Why I think Youth Groups fit in the Reformed Tradition

Youth groups are a hot topic; people love them or hate them.  There is an article that is getting a lot of attention that points to Youth Groups as the reason so many young people leave church in their twenties.  

I pastor a church in the RCUS, and I would bet that our church is in the minority in the denomination in having a youth group.  I agree that this is a very flawed survey, and is sponsored by the Family Integrated Church movement, which is probably leaning toward Patriarchy.  But put all of that aside and we are still faced with the question, are youth groups bad?  

It is hard to read responses from many youth pastors and not think, "Youth groups are indeed the problem".  Any defense of youth groups that includes blaming parents, blaming boring church services, and quotes YoungLife as a positive is more likely part of the problem than part of the solution.  In fact I am willing to say if your church's youth group is creating worship services for the youth, then it is clearly part of the problem.  Yet, I still think there is a place for Youth groups.

I know there are many who think that segregation of the church by age is dividing the church.  I agree and disagree at the same time.  Whether we like it or not, the world around us is age divided.  Unless your kid spends all his or her time at home and never goes outside to play with friends, your child is age divided.  My 11 year old plays baseball in a different league than my 9 year old.  And have you ever tried to make a Sunday School class that teaches both the 3 year olds and 65 year olds?  Age division makes some logical sense.  

I think Youth Groups can be a great positive for the youth.  I think it can actually bind them to the local church rather than divide them.  But several things have to be present.  First, you can't have a worship service for them.  Worship is not age divided.  And if it is, then you are sending a message of separation rather than unity.  It will also train youth to grow up and expect church to be like it was during youth.  This generation's church service is last generation's youth group.  Second, the whole idea of Youth Pastor has to go.  This is another message of separation.  Your youth pastor is not the head pastor.  Your youth pastor is a special guy who just does one thing.  Oh and your youth pastor does not really participate in worship either, except maybe on one or two Sundays a year.  It is another separation.  However, if the actual pastor spends time with the youth, would it not help bind them to the church?  

This is how I currently envision youth ministry.  The pastor sitting down with the youth and leading a bible study.  Yes, in my church this often involves pizza or candy, but you will have a hard time convincing me that anything cannot be improved with food.  But the pastor sitting down with the youth and having Bible studies that help them with the particular trials they are facing is a good thing.  Probably most of the adults in your church are not struggling with dating or how to choose a spouse.  And thus, your church is probably not teaching on it very often.  But this is something the college students are facing.  And can't high school students get a head start on knowing what to look for in a potential mate?  Having a time and place for the pastor to lead a bible study on this with those who are facing it can be a valuable thing.  

If we believe Bible study is good, why would be against bible study for a particular age group that faces particular challenges?  And is there a better way for a pastor to get to know the needs of people who are valued members of his church than to sit down with them and talk to them over a pizza?  Maybe your youth group needs to have a lesson about why age divided worship services are bad.  Maybe you need to explain how wonderful it is to be in worship with people of all ages.  It is a timely topic for college students who are often being invited to church services geared for the young.  Explain to them why they should not abandon your church that sings hymns and has 80 year olds in the service.  Our youth group talked about it, and I think it was a discussion they needed to have.  

I know that Youth groups are a hot button issue.  I understand the desire to not be replacing parents, and on the other hand, I understand the desire to draw in young people.  There are always ditches on both sides of the road.  But for me the issue comes down to the call of the Lord: "Feed my sheep."  Each church needs to ask that very question.  Are the youth getting fed, and are they being equipped with the word to face the challenges they face?  I think the youth group is one way a church can try and feed the sheep.  It is not the only way at all, but I think it can be a possible way.  

Three Forms vs. Westminster - Fourth Commandment Part 2

A commenter in the previous post made the point that the change from the “Continental” view of the 4^th commandment to the “Puritan” view was simply a development of doctrine, and thus the Puritan view is the Reformed view.  A quick look at my labels of blog posts and you will see how I really detest the idea of Doctrinal Development.  It is a sword often wielded to help shield people from the fact of what they are really saying is “The first 1700 years of the church knew nothing of this, but thankfully we invented it”.  But I shall put that aside a moment and try to continue to show that it is truly two separate traditions or streams within the broader Reformed river.

The challenge has been made to show someone from the 17^th century that held to the Continental View of the Sabbath as expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is true that in the 17^th century we begin to see in the Netherlands the Nadere Reformation that brings the Puritan thinking into the Netherlands.  One could turn the challenge around and tell others to find someone not related to the Nadere Reformation who supported the Puritan view of the Sabbath, but I shall simply answer their challenge.

Let me start with the Dutch.  Here you had a large group who followed Johannes Cocceius.  Cocceius is a bit of a controversial figure, but nonetheless, he held to a Continental View of the Sabbath as did the vast majority of his followers.  The number of his followers should not be considered small either.  This is a large group of men since he taught at Frankener and Leiden, two major universities.  Now to go to the other end of the spectrum, we can grab Franciscus Gromarus.  Gromarus, most famous for his staunch opposition to Arminius, also held to the Continental view of the Sabbath.    Both of these Dutch Theologians were professors and taught a Continental view of the Sabbath.  

The commenter mentioned the French Reformed were represented at Westminster.  While I am unaware of who would have been there, it should be mentioned that by the time of the Westminster Amyraldianism was everywhere in the French church to the degree that the French church would soon be effectively split from at least the Swiss Reformed Churches.  It should also be noted that just because some French Reformed were there does not mean they agreed.  Earlier in the 17th century men like Antoine de la Faye, head pastor at Geneva, held to a Continental view.  

It is hard to find a lot of German 17^th century people writing on the Sabbath, so it is hard one way or another to say for sure on many of them.  But David Pareus would be a Continental view pastor.  He died in Heidelberg where his career began, but also pastored in a few other places in Germany.  Johann Alsted taught at the University of Heborn and held to a Continental view.  It is more than likely that the majority of German Reformed churches held to the Continental view.  However, the German Reformed were busy fighting for their right to be reformed for a full third of the century while those in England did little to help the cause.  Thus, they were much more free to write and debate the new doctrine advocated by Bound (the Puritan view of the Sabbath).  

Lest we forget too much that many in England held a Continental view of the Sabbath or at least a non-Westminster view.  Archbishop Whitgift and Laud and Bishop Thomas Morton all appeared to have supported King James’s Book of Sports.  And James was raised a Scottish Presbyterian himself.  It is wrong to look back on the 17^th Century England and assume that everyone agreed with the Westminster view of the 4^th Commandment.  It was highly debated until the debate was settled when they cut off King Charles’s head.  

Let us also note that the idea that there is really only one position on the Sabbath is completely new.  Just listen to Herman Hoeksema.  "One cannot fail to observe a different conception of the sabbath in this Westminster Confession from that of the Second Helvetic".  He states one cannot fail.  It should be impossible to think they are the same.  

Hopefully this brief summary shows that there were plenty of 17th century who held to a Continental view.  And that Reformed theologians on both sides of the debate for literally centuries have agreed there were two different views on the Fourth Commandment.

WCF vs. Three Forms - Fourth Commandment Part 1

I guess what everyone is waiting on in this Three Forms vs. Westminster is the difference with regards to the Sabbath or the Fourth Commandment.  It is the most recognized difference, although many people believe that there is really not a big difference.  Dr. Clark argues that there might be some difference, but fundamentally the Westminster and the Heidelberg are the same and thus the idea of a “Continental” and a “Westminster” or “Puritan” view of the Sabbath is wrong. 

So, I should begin by arguing that there is indeed a “Continental” view of the Sabbath and it finds expression in the Heidelberg Catechism Question 103. 

“In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms.  In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.” 

And now the Westminster 21.7

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the worlds, as the Christian Sabbath.” 

And Westminster Larger Catechism #116

“The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s Day.” 

Dr. Clark (and others I am just using his blog because it isthe best), argue that there is a Reformed view of the Sabbath and it states a one day in seven pattern, grounded in creation, continues in the NT, and changed with the resurrection of Jesus from the last day to the first day. 

The question is do you see those things in both the Heidelberg and the Westminster?  Clark points to lectures given by Ursinus that explain the perpetual part of the commandment being the worship of God.  However, in his commentary he seems to indicate that the Sabbath day was a sign and sacrament of the OT that is done away with.  He describes the moral and perpetural nature of the 4^th Commandment as “a careful shunning of sin, and a worship of God by confession and obedience” (pg.992).  He also calls it a “spiritual Sabbath” and contrasts that with the ceremonial portion or the “external Sabbath”.  He divides that “external sabbath” into the immediate and mediate.  The immediate was the Old Testament Sabbath of worshipping on Saturday, and it is fulfilled and gone.  The mediate is the New testament.  He describes it, “the old was restricted to the seventh day: its observance was necessary and constituted the worship of God.  The new depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made the choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if this and no other were to be observed by the church” (pg.994).  Perhaps it should be added that this internal-external division is not new as it can be seen in places like the Large Emden Catechism of John A’Lasko. 

Now does that sound like what is written in the Westminster?  I think the answer is no.  The Westminster is saying that the day remains a necessity and was changed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ into the first day.  The Heidelberg says nothing about a specific day.  In fact, we now have seen that the idea of a specific day was rejected by at least one of the authors of the Catechism. 

Just to show that the Heidelberg is not alone take a look at the Second Helvetic Confession of Henry Bullinger.  The Second Helvetic was given to the Elector Frederick III to use in his defense at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566, so it has some connection to Heidelberg.  Chapter 24 of Holy Days, Fasts, and Choice Meats:

“Every church, therefore, chooses unto itself a certain time for public prayers and for preaching of the gospel . . . .  Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions.  For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God.  Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.” 

Bullinger here draws a line of separation between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.  They are distinct not one changing into the other as the Westminster puts it.  And the Heidelberg does not use the title Lord’s Day at all.  The Heidelberg Catechism does not speak of one day in seven.  The Heidelberg does not speak of Sunday at all.  The Heidelberg does not speak of rest from labor at all, only resting from evil works or sin, which seems to put it more in line with the Second Helvetic thinking that rest from work is not part of the commandment for us today.  Or at least not a necessary part.  Westminster Larger Catechism 117 states specifically that rest is not just from sinful work, but from all work and even recreation and Westminster 21.8 expands that to thoughts and words about regular work and worldly employment. 

It seems to me then that a clear “Continental tradition” and “Puritan Tradition” can be seen.  It is difficult to see the principles of agreement named by Dr. Clark that would unify these different understandings of the 4^th Commandment.  Exactly how the disagreement plays out will be the subject of the next post.      

3FU vs. WCF Worship

                Let me start by simply saying I believe both documents teach the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  For those who may be unfamiliar with the RPW it simply states that whatever is not commanded in worship is thus forbidden.  It has some important caveats: 1. You are to use good and necessary consequences and 2. This applies to elements of worship, not circumstances of worship.  An element would be an essential part while circumstances are simply the accidents of those essential parts such as what time worship meets?  What time is not essential, but does have to be answered.  If one is having worship, then it happens at a time; thus, it is an accident of worship.  Other examples include such things as chairs or pews, or whether you stand or sit or kneel for prayer.  Prayer is the element, the body position then has to be answered, but is merely a circumstance of prayer.  Again both documents seems to agree on this point, so let us dive into the differences.

                The Westminster lays out the elements of worship in Chapter 21.  Specifically prayer is discussed as part of religious worship in 21.3, and then reading and hearing Scripture, preaching, administration of the sacraments, and singing psalms are listed in 21.5 as the other elements of worship.  Special things can be added apparently such as oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgiving.  So we have a regular list of worship elements found in this chapter of the WCF.  The Larger Catechism Q108 also provides a list: prayer and thanksgiving, reading of the word, preaching of the word, hearing of the word, administering and receiving the sacraments, church government and discipline, ministry and its maintenance, fasting, swearing by God’s name, and vowing to Him.  The main addition here seems to be the gathering in of the offering as an acceptable part of worship and performing discipline allowing for sentences passed to be read in worship.  Interestingly enough however WLC 108 does not mention singing by name nor does it mention psalms.   

                The best list found in the Three Forms of Unity comes from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  Here the Catechism lists learning the Word of God, use the holy sacraments, call publicly upon the Lord, and give Christian alms.  This list is much shorter and much broader than the specific list of the Westminster.  Clearly we can agree that learning the word of God means preaching and reading it.  The interesting section is “call publicly upon the Lord”.  What is included here?  Singing is not in the list, nor is prayer, nor confession of faith?  Can one rightly assume they all belong under this heading?  Ursinus in his commentary includes “confession, thanksgiving, and prayer” which is done corporately and publicly (pg. 1005).  Otto Thelemann includes prayer and singing (pg.505) in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.  It seems then we can include all of those in this section.

                The question becomes does it make a difference?  Does the stricter, longer list of the Westminster differ at all from the Heidelberg’s list?  I think it does.  If the element is call publicly upon the Lord, rather than prayer or singing, then it does change things.  If the element is calling upon the Lord, then the circumstance of how I do that is more flexible.  I can call publicly upon the Lord through confessing the Apostles’ Creed together, by taking vows, or by singing.  In fact, my prayer could very well be sung.  It is simply a circumstance of how I pray.  And it is very traditional for churches to sing the Lord’s Prayer.  That does not make it no longer a prayer, it is now just a prayer that I sing.  The manner of my prayer, or my calling upon the Lord, is simply a circumstance.  Instead the Westminster Confession indicates singing is to be done with the psalms.  Singing is a separate element from prayer.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from WCF 21 that singing cannot be done as a prayer unless it is a prayer found in the Psalms.  After all it specifically states, singing psalms.  The Lord’s Prayer is not a psalm.  Not surprisingly we can see this difference play out in history as Continental Reformed Churches much more often sang hymns than the Puritan and Scottish Presbyterians. 

                Another little wrinkle is confessing faith in the Westminster service.  I have been in Westminster churches that use the Apostles’ Creed and even the Westminster in their service.  But where does this fit into the list given in WCF 21?  If it is not a section of scripture, is it considered allowable?  I am sure there is a defense out there, but the easy to see category is not readily apparent.  It is my understanding that post-Westminster Assembly Scottish churches stopped using the Apostles’ Creed in worship as did those churches in England and New England who followed it. 

                So I think then that the Westminster is far stricter on what is and what is not an element of worship, and seems to have a different understanding of the role of singing in church than does the Heidelberg.  The Heidelberg avoids the difficulties of exclusive psalmody completely through its different take on singing and elements in worship.  The Westminster's stricter categories also seem to create problems with such activities as confessing faith using something other than Scripture.  Perhaps it is time we start coming the realization that the Regulative Principle can be agreed upon, but there is vast difference on how to apply this Regulative Principle even within the Reformed Tradition. 

Why New Calvinism is not Calvinism

                The New Calvinist movement has been growing for some time and recently Rev. John Piper spoke a bit about it in a lecture to Westminster.  You can listen to it (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=1758), and Tim Challies has helpfully summarized the Twelve Points of New Calvinismprovided by Piper as well.  There are a growing number of posts responding of why they are not New Calvinists, but I cannot resist.  Some are even suggesting avoiding excessivecriticism of New Calvinism, but I just cannot do that either.  I am not a New Calvinist because New Calvinism is NOT Calvinism.  We need not be afraid to say that out loud.

                First, it should simply be obvious from the modifier.  New Calvinism.  Anytime you add a modifier, you are trying to show people that you are something other and different from the thing being modified.  Compassionate Conservatism for example is trying to emphasize how it is different, and thus better, than Conservatism.  How many people would argue that Neo Orthodoxy was really Orthodoxy?  No one.  Because the whole point of calling it Neo or New Orthodoxy is to show it is somehow different than Orthodoxy.  And examining Karl Barth and John Calvin does show difference abounds.  But for some reason today when people are claiming to be New Calvinists or Neo-Calvinists, we think they are identifying with the age old Calvinist message.  They aren’t.  They are trying to show they are different and better.

                Second, Piper’s points show New Calvinism ultimately is self-contradictory.  Calvinism does not work when modified and changed.  For example point 5 and 6 contradict one another.  Embracing the essential place of the local church is in direct contrast to the word “missional”.  Anytime you see the word “missional” you should be worried.  The missional movement down plays the church in favor of the mentioned personal networks.  Number 5 also contradicts number 8 as the centrality of the Word of God does not fit into a charismatic mold.  Which means I also think that number 8 contradicts number 1.  Those who believe in the continuing revelation do not really believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.  If the gift of prophecy or tongues is still around then the canon is not closed.  Plain and simple.  Let me also point out that number 5 contradicts number 10.  The local church is not really emphasized if Twitter is a major way of communicating, educating, and directing to new teachers and publishing books is a characteristic of the movement (also mentioned again in point 12) too.  Is this movement pushing local church pastors, or are local churches pushing book publishing pastors in a cult of personality way?  This is not how the Reformation went despite our emphasis on certain men today.  Does anyone even know what pastors helped reform the canton of Schaffhausen?  Who were the men on the ground in Memmingen, Augusburg, or Lindeau?  And by the way all of these places were Reformed before Calvin came on the scene. 

 

                Third, the fourth point about being culturally affirming while still holding out to some counter cultural points like being against gay marriage and abortion is a pretty vital point that should be considered.  I believe Tim Keller would call this “contextualization”.  While, I think all would agree that it is impossible to be completely divorced of culture even in presenting the gospel, it is fairly evident that the New (Neo)Calvinist movement goes a bit beyond that to actually affirming and adopting cultural (dare I say worldly) ways to share the truth of God.  Whether it is in rap music, “gospel eco-systems”, or the acceptance of evolution, the contextualization of the message of God is a point of great debate and a marked difference from Calvinism. 

               

                Fourth, hidden in the fifth point is a little nugget about producing widely sung worship music.  This really should be point 13, and is another major difference between Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism.  This worship music is contemporary music, which is a major characteristic of Neo-Calvinism’s worship.  And it points to a very different view of worship overall.  This is a very major point.  Contemporary worship has a fundamentally different approach to worship than the traditional.  Rev. Tullian Tchividjian admits that having one contemporary service and one traditional is like having two separate churches, sadly his answer was to make one service that “blends” the two.  In other words now they have one contemporary service.  He states it is an attempt to transcend age and cultural style barriers.  But that is not right.  The traditional service had done that for centuries.  While there are always some stylistic differences in the centuries it easily all fit into a category you could have called “Church music”.  It transcended age and culture.  But the Contemporary Worship comes in and denies “church music” altogether and proclaims we must put Christian words to popular styles like Punk Rock and Rap as well as Pop to sing in church.  It is not an attempt to draw together, but rather an attempt to bring the world into the church, and denies the church’s separateness from the world especially in style of music.  The same can be said of things like movie clips, twitter usage, and service structure.  The difference simply put is this: Calvinism says worship is where God calls us to himself to worship Him as He demands, and Neo Calvinism says worship is where we use our culture to glorify God. 

 

                I could go on and discuss the fruit of some of the New Calvinist Leaders, but I would rather focus on the real doctrinal differences.  I know that many want to embrace it and/or pretend it is a good thing, but I fear not.  If we grant commonality with this New Calvinism, we are going to end up losing the distinctive call of the Gospel of the Reformation.  A call that points to Christ, calls us to overcome the world in Him, and worship Him as He demands, in the churches that He gave.  We are being challenged right now on all of those points, we dare not give in. 

WCF vs. 3FU Adoption

There is another difference between the two that is more of a difference in emphasis and omission.  And that can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 12 echoed in the Larger Catechism 74 and Smaller Catechism 34.  This chapter is on adoption.

Again it is not that the Three Forms of Unity deny adoption.  But they simply move past it quickly as a given or merge it into justification.  The Heidelberg Catechism assumes this doctrine as the phrase “my Father” is used in many places such Question 1 or more prominently HC#26 where the answer states, “That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is for the sake of Christ, his Son, my God and my Father”.  But the force of HC#26 is about the providential control of the God the Father Almighty, and is not specifically addressing adoption.  Clearly it is believed, but not explained.  The Belgic Confession has no chapter on Adoption, and it is only briefly mentioned in the chapter on Baptism (34) as God being our Father. 

The Westminster is unique in its emphasis on Adoption.  The French Confession of Calvin does not discuss it, the Second Helvetic Confession of Bullinger does not discuss it.  Even Turretin’s Elenctic Theology does not have a separate section for adoption.  Rather there it is discussed as a subset of justification.  And the famous “ordo salutis” as advocated by Louis Berkhof does not include adoption.  And so it would seem flowing out of the Dutch creeds, adoption has not been stressed. 

However, the Westminster does seem to put Adoption into the ordo salutis.  The chapters of the Westminster go from Effectual Calling to Justification to Adoption to Sanctification and eventually to Perseverance to the end.  The Westminster stresses it by giving it is own chapter.  And it points out that adoption is a free grace and is a legal action that by which we are given the liberties and privileges of being a child of God.  This beautiful chapter in the Westminster is only one article, but by going against the flow of Reformed Creeds and giving adoption its own chapter makes it an important chapter.

I think you could probably argue that adoption still does not get the emphasis that it needs in the Reformed world today.  However, only the Westminster can rightly claim to have given adoption a place of importance and stress. 

WCF vs. Three Forms - The Church

Let us move on to the next difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg specifically.  And this is regarding the Church.  This can be found in the Heidelberg mainly in Question 54 about the Holy Catholic Church and the WCF chapter 25. 

Now there is wide agreement.  Both have Christ as the head of the church (WCF 25.1, HC#50).  Both define the church primarily as the elect throughout all of history (WCF 25.1, HC #54).  Both understand that the church on earth contains unbelievers (WCF 25.2,4-5, HC#82).  Now it is explicit in the Westminster, and more an implication in the Heidelberg.  The Westminster labels it as an invisible and visible church.  This labeling is not found in the Heidelberg and the answer to HC#54 about the church specifically speaks of the elect.  Yet, we do see the Heidelberg talk about infants belonging to the people of God (#74), and the practice of church discipline to remove unbelievers and hypocrites (#82).  Clearly then the Heidelberg acknowledges this visible church understanding and the presence of unbelievers in the visible walls of the church. 

The main difference comes in WCF 25.3 and Heidelberg Q#54.  The Westminster begins here, “Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life”.  The Westminster than has the Church given Word and the Church then gathers with the oracles, ordinances, and ministry, which is later said to be made effectual by the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has a different approach.  “That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.”  Do you see the difference?

Yeah okay, I didn’t either the first times I read it.  But the difference is in where the church comes from.  The Westminster has the church existing and then being given the ministry and oracles and is the main actor in the gathering and perfecting of the saints, although its power is still rooted in the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has the church created by Son with the Word and Spirit of God.  The main actor then is no so much the Church as Christ. 

Perhaps you have heard the quote, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the church as your mother”.   It is from Cyprian as far as I can tell.  And the metaphor of Church as mother is often seen even in Calvin’s writings.  However, I believe the metaphor only fits the Westminster view of the church.  There the church is an actor in bringing about gathering of believers.  This leads to the declaration that “outside of [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”.  A phrase found in the Belgic, but not the Heidelberg.  For the Heidelberg if you are saved, you are part of the church.  You were not birthed by the church, but gathered by God and now a member of His church.  Now Q#55 lets us know you will now feel bound to use your gifts in the communion of the saints and thus, no believer will keep himself apart from a visible church, but ultimately the stress of the Heidelberg is that you are in the church now.  Christ saved you.  It is not God as father and Church as mother.  It is gathered by Christ to be the church.  Through the Word and Spirit you have been gathered and made part of the church now.  The Heidelberg is stressing the individual’s integration into the Church.  The last clause does that as well.  You are now and forever shall remain part of that communion.  The Westminster has the people gathered by the Church’s use of the means and the integration of the individual into the Church is not discussed. 

It has to be noted here the Belgic has the Westminster’s view.  And oddly enough the Westminster Larger Catechism has the Heidelberg’s view.  WLC #63 the church is gathered and protected by God and it is God who offers grace by Christ to the members of the Church, and not the Church being given the ministry and then the church using that ministry to gather people in.  Remember this fact when we get around to discussing the Westminster Larger Catechism as its own document and not really a summary of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

The outworking of this view of Church is a bit more difficult to see.  But the WCF has a Higher Church view than does the Heidelberg.  It is not surprising to see then occasional revivals of High Church theology in a Westminster system. 

Three Forms vs. WCF: Assurance

The first difference I would like to examine is not the Sabbath, but rather works and their role in assurance.  

It should probably be noted that the different places these works of a believer are discussed is probably important.  The Heidelberg starts with our sin, moves to salvation in Christ (where works are denied), then hits the sacraments before going on to Christian works of thankfulness.  The WCF starts with creation, sin, salvation in Christ (where works are denied), and then goes into works, assurance, the Law, and even civil government before getting around to the sacraments.  

Let us start with WCF 16.2: "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments are the fruit and evidence of a true and lively faith and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their faith . . ."  

The WCF starts by letting us know that good works are an evidence of our salvation in Christ.  Thus, we can expect to see works as a major portion of our assurance of salvation.  The article does mention the role of works in strengthening our faith among other things.  The section does go on to mention the imperfection of even these works, but still the works are a reliable evidence of our salvation.  WCF 18.1 then does follow this logic by stressing assurance can be had for those who "truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him".  Notice the assurance seems to be looking primarily at ourselves including our works, which I would say falls under walking in a good conscience before God.  18.2 gives the ground of assurance as the "divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promise are made, the testimony of the Spirit witnessing with our spirits".  While this does add the outward promise of God the other are inward focused.  The Westminster Larger Catechism Q.80 answers assurance by combining those two making the stress again fall upon those who are endeavoring to walk in good conscience.  Absent from the assurance section is any mention of the sacraments.

The Heidelberg takes a very different view focusing outward on Christ for assurance.  Assurance shows up in Q65 about the sacraments where the Holy Ghost confirms our faith by the use of the holy sacraments.  Now the WCF uses the confirming one's faith language in their section on the sacraments, but the sacraments themselves do not show up in the section on assurance and works do, while works themselves have already been discussed.  The Heidelberg begins with the sacraments, which "declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel".  Thus, assurance is going to come from the means of grace, which are designed to direct us not to ourselves, but to the "sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of salvation" (Q.67).  Then the in-depth discussion of both sacraments is slamming that fact home.  How do they direct us to the cross?  Where can you find that in the word?  Is the power in the sacraments themselves?  Now in HC.Q86 we do see the Heidelberg say that works have the function of assuring our faith by the fruits thereof, but it still comes out as third in a list of four.  Let us not forget that the Heidelberg has already taught us that our good works in this life are all defiled with sin (Q.62).  The discussion of the commandments is next, and it ends with this reminder that "even the holiest of men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of such obedience" (Q.114), and that the law for the believer is still ultimately to teach us our sinfulness and drive us to Christ for forgiveness and to Him in prayer for sanctification (Q.115).  It is not quite the same view of the Law shown in WCF 19.6 where the law itself is useful to the regenerate to "restrain their corruptions".  The Heidelberg seems to focus on the law as showing our corruption and leaves the making us ready and willing to live unto God up to the Spirit (HC#1).  

So it appears a very different method of assurance is found in the Three Forms as opposed to the WCF.  The WCF points heavily to oneself and the personal witness of the spirit and their own works, to serve as evidence of salvation and thus assurance.  The Heidelberg points much more toward preaching and the sacraments as the main route of assurance since those both point toward Christ on the cross.  The Belgic seems to agree more with the Heidelberg as it states in Article 24 if we looked to works "we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed".  No assurance that does not point to Jesus Christ.  Although it has to be admitted that the Canons of Dort 5th Head of Doctrine seem to point inward to a witnessing of the Spirit to one's spirit, and to one's work as the way to assurance.  

In summary assurance for the WCF is to look within oneself to see the fruits and for the Heidelberg and Belgic it is to look to what Christ has done.  

I open the floor for discussion and rebuttal.

Westminster Vs. Three Forms Intro

One of the things that concerns me about the growing call for more Calvin in the Lord’s Supper and the rooting out of all Zwinglians, and thus unknowingly the Bullinger position as well, is the enshrinement of the Westminster tradition over the Continental traditions. 

I am not sure how the Westminster became so dominant, but it clearly has.  Yes, this is a country of mostly Englishmen and Scots.  I get it.  But still denominations with Continental backgrounds almost cannot wait to talk about and follow the Westminster.  Is there any stricter sabbatarian denomination around than the URCNA or the Heritage Congregations?  Both of those denominations have a very Westminster view of the Sabbath despite having confessional documents other than the Westminster!  The Two Kingdom debate is dominated by how it fits with the Westminster (see the Confessional Presbyterian and the Mid America Journal of this past year) even though some of the people participating adhere to the Three Forms.  When was the last time you saw an argument about what the Heidelberg and the Canons of Dort said about the issue? 

It is often said that there is no real difference between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms, but only in tone.  This is simply not true.  Now I am not saying the Westminster is a different faith or anything like that.  The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms are both part of the Reformed Tradition, but the differences are real and do end up in some different places.  It is not just about style, nor is it that the Westminster is just further along the doctrinal development road (that is just condescending and in the end probably a way to help make the Westminster tradition the only one), nor is it that it is just in one or two questions.  I hope to start going through some of these differences so that we can stop trying to merge these traditions.

Three Views on the Supper

I do reserve the right to have my mind changed by debate that I do hope happens, but I will just start the conversation because I don’t think the conversation is taking place at all, and that is to our detriment.  

The conversation is about the Lord’s Supper and the phrase “Means of Grace”.  Everywhere one looks on the internet you can find people complaining about Zwinglianism and the answer to it always be more like Calvin, which is defined then as a Means of Grace view.  First, I think Zwinglianism is an acceptable Reformed view, and undeniably the original reformed view.  Second, I think there are more Reformed views than these two, namely you have Bullinger’s view.  Third, I think all three views are rightly described as a “Means of Grace”.  

It starts with the word “means”.  Dictionary.com shows us that definition can be “to be used to convey; denote” or it can be “to act as a symbol of; signify or represent”.  If you are familiar with the Zwingli vs. Calvin debate in the Lord’s Supper, I think you can see Calvin would use “means” according to the first and Zwingli fits nicely into the second definition of “means”.  Calvin thinks the bread and wine instrumentally convey grace and Zwingli thinks it represents grace already accomplished.  Thus even Zwingli could claim the Supper as a means of grace since pondering what is symbolized and represented in the bread and wine is using the Supper as a means to understand and remember the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So this debate needs to stop degrading Zwingli so thoughtlessly.  It really is more a debate between “Symbolic Memorialism” vs. “Symbolic instrumentalism”.  And there is another option.

Bullinger had a different view that one could easily argue was actually the majority opinion in the Reformed Churches known as “Symbolic Parrallelism”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, but denies the instrumental connection that Calvin demands.  As Bullinger describes in Chapter 19 of the Second Helvetic Confession, “so that the faithful, when they receive them [sacraments] of the ministers, do know that the Lord works in His own ordinance, and, therefore, they receive them as from the hand of God”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, which Zwingli seems to reject, but Bullinger has the physical sacrament on a completely different track than the receiving of the grace.  Grace can be seen as parallel to the sacraments, but not physically united to it.  Compare that to say the Scots Confession of 1560 Chapter 21, which after damning those who believe in bare signs and rejecting transubstantiation goes on to say, “but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ”.  Note here the conjunction of the grace to the physical element.  Again in the French Confession of 1559 Chapter 37, “He sacramentally exhibits; and, therefore, we enjoin with the signs the true possession and enjoyment of what is offered to us in them.”  They are not parallel, but intersected.  Christ is in the signs, and true enjoyment of the grace of Christ is offered in the bread and wine.  The sacrament is the instrument used by Spirit to bring grace to us.  

If you are looking to categorize Confessions we can easily see many that are Calvinistic “Symbolic Instrumentalism” such as the French Confession, the Scots Confession, and The Belgic Confession”.  We can see some Zwinglian “symbolic memorialism”.  And we can see many Bullinger inspired confessions or “symbolic parallelism” such as the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Yes, the Heidelberg is Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper.  Question 75 goes to great length to keep grace unfettered from the sign.  “As certainly” as I see the sacrament, I know Christ the promise of Christ being offered for me.  It is a “pledge and token” (Q.73), “testifying” (Q.80) of what Christ offers and has done.  The grace is parallel to the sacrament, not presented in or instrumentally through.  In fact Question 76 of what does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood can be summarized as simply “believe the promise of God and be united to Christ” something not really tied to the administration of the sacrament at all.  

Still think it might be Calvinistic?  Consider this comment from Calvin in a dedication to Frederick III of the Palatinate:

That we really feed in the Holy Supper on the flesh and blood of Christ . . . we freely confess.  If a clearer explanation is asked, we say, that the substance of Christ's flesh and blood is our spiritual life, and that it is communicated to us under the symbols of bread and wine. (as quoted in A Faith Worth Teaching, Jon Payne, pg.117)

That is not what the Heidelberg says.  Feeding on Christ is not said to be done in the Supper, but in believing, and never is it communicated under the bread or wine.   

The Westminster Confession is ambiguous, but the Larger Catechism (especially 170) is very Calvin.  The First Confession of Basel is ambiguous, but clearly not Zwinglian.  The First Helvetic Confession is Bullinger’s Parallelism although perhaps a Zwinglian could claim it.  Farel’s Geneva Confession of 1536 is Zwinglian.  Laski’s Emden Catechism of 1554 is Zwinglian.  

I hope that we can see that it is not as simple as Zwingli vs. Calvin and that toss everything that is not Calvin aside is to throw away the vast majority of the Reformation.  There will be more, but for now I stop to listen to the comments (if any).  

Nothing New at New Life

Christianity Today’s cover article actually made me sad.  It is about New Life church in Colorado Springs and where it is now (supposedly in a recovery) after the Ted Haggard business and the shooting that followed not long after.  It made me sad because I still don’t think they get it. 

The article is written by a man who worked there for a long time, left after all the bad stuff, and has recently come back.  But listen to his description of why he started going there in the first place.  He describes the priorities as: “Be a blessing to the world around you”.  Then he states,

"Haggard issued a straight-forward gospel, one calling Christians to give their lives to steady prayer and acts of love." (CT Dec. 2013 issue. pg. 38) 

I am not against prayer and acts of love nor being a blessing to those around you, but this is not the straight forward gospel.  The gospel call is straightforward, but it is “Repent and believe”.  Believe what?  Believe Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God, who has come into the world to take away our sins.  According to the article this was not part of the “glory days” of New Life.  Sin is not something you will find mentioned much in the article nor repentance.  Then, according to the article, they went astray getting into politics and then the awful stuff.  Now they are getting back to basics.  What are those basics?  Back to prayer and being a blessing to the less fortunate with acts of love.  This is not getting back to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is back to community service. 

The article goes on to talk about how at New Life – Downtown they are doing some sort of Anglican worship and how the elders have now voted the Nicene Creed as their statement of faith.  But it is hard to escape the notion that they have no idea about the theology behind Anglican worship.  Or behind a man being ordained a “priest”.  The article mentions the insights of John Stott, Karl Barth, N.T. Wright, but most importantly Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message.  Somehow, I think even Wright would be horrified at that thought. 

The article was the cover article and touted as good news amidst the awful news that is usually reported.  I found the distinct lack of “good news” to be the main problem.  I am glad that community service is being done.  But that is not what saves people’s souls.  That is not any different than what the Rotary Club does.  New Life appears to have never focused in on the gospel, and they are still missing the boat.  Out of all the bad news usually reported, I find this to be the saddest of all.

 

DISCLAIMER: I lived in the Springs and knew several people who attended New Life before the Haggard controversy. 

Peter Leithart's Principle of Protestantism

I cannot pass up this latest article by Peter Leithart in the First Things blog/magazine entitled the End of Protestantism.  Leithart argues that Protestantism needs to end and is ending, but the Reformation goes on.  He spends some time making the case that Protestants just knee jerk react to Romanism and think history begins with Calvin and Zwingli and that it is a bad attitude to have.  I don’t really want to interact with any of that.  What I think is more interesting is the emphasis on Historical Doctrinal Development that I have argued was a main plank of the Federal Vision movement from the beginning. 

Leithart advocates at Reformed Catholicism, which used to be the name of a blog that agreed with the FV and promoted Mercersburg Theology.  Leithart sets this whole article in terms of dialectical opposition without using the phrase.  Phillip Schaff would be proud.  Protestantism is simply the antithesis to the thesis of Romanism.  Do not miss that vital point.  Each has doctrines that will need to be jettisoned such as forensic justification in favor of salvation that is intrinsically “social” and the Romanist will need to jettison the papism, but in the end both sides are wrong.  The Thesis and Antithesis are both the wrong answers.  Leithart does admit the serve a purpose or as he puts it, “Protestantism has had a good run”.    Now however is the time for the synthesis. 

And Leithart does call for that synthesis.  He states,

"Reformed Catholicism meets George Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism coming from the direction of Rome and gives it a hearty handshake."

He concludes by saying “It’s time to turn the protest on Protestantism and look for a new way to be heirs of the Reformation”.  A new way.  Doctrinal Development.  A new way that is meeting in the middle with Roman Catholicism.  This is exactly what Phillip Schaff envisioned in his Principle of Protestantism: a reunion of Romanism with the worship and objectivism with the Protestant subjectivism and rejection of a pope. 

You will note Doug Wilson is already coming to his defense while claiming to be Protestant through and through.  Wilson favors doctrinal development as can be seen in Reformed is Not Enough.  The only thing he really disagrees with in Leithart’s article is the labels.  See his attack on R. Scott Clark and his response to Leithart.  After all these years I still doctrinal and historical development is a motivating factor for the Federal Vision and a real danger in our denominations.  And despite all the papers condemning FV, it is seldom mentioned.  Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism is still the principle at work in the Federal Vision and Leithart just as it was the principle at work in Mercersburg. 

September 14th worse than September 11th?

September 11th was a horrible day.  A day worth remembering.  However, does anyone remember the devastation of September 14th?

President George W. Bush declared September 14, 2001 to be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance.  And at noon, eastern time, a service began at the Washington National Cathedral that was headlined by the President and mega-evangelist Billy Graham.  However, these were not the only speakers.  Rabbi Joshua Haberman took the stage to read Scripture, and Imam Muzammil Siddiqi offered a prayer.  This service was broadcast on every major channel and seen by much of America and in many schools.  In fact, at Compassion International, where I worked at the time, everyone stopped working to watch.  

During the Clinton administration, people often talked of how the President, by his poor example, was teaching a future generation promiscuity and lies.  Those people were right.  The President does wield great power, and Clinton probably did teach really poor sexual ethics to a generation of kids.  However, those critics were silent when President Bush later taught a generation of kids that there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  That service on September 14th violated the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments, just to name a few.  And for the most part, the Christian world stayed silent.  And what's worse is the much-revered Christian leader who participated in a worship service where prayers were offered to Allah.  I seem to remember that his remarks included references to Jesus Christ, but long after the words are forgotten, the visual image remains.  Billy Graham and President Bush had no problem worshipping with Muslims and Jews.  And the whole world watched, and the whole world was silent.

Is it any surprise that 12 years later we have a generation of young adults who think tolerance is the most important attribute?  Is it a surprise that we have witnessed such a dramatic rise in acceptance of sinful behaviors ranging from getting stoned to homosexuality?  Is it a surprise that the church is facing new movements such as the Insider Movement or the Hebrew Roots movement?  And a big reason for these changes is the young adults who have dramatically different views about the world from their predecessors.  In fact, more Americans today claim no religious affiliation at all, and the largest number of those is under 30.  Those are the people who were young and impressionable in 2001.  Could it be that they were influenced by September 14th?

I am not saying that one worship service entirely changed the culture, but I do believe that this one had a larger influence than we think.  It was a moment when the world stopped, and people took notice of what was going on.  And the church (for the most part) stood by silently when the truth of "You shall have no other gods before me" was attacked in a very public forum.  And that silence was deafening.  Maybe it was because everyone's focus was on the looming war or the shock of what had happened.  Maybe no one wanted to shatter the apparent unity that encompassed the capitol and the nation.  Maybe we put America above God.  Whatever the reason, we are certainly reaping the harvest now.  

May God forgive us for our sins, including those of omission, for it is only in His mercy that can we find hope.   

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre: Providence and its Sudden Switches

Sometimes we forget just how quickly things can change.  God has his plans, and we do not always know them.  And they can occasionally be brutal.  

One of those sudden shifts that changed the world occurred on August 24, 1572.  In the early morning hours, the church bells rang as a signal for the Romanists to start slaughtering the Reformed believers, the Huguenots.  Thousands died.  

Let's rewind for a minute and consider the situation.  The Huguenots were in Paris because of the royal wedding between Henry of Navarre, a fellow Huguenot, and Margaret Valois, a daughter of the King.  This was to be the union between the Romanist faction, as represented by the royal family, and the Huguenots, as Henry was in line for the throne.  Violence had broken out several times before.  There was the Massacre at Vassy (1562) which led to a war and ended with more of a cease-fire than actual peace.  A second war broke out in 1567, and a third in 1568.  The third war ended in 1570 with very favorable terms for the Huguenots.  Even though many sections of the country still had great hostility toward them (and occasionally murdered them), hope was probably on the rise.  In 1571, the great Synod of La Rochelle met, Coligny's daughter was married, and the Huguenots were given high ranking places at court again.  They seemed to have the ear of the King for the first time in a very long time.  Now, the Protestant King of Navarre, Henry, who was already Prince of the Blood for when the Valois line died out, was taking a Valois to be his wife.  Not everyone was happy about a mixed religious marriage, but it was clearly an attempt to knit together the fragile kingdom so peace could finally reign.  

Then the toll of a bell in the early morning hours signaled the beginning of a genocide that lasted for days.  Widespread, methodical murder lasted for three days, and Romanists were still hunting down Huguenots seven days later.  A drastic, unexpected, and quick turn of Providence.

Yet God always has His purposes, even in death.  Whether it is Job or the protestants at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, we know that God is bringing himself glory.  We can see that such persecution helped enrich the surrounding countries a great deal by infusing them with devout Christians, even the new world saw the arrival of Huguenots (there is still a Huguenot church in Charleston, SC).  Perhaps the difference between the true religion and the false was made more plain.  Who knows all that God accomplished on that fateful day.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose" Romans 8:28

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.