Questions to ask RC Jr.

The Ashley Madison hack has caused lots of problems for lots of people.  One of the people coming to light as having visited Ashley Madison is Pastor RC Sproul, Jr.  He confessed to his presbytery and to Ligonier Ministries.  Ligonier has suspended him.  Since it is a business, and businesses operate on a different model than churches, Ligonier’s response or responsibility is not part of what I want to discuss.  The real question is, what does a church do with someone who visited the site but did not have an affair?  Should such a man be disciplined (or if a paster, defrocked)?  How is this different from thinking about having an affair, which is surely a sin, but then not going through with it?  Sproul’s thoughts happened to be recorded in electronic format.  Is this a discipline issue?  Does it make a difference that the site itself is “immoral” since it is dedicated to affairs? 

So what should a presbytery/classis/church do if they find Ashley Madisonites, even ones who haven’t consummated an affair, in their church?  I suggest that someone needs to lovingly, but firmly ask some follow-up questions.  It is very likely that there are ongoing spiritual battles that might require further confession/counseling/accountability.  Here are 5 questions for RC Jr. to get us started:

    •    “How did you find out about the site?”  This seems an important question since I doubt I was the only one to be amazed that such a site existed.  It is not something one just stumbles across while surfing the internet for commentaries on Hosea or looking up the latest baseball scores.  “Were you told of the site?  By whom?”  This is important as it might give more insight into exactly what the mindset was when being tempted to visit the site.  And the referral might have come from a Christian in your church, too.  It is said that about 400 pastors were on the Ashley Madison list. 

    •    “Are you viewing porn?”  This really ought to be first, but it may also be the answer to question one.  I imagine Ashley Madison advertised somewhere, and porn sites seem likely locations for such ads.  If one is contemplating an affair, it could be that one is participating in other sexual sins as well.  Viewing porn is all too commonplace these days, and this question needs to be asked directly.  We do know that Josh Duggar was viewing porn as well as visiting Ashley Madison.

    •    “Why did you pick a site dedicated to affairs?  Why chose a site where meeting you would cause the other person to break their own marriage vows?”  Ashley Madison is marketed as a site explicitly enabling married people to have affairs.  Why not use eHarmony or any other venue featuring single people?  In RC Jr.’s situation, it seems especially important.  His wife had already passed away, so he is free to date and get remarried, and yet he chose to use a site dedicated to affairs.  He was looking for a married woman, in theory.  “Why” is a question that needs to be asked.

    •    “What has changed since the account was abandoned?  How are you dealing now with whatever temptation led you to sign up with the site in the first place?”  I appreciate RC Jr.’s comments about the grace of fear and shame, but the battle is not only to stay off a horrible website but also to be biblically faithful.  The temptation reveals a spiritual battle, and it will find another way to manifest itself if it is not dealt with. 

    •    “What are your relationships like with women in general?”  Going to a site dedicated to getting women to break their vows might be indicative of a poor view of women.  “Do you view them as sex objects?  Do you fantasize about them inappropriately?  Do you flirt too much?”  A man who is signing up to have an affair may very well behave inappropriately with other women he knows.  Not just in person, but in texts and emails.  Maybe cyber life allows him to take on an unchristian persona. 

Obviously, these questions are geared toward the people who visited Ashley Madison but didn’t actually have an affair.  If that is in doubt, an obvious sixth question should be added: “Did you have an affair?”  Make it plain that not just Ashley Madison affairs are being asked.  Those who signed up at Ashley Madison may have found other outlets as well.  Again, note Josh Duggar, who had other accounts on other hookup sites.  His confessed affair did not come via Ashley Madison, but through another avenue. 

We need to remember as Christians that Satan is against marriage.  Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, and so Satan seeks to destroy it.  Pray for your pastors and their marriages.  Pray for your own marriage.  And do not give Satan a foothold, or he will barge all the way in. 

Seeking a Better Country - book review

Seeking a Better Country by DG Hart and John Muether is overall a good book that looks critically at the history of Presbyterianism in America.  If you are worried that Hart carries over some of his usual tone from his blog, do not worry.  This book is even handed and avoided scorn and condemnation.  It does point out places that the church may have gone wrong, but even then it is done with a gentleness that will surprise many.  It is a well-researched book and many will learn from it.  It comes up to the modern day and thus it does not have the opportunity to dive too deeply into any one period of history, yet applies the broad sweep of history to today.  I appreciated the book a great deal.

That said, I have one large fundamental disagreement with this book that I think throws both Hart and Muether off in their historical application and point.  This fundamental disagreement colors their understanding of all subsequent Presbyterian history differently than I color it. 

Before I get into that point, I do want to point out one other small weakness.  Hart and Muether are OPC guys and thus the Southern Church gets a bit of a short stick in this book.  And some PCA guys might get heartburn when they read the conclusion that the PCA was not really unified in its formation (pg.236), and that the OPC is more confessional and the PCA more evangelical (pg.257).  Those are really minor complaints, but maybe worth mentioning.

 My fundamental disagreement with the book is this statement: “For confessional Presbyterians, including the authors, who tend to put a premium on the teachings of the Westminster Standards, highly prize the Presbyterian form of church government, and esteem the reverence and simplicity of historic Presbyterian worship, the era of the Old School Presbyterianism is the most appealing” (pg.257).  I applaud the honest expression of their own bias in this history, however, it means they have seriously misunderstood the Great Awakening and the Old Side – New Side Controversy.

Overall the section in the book about the Great Awakening is better than most books.  They don’t go overboard trying to smear the Old Side, and they are willing to admit some excess on the part of Gilbert Tennent.  However, in the conclusion to the discussion they state this: “Many of the Old Side objections had already been removed with the formation in 1745 of the Synod of New York and its affirmation of creedal subscription and insistence that members submit to synodical decisions” (pg.66). 

I think that is simply historically wrong.  Creedal subscription never seems to have been a debate between the two groups.  So, I am not sure why that is in there.  The submission to synodical decisions was indeed an issue, but because the Tennent’s were willing to submit to synodical decision of fellow New Siders did not mean they were willing to do so with Old Siders.  Any honest evaluation of the New Side behavior leading up to the split has to come to the conclusion that the New Siders were a disorderly group that viewed the Old Siders as unconverted wretches.  Go read “Dangers of the Unconverted Ministry” again and remember Gilbert is preaching in a church that is not his own, in the bounds of an Old Side Presbytery, and had vacant pulpit.  The sermon is a warning not to call an Old Sider because they are Pharisees.  Not surprisingly within a year that church split with the New Side minority faction erecting a church literally across the highway from the original church.  One of the first actions of the Conjunct Presbytery (the first New Side Presbytery after the split) was to order men to go on a preaching tour that included churches that were part of the Old Side Synod of Philadelphia several of which were not even vacant!  This group actively tried to split churches. 

And therein lies the rub.  Seeking a Better Country laments the trend in Presbyterianism to go with so-called progress and innovate in an attempt to nab the culture or more members, yet the New Side is the group that did just that during the Great Awakening.  It was the New Side that focused on individualism and had no problem throwing out church regulations and authority.  It was the New Side that fostered a spirit of celebrity pastors, lower ministerial standards, and the “world is my parish” ideas.  It was the New Side that fostered innovation in preaching styles and added “conversion narratives” as a requirement for membership not to mention ordination.  This tension then between accepting the New Side conduct and desiring to remain a confessional, orderly church is still inherent in Old School Presbyterianism.  The Old School is the New Side.  The New School is the New Side taken to the next logical step. 

This acceptance of the New Side as heroes of the faith leads Hart and Meuther to look uncritically upon the post-reunion phase of the church.  An agreement was reached in 1758 that was to be a Plan of Union, yet this plan of Union was violated in almost every point as early as the year 1762.  In that year the New Side majority Synod violated Point 6, which was the only doctrinal point in the Plan of Union.  They broke point 7 often through their refusal to do things, but clearly in 1766 when they disbanded on Old Side majority presbytery without the presbyteries consent.  They also earlier had refused to create a Presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains claiming 5 churches were not enough to start a Presbytery, but the next year created a Presbytery with 5 churches.  The only difference . . . the presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains would have had an Old Side majority, and the other had a New Side majority.  The New Side systematically destroyed their Old Side opponents with the majority power (which violated article 2).  This unconditional acceptance also leads to praise of John Witherspoon ignoring the shadier parts of his character and his transformation of Princeton from a training ground for ministers to a training ground for lawyers and politicians. 

In the end the book is worth a read.  However, the problems pointed out by Hart and Muether seem to have an earlier origin that is not addressed.  Using the Old School as the high point requires an acceptance of the New Side.  So go read the book, just make sure you take a hard look at the Great Awakening.  It is not all it’s cracked up to be. 

Who really won the PCA?

I have already made it plain that I think the PCA is dead.  Others are now coming to the same conclusion.  Lane makes a few excellent points about what the FV men surely did, and it helped their cause.  They did start to lay low: blogs were removed and went silent.  Whether as a strategy or as a self preservation, it is hard to say, but it did help them in the court of public opinion.  Doug Wilson was able to defend them from the outside and those who had a tendency to be less winsome than Doug stayed silent.  But that is not why they won, because they did not have total radio silence.  They still published books, maybe not as many, but they were still writing.  They got out a freschrift for Norman Shepherd, for example, that includes James Jordan, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, John Frame, and many others.  

Here is what I think happened.  I will use an analogy from the old west.  The PCA is a large ranching operation with a big main house.  The FV are the outlaws disturbing the herd of cattle and the anti-FV crowd goes out guns a-blazing to fend off the thieves.  They manage to chase off a few of them while taking heavy fire, and when it looks like they get a break in the action they head back to the big house, and low and behold the locks have been changed, and they are no longer welcome.  

You see Lane and I put the blame in different places.  Lane thinks the FV guys won and took over, and I think that a 3rd party took the opportunity run off the TR's (for lack of a better term) and gain complete control.  I think the "evangelical middle" as Lane refers to them has always had designs on running this denomination.  

Let me take you back to the Presbyterian Pastors Leadership Network and 2002.  They pushed Good Faith Subscription and a change in the way of GA taking original jurisdiction.  Now the change to BCO 34-1 and original jurisdiction failed, but the PPLN won.  40 Presbyteries agreed, it just was short of the 2/3rds required.  Thus the majority of the PCA thought Presbytery discipline was enough.  Couple that with the Good Faith Subscription, which in my opinion gave more wiggle room to those who disagree with the confession, and the groundwork is set.  

That lead nicely into Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together in 2006 (which is no longer on the internet but my summary is still up).  This was a clear call from many men that prosecution of others would not be tolerated.  This was not so much the FV men courting the evangelical middle, this was the establishment of the PCA saying they wanted the FV men and could do without the TR guys.  Lots of Covenant Theological Seminary men signed this document.  This is of course the same year that The Missouri Presbytery Report of FV came out, which was an attempt to split the middle, and would later serve as the basis for clearing Rev. Jeff Meyers, who was on the committee.  So, too, by the way, were Bryan Chapell, C. John Collins, and David Chapman of Covenant Seminary.  

Then comes the 2007 FV report at GA.  Now this was heralded by the TRs as a great moment, but really it meant nothing.  This is one reason it was able to get such a wide margin vote.  The groundwork had been laid that Presbyteries could let in whoever with Good Faith and that the prosecutors in trials are the bad guys.  And this report was in no way judicial so why fight it.  

This brings up the fight against Steve Wilkins in 2008.  Armed with the new FV report the TRs then went after Steve Wilkins.  Note then that this is the first time the TR's went to the judicial process against the FV men.  In 2001 when Rev. Moorecraft sounded the alarm, they discussed, held colloquiums, and fought on email lists and web sites, but this was the first major judicial test.  This was another defeat in the end for the anti-FV crowd.  Yes, Wilkins left, and yes the Louisiana Presbytery had to retry the case (because they cleared him the first time), but no judicial guilt was found against him in the end.  Just like the John Wood case about women preaching a decade earlier.  If you don't get a guilty verdict, it is really a loss.  Just because the man leaves does not make the problem go away.  This became evident then when Missouri Presbytery and Northwest Presbytery refused to discipline FV men in their bounds.  

This is about the time that the 9th Commandment issues came up as Lane mentions.  Siouxlands Presbytery was ripped apart by the factions.  TE Lawerence and TE Moon were brought up on charges and both were cleared.  This was followed by the major instigators of the charges being brought up on charges themselves.  TE Carpenter and TE White were both brought up on 9th Commandment charges and TE Keister himself was tried for unorthodoxy.  This was not so much the movement of the FV crowd as the people at home in the ranch.  It became a standard response to accusations, but I do not think that it was always leveled by those who actually hold to the FV.  

Enter into the debate now the powerful Tim Keller.  Published author, featured in magazines, and pastor of a huge church in New York City.  Keller gives a speech in June of 2010 about what is so great about the PCA.  While I disagree with a lot of Keller's historical analysis, the main point of Keller's paper/talk was to promote the idea that the PCA is a diverse body and should remain that way.  Clearly then those who are trying to get rid of a subgroup are in the wrong.  There was a lot that went into the Strategic Plan that the PCA bounced around and they did change some of it, but they still created "safe spaces" and they advanced their overall agenda of the PCA being a "big tent" denomination, a "big tent" that included the FV.  Only those who do not want a "big tent" are not welcome. 

And then, of course, there are the secret groups that seem to have won the day at GA.  The National Partnership was created this year with the express purpose of using the GA to further the "health" of churches.  The email sent out was sent by Rev. George Robertson, I believe another author of the Missouri Report on the FV.  Don't forget the behind the scenes working to prevent debate about the SJC ruling on Leithart, and changing the rules to make sure certain people are not on the SJC that happened this year.  It was not pretty, and it was not done by FVers alone.  No, this was done by others: the power brokers.  

So to summarize, I think the PCA has been systematically undermined by a group of power brokers who have worked hard to make the PCA a big tent, and those who are against that idea are the ones that have to go.  Ultimately, the PCA was not won by the FV.  And the group that now controls the PCA wants the FV and does not want the TR guys.  If I were guessing why, I would assume it was because the FV guys are more likely to have a "cultural" impact than the doctrinalists, and of course, a lot of these guys have a cult following and publish often.  Name recognition can not be underestimated.  Dr. Aquila and Dr. Pipa may be known in some PCA circles, but Doug Wilson and the Credenda Agenda are known by people even outside the PCA.  And it also happens that many of the TR guys are down south, which is often considered embarrassing, which may help shed light on why Steve Wilkins can be chased out, but the other FV guys are all safe.  

So I think Lane has great insights into what the FV has been up to and how they did avoid trouble.  But I think he understates how the "middle" was actually working against the TRs, and has for some time.  The middle is the group that actually won the PCA.  

PCA GA follow up

Since I did a post on the PCA a while back, I ought to just follow up briefly.  If you are interested in what happened take a look at the Aquila Report.  They have nice round up.  No real bias shown.  Very news like.

However, the GA did not bring back hopes of life for the PCA.  They failed to do anything about Meyers or Leithart.  The two men now stand clear and free of charges.  Not only that  but the PCA allowed paedocommunion exceptions in what is probably the start of something new.  They had to recommit a report because it said Jehovah and Allah can be the same (although in an admittedly vague and maybe you can read it another way manner).  They also struggled with a report on child abuse in the church.  Difficult to understand why the removal of some mandatory reporting language was done in the first place.

But perhaps a better exercise to see the state of the PCA is to follow the PCAGA hashtag on Twitter.  Scroll past the good byes and had a good times down to the days where the debate was taking place.  A lot of vitriol and anger from both sides.  There was one in there about Dr. Pipa's mustache being alive and the reason he was so confused right above one thanking Pipa for pointing out confusing language.  And the weird thing is that it was probably not as bad as last year on Twitter.  The PCA is a denomination divided.

I wait to see if the conservatives will do anything, but I am betting they will do nothing.

I pray for the PCA, and I have a lot of friends in it.  But it is hard for me to say the GA was anything other than a disaster for conservative historic Reformed theology.

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).  

PCA Denominational Renewal

I have to say there is some amazing stuff going on over in the Presbyterian Church of America. Now I am not a member of the PCA, and I don’t want to appear to be throwing stones for the RCUS has troubles of its own, we are just too small for them to become internet fodder. No one has sights dedicated to the troubles of the RCUS. That being said, I would like to lovingly point a few things out to my friends in the PCA.

There is a discussion now that follows up on a conference held a few months ago called Denominational Renewal. Of course the goal is to renew the PCA. Fair enough so far. The discussion includes negative voices and friendly voices and is supposed to be a denominational wide discussion. The latest talk was on Renewing Theology and is positively reviewed by John Frame. It is opposed by Sean Michael, a professor at Covenant Seminary. I believe the talk by Jeremy Jones and the response by Dr. Frame are fundamentally very dangerous, and I fear that it is being missed in the PCA.

Note one of Frame’s points.

3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.

This is little other than John Williamson Nevin, who is back in vogue even among Presbyterians. Confessionalism leading to sectarianism is pure Nevin speaking of creeds as a "necessary evil". The problem with the Confession for Frame is that it is old. It is not contemporary. And more importantly as he points out people will "appeal to it". That is the real problem for Frame. It is out of date and people want to use it anyway. Renewing Theology then becomes a modernization of theology or at least the bringing to bear scholarly developments to it. Implicitly then Frame is saying the Confession is flawed and thus wrong. He would probably want to couch it in terms of the WCF being a ‘second grade text book that is not enough for our 12th grade understanding of these subjects.’ At least that is the analogy used by Doug Wilson in his works not to mention Philip Schaff in his. What concerns me even more is that the opposing reviewer cannot quite put his finger on it. Michael states:

first, it strikes me that his proposal for renewing theology holds out great hope for “creative theological thinking.” And yet, if we pay attention to those witnesses of the past, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, they stressed not their creativity, but their unoriginality. . . . the unspoken tension in Jeremy’s paper is actually between “theology” and “history.” That is to ask, how does this rich confessional tradition (or, to maintain the stream of thought, collection of witnesses) called “the Reformed tradition” speak to contemporary theological reflection? Should “the Reformed tradition” be a privileged witness among other witnesses for those who subscription to a Reformed confessional standard? If so, how does such privileging work?

The tension is identified, but not exposed. Michael sees the "creative theological thinking" as a potential problem, but does not denounce it at all. He sees tension between theology in history in the talk, but does not seem to see that Renewing Theology means making sure theology keeps up with history.

Over at Green Baggins elder Bob Mattes goes into a review of these talks and Rev. Frame’s particularly. He quotes from Frame and then comments (the Frame quote is from above and is the first two lines).

How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time?
I’m not sure that I understand what Dr. Frame means by this question. Given my response to his last question, does he wish to say that someone has found an error in the Standards in the intervening period? I’m just not sure where he’s going here.

Elder Mattes is being too nice in my opinion here. Dr. Frame in context (as can be seen above) is putting scholarship in contraposition to the confession as an accurate summary of God’s Word although he uses the word infallible in order to make his case look better. Frame is essentially saying if you continue to appeal and use the WCF then you have rejected all the better learning and theological advancements we have made. That is Frame’s position. The goal obviously is the alteration of the WCF or its removal. Why else ask the question in such a fashion. This is the discussion that is going on under the noses of many in the PCA.

My loving brotherly encouragement to men like brother Mattes and Michael is to dig deeper into what they mean. Have the debate of whether history and modern scholarship really has advanced theology to the point of changing it substantially so that it needs to be renewed. Do not be distracted by the talk of theology is application to modern life because it is not. Theology is the study of God, words about God. I have no problem with applying theology to life, and I admit that as history and technology move forward we will apply our theology to new situations. But the talk of changing the way we apply theology or updating or contextualizing applications of theology is really a back door way to change the theology itself. Has man’s sinful condition changed so much that we need a new way of applying ‘justification by faith alone’? What about Scripture? Is allowing people to understand creation as either 6-day creation or Framework or Day-Age really just contextualizing the doctrine of creation for modern man or updating it considering all the great ‘science’ or is it altering the theology fundamentally?

Normally, I would keep my mouth shut about such things, or at least I might have. But, I fear that the PCA is letting its guard down. I have spoken to several who believe the threat of challenges to justification by faith and other fundamental doctrines are basically over since the Federal Vision has been “defeated”. Many have said it but Bob Mattes again gives it the best expression in a comment on Professor Michael’s essay.

Al - May I offer that our current constitution (Westminsters + BCO) handled everything thrown at it so far? To address your specific examples,the Standards handled Federal Vision nicely. Yes, it took a study committee to ferret out the details, but there's nothing wrong with a careful effort. Feminism in the church context is nicely covered in the BCO backed up by Scripture.

While I have no doubt the Westminster rejects Federal Vision the problem is far from handled. Rev. Wilkins left as a minister in good standing and is now a part of another denomination. We could all list several other ministers still in good standing in the denomination who follow the Federal Vision and contributed to a book by that title. The fight is not over, it is simply in a new phase. The direct attack failed. Now the back door approach comes. Read Dr. Frame again. He complains of appealing to a 350 year old document and how it hampers new scholarship. I hope you can all see how accepting this Denominational Renewal would allow the NEW perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision in the driver seat.

The need for a new history for Presbyterians

History is often written by the winners. That much is a truism. However, these days we can often go back and examine the claims of the winners by looking at the source material to make sure that our histories are correct. Sadly, I do not believe I have yet found a good history of the Presbyterian Church as it exists in America. Some are okay such as Richard Webster’s A History of the Presbyterian Church in America, but it only goes to 1760. It has a fairly New Side slant to it, but oddly enough, not nearly as much as the current histories. Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is good as well, but it is written for a political purpose. Thus, Hodge, while mentioning Old Side leaders and even occasionally championing them, still tries to smooth the differences between the two sides in order to help his debate against the New School. Other histories such as James Smylie’s A Brief History of the Presbyterians are just pathetic. His mentions the schism between the New Side and Old Side, but fails to mention any of the Old Siders by name, completely takes the New Side line and even makes historically inaccurate statements such as when he says, “Old Side members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia decided to go their own way.in 1741” (pg. 49). This is simply factually wrong. The New Side leaders left the meeting, not the Old. The New Side leaders formed the Conjunct Presbytery after marching out. But, it always helps to demonize the side one disagrees with as schismatic. The problem is not to be confined to broad histories. Even the more particular histories such as Morton Smith’s Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology calls the difference between the Old Side and New Side “having been over matters of experimental religion and not doctrinal” (Smith Pg. 28). Of course the participants in the schism disagree greatly. Smith does admit that trouble continued in the north, but contends the southern part of the church was able to continue in peace. He of course forgets to mention that this was because those Old Side ministers were denied their right to form a presbytery west of the mountains. They proposed one which would have had a 3-2 Old Side majority, but it was denied for obviously partisan reasons by the Synod. Hardly the sign of peace pictured in the book. Books about the Great Awakening itself are almost always worse. Joseph Tracy’s famous work The Great Awakening actually says that the Old Side would have become “Arminian” and they even would have slide into “Unitarianism” (Tracy, pg. 388). This bold claim of course goes unsupported.

I am sure that other areas of history in the Presbyterian Church are just as biased. I just finished reading Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church be Saved?, by John Robbins, which makes a similar claim of amazing neglect of primary sources and popular bias in the history of the OPC. Whether that is true or not, I am not qualified to say, but bias exists in us all, so it should not be hard to believe.

I am not claiming that I am unbiased. I have a great deal, I am sure. However, I do think that a new history of the Presbyterian Church needs to be written. One that critically examines the history we know and uses the primary sources. History is vitally important. The mistakes of history are all too often repeated if not learned from. If the history itself is wrong, then one be assured never to learn from it because they will be unaware of it. So you historians out there. Get to it! The time for writing is now.

The Van Til v. Clark Feud

Before I continue examining Van Til and Schaeffer I feel I just have to comment for a moment about Van Til and Clark. Or more specifically what Van Til and Clark has morphed into today.

You will have a hard time finding more acrimonious debate than anytime you run across a debate about Van Til versus Gordon Clark. Followers of Clark will angrily denounce Van Til, trace evils back to him, and say that his methodology puts all knowledge in danger. Van Tillians are usually calm until provoked, but they constantly use ‘Clarkian’ as a slur and relating anyone or anything to John Robbins is a code word for dismissing all that is said without further thought. Why these groups seem to be unable to restrain themselves has befuddled me until recently.

Green Baggins recently hosted an attempt to reconcile the two views. This is something that is done often. People claim that Clark and Van Til simply talked past each other. I am convinced that these two great intellectuals clearly understood one another and profoundly disagreed. Reconciliation is impossible. (Andrew Sandlin has a nice essay about this) But it is the comments that particularly show the root of this anger filled debate. Note in that discussion by post 29 people are told to give up talking to the lone supporter of Clark on the discussion. Of course the lone Clark supporter, a man named Sean Gerety, gets three strikes against him for being abusive. Why the dismissive tone? Why the anger?

In my opinion the reason is twofold. I believe the first and primary reason such anger exists is because of the historical record or the distortion of the historical record. Note several times the debate boils down to what actually happened with the Van Tillians arguing Van Til was not the main antagonist and Clarkians becoming irate at the idea Van Til is to be cleared (see especially comments 94, 126, and 128). I have no doubt in the authenticity of the account given in this post by Rev. Johnson about Clark saying Van Til treated him with respect. Clark apparently preferred to place the black hat on Ned Stonehouse. Meuther has a new biography of Van Til that places the blame on John Murray. However, it needs to be noted that whether or not Van Til is the impetus or not is not the point. Van Til participated. The OPC Presbytery of Philadelphia’s own minutes show that Van Til was indeed one of the signers of the Complaint against Clark’s ordination in 1944. Murray and Stonehouse signed it as well. Van Til then participated in the debate (again according the minutes) at the Presbytery Meeting giving at least one lengthy speech against Clark. Again Stonehouse and Murray participated. In fact, the entire Westminster Faculty participated. The minutes recorded in the Presbyterian Guardian actually directly state Van Til declared "that it was no mere matter of a difference in terminology". Van Til clearly voted against Clark. Does it really matter who led the charge? Van Til was clearly against Clark and worked against him in the church courts. This is a historical fact that simply needs to be admitted. Van Til worked to keep Clark out of the OPC as in fact did the entire Westminster Seminary Faculty. This is a sore spot for followers of Clark and the attempted removal of blame for this from Van Til aggravates the situation.

The second reason is the constant refusal to interact with Clark’s or his followers critique of Van Til. Consider for a moment the high importance placed on logic in the Clark-System, and then imagine participating in a debate where logical attacks are not answered, brushed off (comment #27), or answered with personal attacks (#143). This happens more often than one might think. That being said, the militant attitude of Sean in this case brought on militant attitudes in others. John Robbins often has the same problem. His highly vitriolic rhetoric tends to bring out a defense reaction rather than a reaction of open mindedness. It is hard to blame people for walking away from a discussion where they are constantly abused. However, it should be noted that the tone or the rhetoric does not affect the argument itself. The idea that Meuther is wrong or biased in his biography is one that needs to be answered. The point that Van Til supported Norman Shepherd needs to be answered. These are points that cannot go unanswered (Just for the record I am not saying that I agree with these objections just that they deserve an answer).
One might notice that I place more blame on the tone of the discussion on the followers of Van Til, than I do the followers of Clark. That would be correct. The Van Til Party is the Majority Party and thus bears a great deal of responsibility. That being said there is one thing that the followers of Clark need to do to aid in the discussion. They should stop claiming the Federal Vision is a product of Van Til’s teaching and epistemology. This does nothing but provoke a gutteral response from the followers of Van Til. I understand the need of Clark’s followers to test the ‘root by the fruit’ so to speak, and it is true that not one known Federal Vision man is a follower of Clark. But that proves nothing. That is not even out of the realm of statistics yet. Robbins and Gerety have yet to show that Van Til’s thinking are the root cause. Could it be that Banshen’s interpretation of Van Til is more the problem that Van Til. This would provide the stronger connection with Theonomy, which appears to be more than a passing influence on the FV. Could it be that there is something deeper at work that would make people want to adhere to Van Til and then Theonomy and the FV? Could it be that the idea of Doctrinal Development is the axiom at the root rather than Van Til? If one wanted to really study the idea of what promotes the FV, then do so, but it is a needless provocation during a discussion about Van Til and Clark.

So in conclusion, the venom in this debate will not be turned down until it is acknowledged that Van Til and all of Westminster viewed Clark outside the bounds of orthodoxy for the OPC. And it will not be turned down until Clark’s critique is taken seriously and the differences admitted to be real and substantial. Then hopefully both sides will be able to keep the discussion on a fruitful plain.

And for full disclosure’s sake, I consider myself a Presuppositionalists much closer to Van Til than to Clark.

The Deeper Debate about Westminster Theological Seminary

There is a debate raging on-line about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary. Some are worried that those who favor the more liberal direction of Biblical Theology and lean toward Shepherd and the Federal Vision are concerned that their voices may be silenced. They have started a Save Our Seminary website with all the details. Others like Rev. Lane Keister are concerned that the conservative voices are being silenced in favor of the Biblical Theology department and their innovations. Basically they are concerned for the exact opposite reasons as the Save Our Seminary group. This could be a new front in the war about Federal Vision-like theology, but it is really a strange battleground, one that has me thinking about seminaries in general.

Westminster Theological Seminary is an independent seminary. It serves many denominations, but it is not under any of them. Yes, it has a long-standing tradition and yes it does have a lot of control in the OPC, but it is not under any one denomination. This is not uncommon as most seminaries today operate as independent non-profit organizations including for self-disclosure’s sake the one from which I graduated. There is a long standing debate, especially in my own denomination, about whether or not it is appropriate for an organization that is outside of the church be allowed to train ministers to serve inside the church. And if the Bible gives the job of training men to the church, can the church then give it to these outside groups? We can argue some other time about whether or not seminaries are the way to go or whether or not the apprenticeship model is better. The question before us today is whether any of these people complaining about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary have a right to complain or should they have expected change and drift from an independent organization?

I do believe that independent seminaries will change and cannot be expected to stay faithful to creeds or even their own original vision statements because they are organizations not under any real authority. It is not a church. One can do a lot of things to pretend a seminary is a church in and of itself. Some have chapels and other worship like activities, but that does not make it the church. It is true that most seminaries would consider their authority to be the church, but in reality it is the Board of Directors. And a Board of Directors is a lot of things, but it is not a church court. It is also shabby for oversight. Most directors do not live in the same area as the actual seminary and may not make every meeting. It may be that the Directors are cobbled together to try and spread the influence of the seminary around to other spots rather than to limit the seminary, to check the seminary, and to oversee the seminary. The President might have some sort of oversight, but the faculty usually has free reign over minds that have come not to oversee, but to be taught and learn. In a local congregation a minister preaches and teaches his congregation that hopefully has an attitude of coming to learn, but he is also preaching and teaching to elders who have oversight or at least a standing to bring complaints before an appropriate body.

Historically Westminster Theological Seminary has already seen trouble with this line between church and institution. It occurred with Rev. Norman Shepherd’s problems there back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Shepherd was investigated by the seminary several times, but the church not so much. Then Shepherd was fired from WTS for not adhering to the Westminster Standards, but he remained a minister in good standing in the OPC. That was about to change when he transferred to the Christian Reformed Church. But the point here is that a man was suspected of teaching heretical doctrine in his class and the discipline stayed within the bounds of the seminary and did not go directly to the church courts. Years later because the workings of a Board of Trustees is not the same as the workings of a church court, the teacher is removed. Now he is in the unenviable position of being fired for unorthodox statements, but is considered orthodox by his denomination. It is just one example of many that could be referenced of trouble that comes from independent seminaries.

There are other reasons that independent seminaries will drift away from their standards other than the complete lack of oversight and authority. Namely the fact that seminaries are academic institutions by nature, and the fact that they are businesses that make more money the broader they become.

This controversy about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary is an interesting one. However, it is only a symptom of a greater problem. Maybe this new uprising at WTS will lead to a bigger discussion.

PCA and FV Update

Perhaps you have already heard but Rev. Steve Wilkins and his entire church have left the PCA and are seeking union with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CRE). This is not surprising per se as the CRE is the final destination for all FV men or at least it will be.

It is a little bit of a surprise that Rev. Wilson seems to call it a victory. He is quite happy about the church joining his denomination, but a few months ago he seemed excited about the PCA being exposed by having this process done out in the open. The PCA did seem to encourage the strategy finally employed by Rev Wilkins in their ‘Leave or else’ declaration. Both sides decided in the end to avoid a fight, and what exactly happens now is up in the air. Does the PCA continue to prosecute the Louisiana Presbytery? Will other members of that presbytery flee to the arms of the CRE? Will the PCA turn its attention to others like Rev. Leithart? The issue is not dead, but it is ducked for another year or so.

Another interesting post is the one at Reformed Catholicism. Read the interaction in the comments especially response #9 from Rev. Sandlin. Sandlin has a very large rebuke for the CRE.

The PCA, The SJC, and the FV

I have to comment on the discussion surrounding the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) recent pronouncement against the Louisiana Presbytery and how the affects Federal Vision leader Rev. Steve Wilkins.

Just for some quick background, complaints had been made about the orthodoxy of Rev. Wilkins because of his Federal Vision. The PCA Study Committee passed a report against the Federal Vision. Rev. Wilkins was cleared twice by his own presbytery, but complaints continued from both in and out of the presbytery. The SJC has decided that Rev. Wilkins was wrongly cleared, and we await a plea of guilty or not guilty by the Louisiana Presbytery.

Now I have to say that I think Doug Wilson has a very valid point about this being a very slick system (just for clarity comparing Wilkins to Machen is wrong). Wilson has a very comical summary that really has no answer from the anti-Federal Vision side. The idea a man could be excommunicated without ever being declared guilty or being personally allowed to appear is ludicrous. Hopefully, it will not happen in such a manner. Many other ministers have begun to refer to the PCA as the un-presbyterian church in America or just putting a ? instead of the word Presbyterian. There is a shade of truth to those accusations.

However, here is where the Federal Visionists go completely wrong. They focus in two distinct areas. The first is that the SJC has never been a place where the verdict could be appealed. This is not some new invention put in place to put down Rev. Wilkins this is the system set up in the church constitution. All of this judicial process has taken place according to the way the PCA does business. Nothing has occurred that violates church law. It just turned out that Wilkins can now be defrocked without being on trial. It is hard to blame people for following the rules. These PCA ministers who now refer to their own denomination as un-presbyterian should have been complaining about the rules for years and decades. If they truly think this unpresbyterian, then why did they not complain before? The fact that only now do they complain about it shows the true nature of the complaint. It is not against the system, but rather against the outcome. They would love the inability to appeal if the verdict had gone the other way.

The second point is against Wilson himself. Are we really supposed to think he cares? His denomination accepted a man who was defrocked in the plain light of day for not only for heresy (infant communion) charges, but also for spiritual tyranny and tax fraud. This man’s ordination (despite being removed by the defrocking) was accepted. After such actions, which apparently were not the first, should we think that what the judicial processes of other denominations mean anything to Wilson or to the CREC? When viewed in this light it appears that Rev. Wilson is merely setting the stage for what he wants to happen. Regardless of outcome, The CREC will extend a spot to Rev. Wilkins and any who follow him and to their churches. All of the complaining is public relations.

So in short, I do find the judicial process in the PCA to be less than Presbyterian. No one should be excommunicated or defrocked without a hearing or trial where he is found guilty. If the PCA thinks the Louisiana Presbytery should be found guilty for not finding Wilkins guilty that really out to come after someone declares Wilkins guilty. However, the rage and arguments coming from the Federal Vision movement is contrived and fake. It would not matter what occurred they would still be complaining. They would not respect the decision of the PCA, and the CREC is the ultimate destination for all FV men.

Defeating Xerxes or Enabling Stalin?

There seems to be a lot of talk about the Reformed tendency to devour its own rather than fight the enemy. First off, I do not grant that the Reformed really fight among themselves more than they fight against unbelief and atheism as a whole. But, I do want to interact with the flurry of essays about this very topic on the web right now. Dr. Reggie Kidd uses a history lesson and a pop culture reference all rolled into one. Following up on the movie 300’s success, Dr. Kidd gives us the rest of the story. Athens apparently waves its typical right to lead the sea battles in order to ensure the war is won. Dr. Kidd wants this to be a lesson to the Reformed world. Maybe we should work together in order to defeat the common enemy. Maybe, as he puts it, "civil war in the face of external threats is suicide." He then goes on to list many external threats to Christianity, and he is right about everyone, and I am sure we can come up with a list twice as long.

The problem with historical metaphor is there is almost always a counter example. In this case the example of WWII. In that America and Russia put aside their differences and defeated the evil Axis powers. America waved its right to conquer Berlin, and let the Russians do it. After all, civil war in the face of external threats is suicide right? Despite the pleadings of General Patton, Russia went into Berlin first. What happened? Oh, only decades of a split Germany, complete Communist domination of Eastern Europe, and a nasty Cold War that taught a generation of children Nuclear Bomb drills. Not to mention the fact that blood would be shed in the downfall of the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe as a whole still suffers the ravages of Communism today. In the example of Dr. Kidd the cooperation expelled the enemy and gave the victory to the good guys. In my example the cooperation expelled the current enemy and enthroned one just as bad. Dr. Kidd provides some examples that he thinks we should rally behind and follow. Topping that list is the ever popular N.T. Wright. It is an oddity that Right Rev. Wright is a conservative in England and a bit of a liberal in America. But, should we rush to embrace him and default to his lead as Athens did to Sparta? Dr. Kidd thinks so, but if Bishop Wright is vague on the atonement, promotes a faulty Christology (as I am convinced he does in the articles he publishes on the web, a type of Nestorianism), and compromises biblical authority, then perhaps the following of N.T. Wright will free the people of Poland from Nazi rule only to enslave them to Communist rule, metaphorically speaking of course. Dr. Kidd’s examples assume that the attacks are unjustified. But, isn’t that the whole point in dispute? If Dr. Kidd agreed that N.T. Wright was shaky on the atonement of Jesus Christ then surely he would not argue he should be our leader simply because he reaches post-modern people with his shaky gospel message.

Dr. Frame has a long paper on the history of in fighting in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and thinks perhaps they inherited the problem from Machen’s fighting of the liberals. This historically entertaining and well thought out piece is worth a look. He points to 21 issues where the Reformed devoured their own with the obvious conclusion that it was needless. Now in some of the points he is quite correct. In others he seems to miss the point entirely. Machen led a split over the fact that the PCUSA no longer required people to believe in things like the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, or miracles, etc. John Frame views that as a good reason to leave, but thinks that Justification by faith alone is not a good reason and chastises those who would reject new positions that rewrite or outright deny justification by faith alone. Frame also seems to think that believing God created the earth in six days is unimportant or following the bible’s teachings on women in the ministry are not the same as rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus or the miracles of Jesus as the PCUSA did during Machen’s day. Do not all those positions state what the bible says is not literally true, and that culture and sciences must have their say before we hold to the Bible as the Word of God? And then of course, I think Dr. Frame pads the debates in order to reach a higher number. The debate about Tradition in Theology (his number 18) is just made up, or at least is so internal that I am unfamiliar with it. And then he adds his own Multiperspectivalism to the debate. And while I will be the first one to say I dislike the multiperspectivalism of Dr. Frame, I hardly think it fits in a paper with the Days of Creation, Shepherdism, and Women in the ministry. It seems an attempt to be persecuted.

The same critique applies to Dr. Frame as applied to Dr. Kidd. It really only seems like devouring your own, if you think the error, not an error at all. Can a female minister stand behind a pulpit and tell people to live a life in obedience to the Word of God when the hearer reads for himself I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2? At the very least can Frame not admit a similarity to the events leading to Machen’s estrangement from the PCUSA?

I can understand people who want to make an argument that the Church should be at peace and have a broad tent. I may disagree, but I think I can understand where they are coming from. I certainly understand a call to arms against those things outside the church which need to be confronted. What I do not understand is saying that ‘the Church should be at peace, unite to fight common enemies, and the only reason it is not is because many people are nit picky and devour their own.’ This seems to be what Dr. Kidd and Dr. Frame are saying. It is difficult to comprehend why two doctors cannot understand the difference between quibbling over beer drinking and debating justification by faith alone. The first is a civil war that can cost you everything. The second is a war against an enemy of another color.

All I heard was Blah, Blah, Blah

This is just too much to pass up. The Boneman has a blog up about the irony of his reformed experience. Apparently he thought the reformed tradition was intellectually honest. He seems to have since changed his mind. The real irony is his example of a lack of intellectual honesty. Here it is.

Take the issue of paedocommunion. Reformed traditionalists keep banging the "examine yourself" passage from 1 Cor 11:28 to mean that we must introspectively / subjectively determine if we really "know" we are saved before coming to the table. When confronted over the largely "extrospective" pastoral context of 1 Corinthians as it relates to "discerning the Lord's body" (the unity of the local church), the Reformed traditionalist's eyes glaze over and proceeds to say, "Well, it can't really mean that because... blah, blah, blah!"

In other words, Boneman thinks it is intellectually dishonest to make an argument against paedocommunion. Not that he pays attention to the arguments they use. He admits they have one, he just does not think it worthy hearing. Notice the last sentence where he quotes the ‘traditionalists’. They reject something and when they start to explain all Boneman can come up with is ‘blah, blah, blah.’ I don’t know about you all, but when I see someone summarize a position as ‘blah, blah, blah’, I know where the intellectual dishonesty lies.

Oh yeah, and if you wonder where I ran across this jewel of reasoning, I found it linked and strongly agreed with by Mark Horne.

Do we have a High Point?

Far be it from me to disagree with the JollyBlogger or Bryan Chapell, who is the one quoted, but I have not published anything theological in a while, and so I am going to disagree.

The JollyBlogger reports that Bryan Chapell had a sermon at GA about the PCA at 35 years. Chapell claims the PCA is faithful to the Scriptures, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, has haggled for 35 years about what means to be faithful to the Westminster Standards, and now should focus on being mission-minded. While I think that the PCA’s position paper on Creation reflects badly on the PCA’s view of inerrancy, I will let that point pass without further discussion. What I really want to discuss is the quote touted by the JollyBlogger from Rev. Chapell. He said,

The best part of that sermon for me was when he said something to the effect of "the high point of the church cannot have been 500 years ago."

My first response, and should be everyone’s response, is ‘Why not?’ Admittedly without context it is hard to deal with this quote, but one is starting to see it more and more. It is usually a plea to move past the Reformation tradition no matter how it is hidden or dressed up. If someone is going to make a statement that something cannot be true, then it needs to be well defended.

First, is Rev. Chapell talking about the high point of theology? If so then why can 500 years ago not be the high point? Why cannot approximately 2000 years ago not be the high point? What even makes us think that there are high point and low point in the history of theology? What about our theology today should be different than the theology of the apostles, the Westminster Divines, the Old Side Presbyterians? What exactly should be changed to make us move ‘higher’ in Rev. Chapell’s mind? If Rev. Chapell meant this to be about theology then he has fallen into the trap of the Schaff/Hegelian model of theology. I reject the idea that theology grows and becomes more known and more complex over time like a Math book does as one goes from addition and subtraction to Calculus (Doug Wilson’s favorite example). It is certainly not a statement that should just be thrown out without defense, nor should it be accepted without discussion. Is not the faith once given the saints, and we charged with holding fast to it. Where exactly do we get the idea that as history progress and changes, so too must our theology?

Second, if he is talking about moving past the Reformation as far as planting churches and spreading the influence of the church, then whom on earth disagrees with him? The Reformation is not looked to by people as an example of the greatest degree of influence the church ever had. In fact, the Reformation is probably one of the low points with regards to influence the church had. I have never heard anyone think that the high point of church missions or planting or influence has past or that the time of the Reformation was that high point.

Again, I do not have all of the context, but I bet Rev. Chapell was speaking along the lines of the first point, that somehow the church needs to move beyond the Westminster or stop thinking about past theology, and start thinking about new ways/theology to reach the lost in the modern culture. I really would like someone who was there to explain it to me.

My main point here is this: we need to consciously examine what we think about history itself, whether it has high points and low points, whether or not it is proper to look back or whether or not the lessons of history are useful in the present. These things are under attack, and I fear that we too often want some new innovation to lead our churches simply because we all accept the maxim that new is better. I hope that this is not what Rev. Chapell meant, but it is something that is making its rounds in the church today.

The Voice of the Church

An interesting side debate has now occurred after the PCA adopted its report. Should the Federal Vision adherents leave the PCA because they should have a high view of church authority? Rev. Lane Kiester is one of those who thinks they ought to just leave the PCA now they know they are not welcome. Alastair argues that men ought to stay because the PCA and/or OPC do not represent the church universal. I have to disagree with both of them.

Rev. Kiester argues that if one has a high regard for the church, then he would either repent or leave the church. While I agree with the idea of repenting, leaving the church if one is not convinced is not necessarily an action I advocate. J. Greshem Machen did not leave the liberal PCUSA. He tried to change it from within, and was eventually disciplined out. According to Rev. Kiester, Machen must have had a low view of the church because he did not repent, and he did not leave.

On the other hand, Alastair, tries to argue that because so many denominations exist we cannot treat any one of them as if it were the Church capital C. Alastair seems to think that this was not the case in generations past because he states, “we cannot simply take the ecclesiologies of previous generations and apply them directly to the local denominational congregations that we attend.” Thus, Alastair seems to argue that in the ‘olden’ days the pronouncements of a church meant something because their were not denominations. With all due respect for Alastair, I think there were always denominations. The first heretic, Marcion, is excommunicated by his father, but received in Rome and there he leads many astray. Marcion ‘churches’ are everywhere by the end of the 2nd century as are Monatnist churches. Some areas had a ‘Catholic’ church, a Marcion church and a Montanist church. How is this different than the current situation? But surely we would not argue that all three of those ‘churches’ would have to speak with one accord to say the Church spoke? Even if we leave off the history of heretics, we can still see proto-denominations. Take the case of Cyprian. He avoided martyrdom, faced harsh criticism from the Bishop of Rome no less, but he refused to say that was the Church speaking and went about his own business. Is that not a denominational spirit in the second century? Alastair’s argument is what the Patriarchs of the East said for centuries. They claimed the Church as a whole could not speak unless everyone agreed. It led to wide differences between the East and the West long before open schism occurred in 1054. That does not speak well for the existence of church wide counsels either because the Robber Council of Ephesus had wide approval, but was eventually overturned. The Seventh Ecumenical Council had the agreement of all the Patriarchs, including the Pope, but was outright ignored by the vast majority of the churches because of the influence of Charlemagne and the Franks. Is that not a proto-denominationalism even in the 8th century? Alastair’s formula means the Church never speaks, ever. Such a situation is hard to countenance.

Thus, I believe the answer is to be found in discipline, rather than pronouncements. Alastair is right in thinking that the study committees of the PCA, the OPC, and even the RCUS do not equal the church of Christ speaking to all the other denominations out there. I personally would have a hard time thinking that a study committee of the CRE constituted the voice of the Church. I also regularly ignore the pronouncements of women being preachers made by the PCUSA, the UMC, the UCC, many Baptist churches, the TEC, and several other denominations that probably have more membership than the Reformed churches. I do believe that the church does speak, and that is through godly discipline rather than study committees. Lane is right that when your own denomination speaks, one ought to listen very, very carefully. However, the way the church speaks on such matters as the FV is discipline, not study committees. Lane is correct that passing the study committee at GA was a victory, but was it the church speaking? At least three presbyteries of the PCA have vindicated the FV, or at least portions of it through study committees and/or trials. Does the study committee at GA somehow trump the voice of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery that actually examined a man? Or the Louisiana Presbytery? Does it mean the Missouri Presbytery’s committee report is no longer valid or perhaps even out of bounds? Did the OPC report reverse the decision Kinnaird case? The bible shows us over and over again that the church speaks through its godly discipline. It spoke on the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. They spoke about lying in Acts 5. They spoke on Simon Magus when Peter and John pronounced upon him in Acts 8. Discipline is the voice of the church in matters of doctrinal deviation. I think if the PCA and OPC have spoken, it is at best a speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Admittedly discipline cases are pending in the PCA. That decision will be the PCA speaking, not this report. I should also point out that the discipline of the church must be consistent and applied to more than one person. I think I do not need to remind the Presbyterians of Charles Augustus Briggs, and what happened after he was the only one removed from office.

I commend the PCA for its acceptance of the report, but I encourage them to press on. They are not finished until they use the Biblical power of the keys to truly speak on this issue.

Should a General Assembly celebrate the Lord's Supper?

The blogosphere is quite because the PCA is in its General Assembly. Everyone and their grandmother is down there in order to participate in the row over the Federal Vision Study Committee report. I glanced at their docket, and something else caught my eye. They are going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It is after the session is declared open and called to order by the moderator. The RCUS does have worship services, but they are not technically part of the Synod. The meetings are not in session as we worship. The Synod in the RCUS does not have the power to offer the sacraments, only the local church. Yet, clearly the PCA General Assembly is offering the sacrament. It cannot be participating in a host church’s Lord’s Supper because it is not in a host church, but rather a convention center. I found it interesting because I wonder what sort of difference this implies in the view of the church?

It is that time of year again . . .

It is that time of year again when all the denominations get together for their respective meetings. I leave for Synod next week. This year looks rather tame compared to the last years and I am hopeful it will go smoothly.

However, other denominations do not look as smooth. The PCA has a report coming back about the Federal Vision and Rev. Jeff Meyers has posted 30 Reasons not to adopt the report. I will attempt to summarize his 30 reasons into a few.
1. The PCA is not Strict Subscription – points 1,2,10,11,12, 13, 15, 16, and 17. Meyers has a point here. It does appear to me that this report may have a hard time fitting in with the idea of ‘Good Faith Subscription’, but that is the bed the PCA made for themselves.
2. Disagreement with the conclusions of the report – points 9, 14, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (possibly 16) – This is a legitimate reason to vote against the report. The question is do people agree with him or not.
3. Sour Grapes and Church Politics – 3,4,5, and 6 – Rev. Meyers thinks a FV proponent should have been on the committee. I agree that it looks like a railroad by not having a FV man on a Study Committee, but this why you vote on things at the GA. If the report is wrong, vote it down. This is not a reason to vote against it, but the reason you have votes in the first place.
4. The Report is unconvincing – points 8, 18, and 19 – A legitimate reason to vote against the report if one agrees with his conclusion about the lack of meat in the report.
5. The Judicial Nature of the Study Committee – points 28 and 29 – A very good point. One I have made before as well. There are procedure and protections that exist (and rightfully so) in a judicial process that do not exist in a study committee. It seems odd to pretend that this is not part of a disciplinary procedure. This is clearly a great reason to vote against the formation of the committee, but is it a reason to vote against it now that it is created? A dilemma for sure.
6. Obviously inappropriate treatment – point 7 – This is sad, and I hope it is an oversight. It is against the Standing Rules in the RCUS not to turn in a Report 4 weeks prior to the Synod. How did this report not get into the Commissioners Handbook? Wow. A stunning development that is just inappropriate all around.
7. Because the conversation is good – point 30 – This is by far the worst of his reasons. It seems obvious that not all agree this conversation is good. The idea that a conversation is not a movement and thus it should allowed to continue is hard to fathom. I poor ending to an otherwise nice contribution to the debate by Rev. Meyers.

If you want a more critical and through treatment Green Baggins is going through them. I think he is up to Point 16. This has helped launch the firestorm that provoked responses from Mark Horne and Uri Brito. Just to name a few. While I am against the FV, I do think they have some legitimate complaints about the way the PCA has handled this situation. On the other hand, Mr. Brito has done his fair share of mistreating in his Senior Paper for Reformed Theological Seminary. Mr. Brito has managed to take the entire FV debate and throw it out the window as Personality Clashes, mainly by those anti-FV men like Green Baggins and John Robbins. The fact that the two sides cannot even agree that real differences exist between them really disappoints me. If you wondered why the RCUS no longer funds or supports RTS, look no further than the paper of Mr. Brito.

All in all, it will be a wild and strange few months. I thank God I am in the RCUS everyday.

Peter Leithart and Changing the Debate

Peter Leithart has posted a lot of things about the Federal Vision, including recently many attempts to discover the root of the disagreement. Some of his opinions about the reason for the controversy have merit, but his latest attempt is just wrong, in my opinion. It also appears to be another cast the debate on grounds that have nothing to do with theology. Leithart thinks that anti-FV crowd is the institution, and the FV crowd is the underdog, but also with connotations of the disciples(FV) vs. the Pharisees(anti-FV). A popular role to be in for sure.

The problem is that I do not see the anti-FV guys as the establishment or occupying establishment positions. Leithart may have a point that many of those against the Federal Vision have been moderators. And no FV guy has been the moderator. Fine, I give him that one, but it is hardly proof. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary hardly counts as the ‘establishment’. It is a relatively new seminary with less than 100 students. Even fewer than that going full time. It is not the official seminary of any church, and I do not think even of any presbyteries. Westminster West has a much better claim on being the establishment, but again, it is an independent seminary. No establishment credentials there either. Westminster East has the best establishment credentials claim, but it is barely noticeable in this debate. They have not taken a lead in anti-FV propaganda at all. In fact, as Rev. Leithart points out, D.G. Hart wrote a sympathetic book about John Nevin! Nevin’s views permeate the FV. I did not positively react to Hart’s whitewash of Nevin, and I am not sure who did. I will concede that if someone thinks Nevin’s views good and still thinks the FV bad, then perhaps they fall into Leithart’s criticism that the problem is not what is being said, but who is saying it. But, I do not see many PCA endorsements of Nevin.

Now if we really want to talk about establishment, one has to look at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. That is the official PCA seminary. Again, not much is heard coming out of Covenant Seminary except an exchange from Bryan Chapel, president of Covenant, that was not even characterized as anti-FV by FV men like Rich Lusk. You will also find Covenant Seminary professors’ signatures littered in the Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together document, which also contains the majority of FV men. While the document itself is not FV, the signers, promoters, and defenders are. You won’t find a lot of anti-FV signatures on it.

While Leithart also points to the lack of formal education of Doug Wilson as another proof, he fails to mention that other Federal Vision men include James Jordan with a doctorate degree, Norman Shepherd (who at least shares a lot of beliefs with the FV) a former teacher at Westminster East, and the Credenda/Agenda itself, which has a wide readership in the PCA. It should be noted that the anti-FV men do not have any such organ that compares to the C/A magazine.

So despite the protests that "The debate is not just about what's being said. It's also about who's saying it." It really is about what is being said. And remember anytime that someone tries to distract you from what is being said to some other issue, it means you really ought to pay attention to what is being said.

Interesting articles

Kevin Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has a nice response to Douglas Wilson's latest rant about the PCA/Wilkins/FV controversy. According to Wilson this clear confession of faith either ensures that Wilkins will be cleared, prove the PCA is a bunch of idiots, or prove the PCA is a bunch of hate-mongers. I am glad someone called out the elephant in the room.