then they viewed it so large as to be a matter of life and death? While I praise God that the years of Romanists murdering Protestants and Protestants murdering Romanists is over, I pray that we would find again the dedication to our faith; in order that we may realize that the differences between us are real, and are a matter of life and death. Not physical life and death, but eternal, spiritual life and death.

Pat Robertson should repent

I just wanted to post a quick not to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is wrong. He should publicly repent, just as he publicly sinned when he threw away the 6th commandment to make a political statement. His suggestion now that he was taken out of context make it more ridiculous. “Take him out” usually means killing, and in context it is hard to see how he meant anything else. Even if he did mean kidnapping, he is still throwing away the commandments of God. Such things should not be suggested, especially by an ordained man.
I believe this is related to previous discussions about salvation through politics. Why would a minister suggest such things? What do we, as Christians, have to fear from a foreign dictator, even a strong communist one? The answer is nothing. He can do nothing to us. There appears to be a confusion somewhere between the Church, the Kingdom of God, and America; a confusion between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Free Market Democracy. These things ought not to be confused. Robertson should stop stalling, admit his wrong, and repent.

Mercy in the Massacre

The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre is a tragic event. It saw the extinguishing of many great lights in the church. But, even in these darkest hours mercy from God can be seen. There are stories of the governors who would not carry out orders to murder French citizens simply for the religious belief. Some governors did not believe that the King actually made the order because it was too appalling. The Governor of Auvergne would not act unless the King himself came and participated. The Governor of Baronne received a handwritten note from the King, but still would not obey. He claimed, “I have committed your Majesty’s orders to your faithful inhabitants, and to the troops in the garrison. I have found them good citizens and brave soldiers, but not one executioner.”

Other stories of God’s great grace can be found. My favorite is Peter Merlin. Rev. Peter Merlin ministered to the church in the family of Admiral Coligny. Men from the king came to hunt down this minister of the Reformed Faith. Merlin jumped from his window when they broke down his door. He then ran from the King’s men, and took shelter in a hen house. He slept on the hay with the chickens for three days. The first day a certain hen came over next to Peter, and laid a single egg. She then left the egg. Peter Merlin, with thanksgiving, ate the egg. The same hen returned the next morning. She laid an egg, and left it for Merlin to eat again. The third day, the hen returned and laid the egg for Merlin. By this time the murderous rage had subsided and Merlin felt safe enough to venture out of the hen house. Yet, he never forgot the hen who laid an egg for him to eat every morning while he hid from certain death.

In this country we can talk about the church and its troubles. Whether or not the state is going to overturn Roe v Wade or whether or not the state will allow same sex marriage often dominate the discussions today. Yet, it all seems to pale in comparison when placed in its proper historical context. We can start to worry about the government of America when we have to hide in hen houses to escape death.

Christian Activism and Salvation by Politics

Here is an example of how Christians confusing the gospel and politics. The Center For Reclaiming America for Christ, headed by Dr. James Kennedy, has mailed out a petition for people to sign asking each of their senators to confirm John Roberts. The whole appeal is couched in Christian language, even though it admits that one can only pray that John Roberts will actually defend such things as the Right-to-Life and ‘defend Biblical marriage.” They want us to make sure that the faith of John Roberts will not be attacked during this confirmation battle. This whole admission shows the misunderstanding. Why should people of faith rally behind Mr. Roberts? Even the letter of appeal is careful not to be too specific in its praise. It states that “we understand John Roberts is a man of integrity” or “he is spoken of” rather than knowing for sure one way or the other. Since we are not sure of his faith, why support him so strongly? He is a Roman Catholic, why should I as a Protestant trust his faith? Dr. Kennedy does not answer such questions. Nor does he answer why Senators are not allowed to discuss or attack his faith. If we want the Christian faith to guide our government why should we not want our Senators to check it out? These are just a few of my problems. In my opinion, Dr. Kennedy and his group is just acting on behalf of the Republican Party.

Gaspar Coligny

The Huguenots, the Reformed in France during the Reformation, are often over looked during studies of Reformation history. Probably because in the end, the failed to reform France. Yet, the Huguenots stand forth for all the ages to see a biblically minded, steadfast, loyal group of Christians. August is the month where the French Government slaughtered them in mass. So from now till St. Bartholomew’s Day, the day of the massacre, August 24th, I thought I would post a few profiles of these men, men who died for the faith.

Gaspar de Coligny was a man of devout faith, a picture of virtue. He succeeded in everything he did. He became a great warrior for the kingdom of France, and received the highest honor for his work, the title of Admiral. His prestige and position as a Count also made him a statesman. There too, no one could impugn his character. People tried to accuse him of murder, and plotting against the king, but all were easily refuted as lies of those who hated the Reformed faith. Indeed, it was Coligny that always counseled caution, that actively argued against open war and rebellion. He trusted God to care for their souls, and the mission of the church to reform France. A constant voice for religious toleration in France, and he found friends for his cause even in the Romish church. Perhaps it is because of his high standing and great success that Coligny was singled out for brutal treatment by those who made war on God’s people.
On August 24th, 1572, Admiral Gaspar Coligny died at the hand of a band of murders. Two days earlier he had been shot by an assassin, but lived. The King came to his bedside often, so often in fact that the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, created lies and incited a plot to exterminate the Huguenots. The weak King, whipped into an emotional frenzy, agreed. The morning of the 24th found the King in his right mind, but the plan under way. A message went out from the King to stop, but the orders were ignored. A gang of thugs led by Romish nobles broke down the doors to Coligny’s place of residents and began slaughtering his guards. A servant woke the Admiral saying, “My Lord! God calls us to himself!” Coligny read prayers, told his servants to save themselves, and continued his devotions until the attackers found him. He was stabbed by everyone in the room, his body thrown outside to find positive identification, and then his head cut off and sent to the Queen Mother.

Coligny stands as a permanent reminder that one does not have to be a minister to be an effective Christian, one must only live his life in accordance with the will of Jesus Christ. May we remember him, and follow his example.

Politics or Gospel?

The PyroManiac, Phil Johnson, has a bit of disagreement with Jus Divinium of Triablogue. The disagreement seems to be over the role of the Christian in politics. While I am personally acquainted with neither of these gentlemen, this is the blogosphere, and I am going to give you my opinion of this debate. To summarize, Phil is arguing the traditional fundamentalist viewpoint that there is no “reasoned biblical rationale for connecting common grace with a ‘cultural mandate’ for the church,”(quoted in the response section, not the article proper). Jus, on the other hand, is arguing that Christian political activism is a legitimate enterprise of the church. Jus is defending Chuck Colson and his political scheme that includes working alongside Romanists and unbelievers to achieve political goals, and Phil is saying that this clouds, confuses, and distorts the gospel, referencing Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together document as proof.
I think that they are both wrong. Phil seems to have a problem saying the Bible gives Christians and the Church a ‘cultural mandate.’ I would argue that Genesis 1:28 gives us a cultural mandate, the biblical directive that Phil seems to desire. In this verse, God tells us to have dominion over the entire earth and all that lives and moves within it. Phil admits that the individual Christian is to be salt and light in whatever area he finds himself, so the question becomes why is it wrong for the church to instruct him in exercising dominion? Why is it okay for a Christian to be salt and light as a politician or a dentist but not okay for the church to instruct that Christian on how to be salt and light in government and oral hygiene? I would also argue that Christ did affect the political climate of his time. He spoke and acted against moral injustices that faced him. He overturned the moneychangers in the temple, and he condemned the Pharisees and Scribes as hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. Christ made sure Pilate knew all authority on heaven and earth came from God, not from Rome. Paul used his Roman citizenship to further his purpose. The book of Proverbs contains wisdom for kings and rulers as well as ordinary men. The Word of God speaks to all areas of life, or as Kuyper put it, there is not one inch of creation of which Christ does not say, “mine.”
Yet Phil has a legitimate complaint about Jus and Chuck Colson. Too many people think that salvation for our country and maybe ourselves comes through the voting booth or the next Supreme Court nominee. When we begin to form political alliances with unbelievers. While Jus agrees that confusing the gospel and politics is bad and admits it should be rebuked, he fails to realize that Colson does just that. Phil is right that it is a historical fact that when a church compromises for the sake of political activism, it leads to ecumenism and, I would add, liberalism. The church’s job is to be the salt that preserves God’s culture, but this means defending God’s Law and Word, not promoting human political parties that have little to nothing do with God’s Law or Word. The church should cry out with all her strength about the mass-murder atrocity that is abortion, but she should not insert herself in the choosing of a Supreme Court nominee or throw the weight of God’s approval behind a political party or a person. When we look to Chuck Colson and his ECT or Dr. Dobson and his Focus on the Family political action committee for direction in casting our ballots, we have lost sight of the true nature of the gospel. The church should teach about voting and moral issues and should critique worldviews; however, organizing Political Action Committees does not fall under those auspices. I would encourage Jus to take another look at ECT, and see if the gospel may have been hidden.
Phil seems to argue that evangelism is the only method of changing the culture that the church can utilize. I disagree. Churches ought to condemn abortion, the Right-to-Die movement, and homosexual marriage. Churches ought to encourage Christians to oppose such things. Jus needs to recognize that political victory without the gospel spells certain death in the long run. Was Rome really better because Constantine was a Christian? Was the church? The answer is not the simple ‘yes’ Phil’s argument assumes. We have a cultural mandate as Christians and as the church, but it is so tightly wrapped up with the gospel that we can never set it aside, lay it down, confuse it, or replace it. The church ought to speak out on cultural issues, educate its members about them, but the can’t pick political parties or candidates for her members. The church also cannot compromise the gospel in order to achieve political ends. There is no benefit to outlawing abortion if we have to deny justification by faith alone to accomplish it.

John C. Calhoun

I am just finishing another biography of a political leader from America’s past. John C. Calhoun, by John Niven, is not a book I would recommend despite the fact that John C. Calhoun is perhaps the most interesting political figure of all time. Calhoun was a man who served as Senator and Vice President and was defeated several times running for President. He was the Vice President for John Qunicy Adams, a Republican, and Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. He was elected Senator as a Democrat and an Independent, and served as Secretary of State for President Tyler, a Whig. He truly was a man without a party. He never changed his values, and that made him an outcast from every party he ever joined. Even more interesting is that Calhoun rightly predicted every major disaster in the country from 1814 to the Civil War. He saw every economic downturn, the panics, and the bank trouble all several years ahead of them, but no one ever listened. He saw the split in the Whig party, the split in the Democratic party, and the arrival of a 3rd Party based on ‘Free Soil’ abolitionist ideas. He knew the trouble the Mexican War would cause, and voted against it at every turn. He saw predicted almost to the day the beginning of the Civil War, its cause, its outcome, and the event that would begin it all. He died before that prediction came true. Calhoun was a rare politician of principle, and deserves history’s respect, even though his views on race and slavery were despicable.
With such a great character to work with, how did the author fail to write a good book? The book has two major faults. The writing is not very engaging. It reads more like a textbook than an autobiography. It makes it a little more tedious than it should be. The next major fault is that Calhoun’s personal life, and its implications for the rest of his life are almost ignored. You get glimpse here and there, but 90% of the home life glimpses revolve around financial trouble of him and his children. This leads to a failure to connect with Calhoun personally while reading. He is not humanized by the author for us. It also leaves glaring holes in understanding why Calhoun did what did. How did the fact that Calhoun own slaves affect his overreactions in the Senate? Calhoun ruined his chance to ever be President because he would not force his wife to repay a social call to a woman of ill-repute, who was now married to a high ranking cabinet member and friend of Andrew Jackson. Is this not a good time to examine his love for his wife? The author tells us Calhoun knows the political damage he will take for the social snub, but he actively chooses his wife over politics. I want to know more about that side of John C. Calhoun. The author lets us down quite a bit on that note.
If anyone has a better suggestion for biographies on Mr. Calhoun, please, let me know.

Louisiana Presbytery Report: Exoneration or Fabrication

There are a lot of things that concern me about the recent Final Report on Federal Vision of the Louisiana Presbytery. I will simply concentrate on the two big ones for now. First is the report’s insistence on the necessity of ‘theological development and inquiry’. Inquiry, I can understand. This is what the church does as new issues arise. ‘What does our theology teach about abortion or euthanasia?’ This is a good example of theological inquiry, and the report is correct in stating that the place for such inquiry is in the church courts. Then what does the report mean by theological development? It seems obvious that they mean continued change in theology to any area of theology. This is the same as Sandlin’s “substantial theological development.” They prove this point when they go on to misuse the ‘always reforming’ quote, to show that they are indeed willing to change even cornerstone doctrines of the faith. This, I still contend, is a major front in this fight.
Second, the final proposal, which was adopted, was an exoneration of Rev. Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church. Not only is he exonerated, he is declared to be in conformity with the Westminster Standards. That this could be done flabbergasts the mind. The report itself just finishes saying that the WCF does not allow for the view that men can be in vital internal relationship with God and lose it. Rev. Wilkins’ church put forth a statement that says,

8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.).

How is this not contradictory? Did Rev. Wilkins recant? No mention is made of that. Did AAPC take down this statement of faith? No. I looked it up this morning. So, how can someone have this statement, among others, as a statement of faith, a church court declare it to be out of accord with the Confession, and then the same court declare the man holding that position to be in complete agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith? This exoneration is not going to end this controversy, nor should it. I hope that the rest of the PCA will realize that this exoneration does not seem realistic. Judicial cases must be brought against those who hold the Federal Vision positions. Norman Shepherd lived to plague the church in later decades because the OPC refused to actually hold a judicial case against him. These men will too unless bold steps of love are taken and charges filled.