The PCA vs. the PCA

Here is an illustration of my theory that soon the PCA will have a split. The Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report on the Federal Vision came back with an extremely negative outlook. In fact, it condemned it. After pressure they added quotes to prove their contentions, and this included a great many quotes from ministers in good standing. In response, the Louisiana Presbytery has “publicly exonerated” Rev. Wilkins, whose church helped instigate this entire controversy. Not only that, he was also unanimously declared to be faithful to the confessional standards of the PCA. This puts two presbyteries of the PCA against each other. One clearly saying the Federal Vision is a deviation from the Bible and the Westminster and the other saying that the Federal Vision is acceptable and faithful to the Westminster Confession of Faith. One condemns certain leaders of the movement, the other exonerates them, neither with a proper trial. A dividing line appears to have been clearly drawn in the sand. How the PCA can rectify this problem and reconcile these two presbyteries is beyond me. If they can’t be squared away, then a split seems inevitable. Doctrinal unity is gone, only organic unity remains in the PCA. How long will that last. If I were guessing, the PCA, as we know it, won’t see 2010.

Who’s the Best? The Danger of Bias

Even if you don’t like baseball, stick with me through this, I think it will make a point worth your time. It is a little test just to see how our feelings and attitudes change when we let unhealthy ‘bias’ get involved. I will give you the statistics for four players. The question is, who is the best hitter among the four?
Player #1 – .366 career Batting Average with 4189 hits in 24 seasons
Player #2 – .342 career Batting Average with 2873 hits in 22 seasons
Player #3 – .344 career Batting Average with 2654 hits in 19 seasons
Player #4 – .300 career Batting Average with 2730 hits in 19 seasons

Now which one is the best hitter? Go ahead and pick one. That being done, let us move on to the next question, ‘who is the best baseball player of the four?’ Here are a few more stats to help you out.

#1 – threw people out from the outfield 410 times, stole 892 bases, and drove in 1934 runs.
#2 – threw people out from the outfield 204 times, stole 123 bases, and drove in 2213 runs.
#3 – threw people out from the outfield 140 times, stole 24 bases, and drove in 1839 runs.
#4 – threw people out from the outfield 166 times, stole 506 bases, and drove in 1834 runs.


Having those statistics which is the best player all around? Have you made your choice? Now let me give you their names and see if you feelings change.

#1 = Ty Cobb
#2 = Babe Ruth
#3 = Ted Williams
#4 = Barry Bonds

Did anyone have Barry Bonds as best all around base ball player before seeing his name? Did anyone have Ted Williams as best hitter before seeing his name? Yet, over and over if you listen to Sports Radio or watch ESPN or any baseball game you will hear people say Barry Bonds is the best baseball player ever. Or people will say Ted Williams is the best hitter of all time. They do this despite the numbers, and they do this despite the rule changes in baseball that have made it easier for hitters such as banning the spit ball and lowering the pitcher’s mound that benefit Barry Bonds and Ted Williams. Why do people do this? It’s their view of history. We all have a tendency to neglect history. People naturally are drawn to the ‘new’ no matter if it is baseball or if it is theology. People would rather argue that Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player ever just like some Supreme Court justices would rather listen to the new thoughts about the death penalty in France than see what the authors of the Constitution thought. People value new things much more than old things. History means very little in today’s society.

Yet there is another point that needs to be made and these same four players can make it for us. Here is the one stat that is important to people today.

Ty Cobb – 117 homeruns
Babe Ruth – 714 homeruns
Ted Williams – 521 homeruns
Barry Bonds – 703 homeruns

There is a danger in riding one’s favorite hobbyhorse. Soon it is the only thing one can see. It distorts the view of everything else. In baseball it is the homerun that gets all of the emphasis. Barry and Babe are the two great players even though they don’t have the rest of the qualifications that Ty Cobb has. What they do have is more homeruns and that makes them better, in most people’s minds. Those people have lost the view of the whole. A great example of that fact is Ted Williams’ Hitters Hall of Fame. Here Ted supposedly ended the debate about who is the greatest hitter of all time by applying a formula to each players’ resume and seeing who was number 1. Who was it? Surprise, surprise, it was Babe Ruth. Ty Cobb finished a distant 6th. The man with the highest career batting average and second in hits finished 6th in the best hitter category. Why? Because Ted’s formula put a greater emphasis on home runs than singles. When we emphasize something too much it distorts our view of reality. Saying that Babe Ruth is a better hitter when he has a batting average 20 points lower and almost 2000 hits behind is pretty strange. Yet, again this goes for far more than baseball. If you emphasize justification too much, you lose sight of sanctification. If you emphasize sanctification too much then you lose sight of justification. If you emphasize the sacraments too much, preaching often suffers. If you emphasize National Security too much you forfeit personal rights and privacy. If you emphasize the National Government you lose sight of the State governments and their role, if you emphasize the States, you lose sight of the Union. Endless examples could be sighted to prove my point, but I bet enough have already popped into your head. It is important to always have the big picture in mind. We can’t major in the minors, or we will end up with a distorted view of reality. No matter what the subject is.

Confessional Hatred

I have not been following the Emergent Church controversies at all. I would hear about here and there, but it did not seem to matter much to me. Then I had a friend in an Emergent Church in Colorado Springs. Still, I remained fairly uninterested. I got curious when I saw Andrew Sandlin and John Armstrong take strong stands for the Emergent movement, with minor reservations of course. These men who support the Federal Vision movement in the Reformed Churches were supporting the Emergent movement too. I wondered what the connection might be. I believe I have found it. Pure hatred of confessionalism. The one thing that the Emergent movement is a contempt for standards in theology. Al Mohler comments about the Emerging Church:

The very nomenclature of the movement betrays a sense that evangelicalism must be cast aside in order for something new, radical, and more authentic to emerge. "For almost everyone within the movement," Carson argues, "this works out in an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationalities; on experience over against truth; on inclusion over against exclusion; on participation over individualism and the heroic loner." This approach produces what McLaren calls "a new kind of Christian," and a new kind of church.

Note the antipathy for rational thought and the need for development. Mohler continues to state:

Accepting the postmodern insistence that "metanarratives" are dead, McLaren argues that Christianity must develop a new way of describing, defining, and defending the gospel. A metanarrative--a unifying theory of universal meaning--is to be replaced by a far more humble understanding of truth that accepts pluralism as a given and holds all truth claims under suspicion

Here again, universal meaning is a thing of the past. The Emerging Church wants a new way to “define” the gospel. Disturbing.

How does this relate to the Federal Vision? I believe in that very same way. Now there is no doubt that the Emerging Church and the Federal Vision arrive at some very different conclusions. But, they both share a need to develop new theology with a new definition of the gospel. Listen to John Armstrong discuss the PCA’s decision to not distribute the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report:

It would be a wonderful day for modern reformation, and for the true principle of semper reformanda, if this issue were put to rest once for all, at least as it is perceived as some kind of serious threat to the gospel. I have my doubts that this will happen so long as the PCA is influenced by "strict confessionalist" (TR) types.

Clearly here Armstrong equates the constant reforming change as the good guys and those who adhere to confessions as the bad guys. Note also that the gospel is better off without the Confessions. Armstrong later openly desires the PCA “will pursue an open posture toward the world in general, and the work of fresh and serious biblical theology in particular,” but doubts they will because of the “schismatic spirit” of the aforementioned ‘strict confessionalists.’ Yes, he also calls those who wish to adhere to a confession strictly “a small coalition of the theologically disturbed.”

The two groups have one thing in common, contempt for standards. Both groups need a developing theology. One that will change and grow with them. One that will not be confined to a confession, nor one that will inhibit their "fresh", innovative thinking, which stands as proof of their intellect and piety.

In the coming months and years, maybe, those who believe in truth will find it more and more under attack by those once considered allies. The idea of confessions, and confessional churches will be attacked. The “small coalition of the theologically disturbed” must continue to make its stand for an unchanging truth. Or else the Presbyterian and Reformed world will be overrun by those who would exchange the wisdom of our fathers for the whispers of the woman on the street, those who would exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Celebrating Independence Day

It has been a really long time since I attended a July 4th Celebration. I mean a real celebration. Every town has its fireworks, and the big cities do them well, but there is a lot more to a celebration than fireworks. Even more than a parade.

My family and I attended the parade and festivities in Westfield, ND. Here this town of no more than 100 held a parade. Every float threw candy to kids. The flag led the parade in, and we all sang the national anthem, had a prayer of thanksgiving, and then witnessed a nice parade. The parade even had a children’s division for float made by kids under the age of 18. From there the party moved to a nearby field where races of all types commenced. One of the floats that resembled a train (it was a four wheeler pulling barrels on their sides with wheels that had man made seats inside, gave rides to all of the children who wanted them. We left at lunch because kids need naps, but the town had the entire day planned out. Softball, musical guests, and lots more fun. Our town of Herreid has its events at night when our town will hold its races and softball and a free swim is offered this afternoon. Fireworks will just be the icing on the cake. In fact, the town here in this area of the country stagger their parades so you can go from one town to the next town to the next and see a never ending cycle of parades. Many people did just that.

I guess my point is that this was a real celebration. This was not an event where every family grabbed a blanket and watched and then went home. Or a display that was made more for TV than for the public. This was a community coming together and enjoying each other. This was people celebrating. Sad to say all to few communities get together and real celebrate. I hope that everyone out there really celebrated the mercy of God by putting us in a great country. So go out and watch a parade, witness some fireworks, but don’t forget to say hi to your neighbors as you do it. Don’t forget to go rub shoulders with old friends, and most of all don’t forget to feast.

Andrew Jackson

In honor of the upcoming 4th of July and my quest to read more biographies, I thought I would recommend to everyone The Life of Andrew Jackson, by Robert V. Remini. I had the honor of hearing Mr. Remini lecture on Andrew Jackson in college, and I have since been looking for his biography of the 7th President of the United States. The original 3 vol. Biography won the National Book Award, and is a bit to pricey for me, but I recently found the abridgement.
I enjoyed learning more about the man who did the most to shape our country. Easily the most influential President of all time, Andrew Jackson stood neither as a conservative nor a liberal making him a very interesting study. Mr. Remini does not worship Gen. Jackson and thus presents both his credentials and faults with equal clarity. Although Mr. Remini takes a few psychological guesses at the reason for religious belief in Gen. Jackson’s wife, he honestly and fairly deals with Gen. Jackson’s conversion to Christianity after his presidency. The writing style is very agreeable, and the abridgement contains more than enough information for all to learn more about the Hero of New Orleans, the 7th President of the United States, and the founder of the Democratic Party.

“Our Union it must be preserved.” – President Andrew Jackson during a toast.
“When I have suffered sufficiently the Lord will then take me to himself – but what are all my suffering compared to those of the blessed Saviour, who died upon that cursed tree for me, mine are nothing.” - President Jackson one week before his death.

This July 4th, learn more about the glorious nation in which we live. A good way to do so would be by reading this book.

Must read. . .

Check out Philologous and his good analysis of the recent Supreme Court fiasco over private property. Or what used to be private at any

Newspaper Bias or Purpose?

For years now I have been shocked by the bias in the news media, especially papers, and have thought that they had all betrayed their principles. Now, I am not so sure. It hit me yesterday as I was reading a history book that newspapers have always reported news from a particular angle. Andrew Jackson created the Democratic Party in 1830, and he hand-selected an editor to run his paper. People then knew that if you wanted to find out the Democratic reaction or President Jackson’s reaction to something, you read The Globe. If you wanted to know what John C. Calhoun thought, well he had a paper, too. If you wanted to know about Henry Clay. . . yep, they all had editors doing their bidding, printing their spin on things. In 1860 if you wanted to know what the Fire Eaters of South Carolina thought, you read The Charleston Mercury. In 1900, the famous “Yellow Journalism” helped start a war with Spain. So I guess the question is, when did we as a country start to think that the newspaper business was supposed to be neutral and just report the facts? It seems from the history that I can see in America, papers were always established to serve a purpose, and that purpose included the spin and the bias that we all complain about now. Papers in the old days were up-front about their agenda, now they are not, and they pretend to be neutral. Have papers ever been neutral? Are they supposed to be neutral? When did they start pretending neutrality? And does anyone know a good book that answers these questions?

Supreme Court Ignorance

The Supreme Court today announced decisions on two cases about displays of the 10 Commandments in public places. Austin TX was allowed to keep their display because it was in a historical context, and no complaints existed for 20 years. Kentucky was not allowed to keep their display because, even though it currently is in a historical display, the intent was religious. Justice Souter argued that the First Amendment required the government to always rule against religion, and remain completely neutral.

The arrogance and ignorance of such a decision astounds me. How can one be devoted always rule against religion and still claim neutrality? The fact that the court has a growing hostility toward God and Christianity in particular can no longer be denied. Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God, and apparently we have at least 4 on them on the Supreme Court. The fact that anyone would think that the Constitution required neutrality on religion when every government session opens with prayer, instituted by those founding fathers who wrote the Constitution, shocks the mind and befuddles all reason. President George Washington called for a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer. The Supreme Court building itself has a display of Moses that clearly is more religious than historical. Even as lately as President Eisenhower religion was openly accepted by the government. Eisenhower inserted the phrase “under God” into the pledge of allegiance to help show the difference between America and the godless Communists. Now our Supreme Court appears to have a 5 to 4 majority of godless Communists.

I also want to point out that after all of the discussion about these decisions on all the TV talk shows today, I did not hear one word about the Tenth Amendment. Not one. Even on so-called conservative news channels. All of the arguing has been about the First Amendment, which only specifically mentions Congress. The Tenth Amendment makes sure that all rights not delegated to the Federal Government remains with the States. Yet, here we are telling Kentucky what they can and cannot do. It is not the First Amendment that was violated in these rulings, it was the Tenth.

God save our Union!

Armstrong’s Escape from Reason and Responsibility

If you have ever wondered what the logical fallacy of a Hasty Generalization looks like, John Armstrong’s recent post is a perfect example. In it Armstrong paints a picture of the problems members of small Reformed churches face, in his opinion. His complaints include a tyrannical elder rule that disdains women and their spirituality, a rigid confessionalism that necessitates a neglect of Christ, academic preaching that equates to lifeless piety, and a gaining of members by stealing sheep from other denominations. When reading this post, one gets the feeling that Rev. Armstrong has a church or two specifically in mind that he is reluctant to mention by name. Otherwise, it would seem that he has assembled every baseless attack he has ever heard about the Reformed faith into a make-believe church and then posted about this horrible rampant problem.
Now I live on the border of two of the lesser populated states in the union, and I live an hour and half’s drive from any city of over 2,000 people, so I get to see a lot of small churches, including Reformed churches, in small towns up close. I have never seen the situation described by Rev. Armstrong. Never. I also don’t agree that academic theology equates to a lifeless theology. And rigid confessionalism never leads to a lowering of Christ. Most confessions spend a majority of their time on the person and work of Christ, so a rigid-confessionalism actually promotes a healthy view of Christ. But what annoys me the most about Rev. Armstrong’s plunge off the deep end is his conclusion. He calls for people who are members of such churches, or who might have friends in such churches, to pray for God to get them out of that church. He actually encourages leaving churches. He doesn’t suggest praying for revival or engaging in persuasive conversations with the wayward elders/pastors or making any attempt whatsoever to work for change. Nope, he just wants you to get out. This is a sin most foul. It is the Gilbert Tennent model of discrediting churches via hasty, made up, generalizations about the pastors and elders and encouraging people to desert their church membership vows all in the guise of spirituality. I hope Armstrong’s post will not become a reckless license for people to desert their churches if they happen to be small and Reformed. I also pray that Rev. Armstrong will retract this statement and, instead of cultivating division and a mass exodus, that he will rather pray for revival for the individual church or churches that he had in mind when making his Hasty Generalization.

Friendly Wounds

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend.” Implicit in this proverb is the idea that friends sometimes wound us. They are the ones who warn, correct, and speak plainly with us. They give us the truth, even when it hurts. That is what friends do. Christ is called our friend. He is our friend because he speaks plainly with us and faithfully wounds us. He did not leave us to think that we were our own little gods, instead He made sure we know that we are all self-indulgent sinners. He told us our best works are but filthy rags. He told us we deserve the punishment of hell. He told us that He himself is the only way to eternal life. No discussion, just the fact that He is God, and we are not.

This has struck me as I watch discussions over the internet while reading the Bible and some writings of the Reformers. We no longer view a friend as one who wounds, speaks the truth, or deals straightforwardly with us. People yell about those who would use terms like “heretic” or “heresy” (the H-Bomb as it is known these days), but then they welcome as ‘true discussion’ meaningless platitudes devoid of real and needed criticism. Others look for ways to make the Bible more ‘sinner friendly’ and tweak the gospel so it appears less harsh, so it will inflict fewer wounds, and thus becomes a little less faithful. Do I even need to mention politics where straight answers are never given in the fear of causing offense and losing votes? We have become a people whose ears love to hear the sweet song of praise, but who are unable to listen to faithful speech. We are a culture that lists our friends and our enemies by how good they make us feel or how much they hurt us, instead of how faithful they are to the truth and how faithfully they deal the truth to us. When one reads the old reformers or even the early American colonists, one realizes that John Calvin had no problem saying that men of other persuasions were “crack brains”, that Presbyterians opposing the Great Awakening could tell their brethren they were “under a delusion”, and that in his ever-famous communication to Wesley, Whitefield could say, “Nay Sir, ‘tis you who are in error.” It was commonly said at the seminary I attended that such were men of ‘hard times and thus of hard words.’ Perhaps, they were just faithful men of faithful words. Perhaps it is we who have fallen on hard times because of our refusal to speak with such candor and frankness. Perhaps in today’s world we all are so afraid of giving offense that we have neglected that great duty to ‘wound our friends.’ What we need today is a revival of frank discussion. This means not only speaking truthfully, but also a willingness to receive it from others. We need to remember the proverb and rejoice when we are faithfully wounded. We also need to remember that such wounding is a duty of a true friend.

Should people apologize to Michael Schiavo?

The Terri Schiavo case is one that the pundits only seem to remember when it furthers their liberal agenda. Her murder is now being used for political gain by liberal press everywhere. They are demanding an apology for government intervention and the portrayal of Michael Schiavo as a murderer. It just goes to show you that they don’t understand that he is indeed a murderer, and thus no apology is necessary. The recently released autopsy tells us that she had no chance of recovery. While I suspect that that finding is medically questionable, it does not change anything in the situation. Terri Schiavo was alive, and now she is not. That is the only thing that matters. Terri’s life should have been saved not because we think she might have one day recovered, but because she had a life to save. It is not about what Terri could have added to the good of the community or the world, or what someone thinks of her quality of life. It is the fact that life has a quality all of its own: it bears the image of God. And He has told us to protect it. So does anyone owe Michael an apology? No. He did what he did, and he is what he is, a man who starved his wife to death.

PCA GA Results

The PCA general assembly is over, and one can begin to evaluate it though many more eye witness accounts must be gathered before a final opinion can be reached about this years GA. The big issue of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report and its distribution met with a bitter defeat. Admittedly it was a silly overture. It probably should have failed, but what worries me is that a substitute motion to create a committee to study the issue failed. The PCA is racked with these divisions of significant differences, and no one is even going to study the problem? Seems odd to me. There is a mention in the blog linked about the Standing Judicial Commission. I hope that mean there actually will be some judicial cases about this, but we will see. Somehow I doubt it.
The ‘papist’ overture failed because there is no method in place to annotate the Westminster. Probably a good thing.
They failed to condemn public schools. I am not sure where I would have stood on this issue, but I think it is important for one reason. You will note that this is a motion brought by several individuals, not a presbytery. One of the individuals is Dr. Kennedy, a very influential man. In fact, I think he is the motivating force behind that Justice Sunday thing. Anyway, his motion failed. I just think it is interesting that Dr. Kennedy could not get a presbytery to move on his motion, and now can’t get the GA to act on it either.
The overture requiring people to explain their exceptions to the WCF, and when they teach them make it known to the congregation they are not in line with the WCF on that point, failed. One would like to think that this was because of how troublesome it would be to police, but it failed because exceptions to the WCF are not that big a deal in the PCA.
The Value of Human Life is now under consideration by the PCA. I have hope that they will come back with a good statement, but it just seems odd that they have never dealt with this before, and that they had to a make a committee to study the issue. A second overture asking the GA to make a statement on the Schavio case was turned down because they now had a committee to study such things.

I have to say it was interesting to be able to sit down one night at my computer and read blogs by people attending the GA. The PCA is nothing if not market savvy. One wonders how much longer the PCA can go on ignoring its internal differences. One presbytery condemns men in other presbyteries without trying to have trials, and then the home presbytery clears them without a trial. Everything done in Ad Hoc committees. These differences will soon rend the denomination or carry it into liberalism.

PCA General Assembly

The PCA General Assembly has begun. The Assembly, which is meeting in the sovereign state of Tennessee, should produce some interesting votes. Items to watch will include not only the Mississippi Valley Overture regarding the Federal Vision, but also overtures that allow preachers to respectfully teach their exceptions to the Westminster, and a softening of the word ‘papist’ in the WCF. An interesting Assembly that will shape the direction of the PCA.

Historically accepted?

Kevin Johnson's Coffee Conversations has made claims about the historicity of the Auburn Avenue theology. He claims,

the writings of both current and past Presbyterians make it clear that this just isn’t the case. There is a fair amount of theological diversity in Presbyterianism that allows for differences of opinion on these issues

Now he does offer some support, to his credit, but it is simply a link to Mark Horne’s Theologia. This site contains many articles, but does not constitute proof of accepted theological diversity within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions. Browsing the site one can easily see that the vast majority of articles on the site are by people living today. In the sections on sacraments and soteriology I counted 3 articles from Ursinus and 1 from John Calvin. None of which really defended any of the Federal Vision points. One Ursinus article defended infant baptism, not a point in question, and one explicitly states that good works follow Justification, a point that Federal Vision men seem to have trouble making since they wish to discuss an initial and final justification, a distinction Ursinus did not make. Admittedly Philip Schaff, John Nevin, and Charles Hodge have a few articles a piece, but altogether non-21st century writers probably only make up less than 10% of what is found on the site. This hardly seems like proof of a historical precedent.

It would seem to me in order to claim a historical place at the table of the Presbyterian and Reformed one needs a leader of the Reformation or one of its resulting churches to argue for a position similar to that of the Auburn Ave. men. Not only that, but those men would have to be accepted and not challenged by the rest of those within the tradition. I cannot find anyone who fits that description.

I will concede that John Nevin and Philip Schaff led the RCUS down the path very similar to the Auburn Ave. theology, but they were fought every step of the way by men within the denomination like James I Good and Joseph Berg, as well as outside the denomination by men like Charles Hodge and Robert Dabney. Also, with the end result of the leadership of Nevin and Schaff being a merger with a Lutheran church, and then finally the formation of the United Churches of Christ, it seems hard to argue that they actually fit in the Presbyterian and Reformed Tradition.

Briefly I would like to list men who seem to oppose the Federal Vision view of sacraments, justification, and the covenant of works.

• Henry Bullinger clearly rejects the view of sacraments as ‘efficaciously’ conferring anything (5th decade, 7th sermon, pg. 327) and rejects any idea of infant communion.


• Louis Berkhof follows the ordo saludis (order of salvation) that is from time to time attacked by FV proponents. He also does not adhere to the sacramental view of the FV (pg. 618 of Systematic Theology), and speaks of the Covenant of Works (pg. 211f).


• Herman Witsus also rejects the sacramental view of the FV by claiming that baptism is reception into the covenant of grace and not a reception into Christ (Economy of the Covenants, pg. 430). Witsus states it signifies benefits in Christ (434). He also speaks of a Covenant of Works.


• John Calvin has a differing view of the sacraments than the one espoused in the FV. Old Mercersburg men admitted as much when they admitted the Mystical Presence was different than Calvin. Plus Calvin is clearly harsh on the widespread practice of infant communion among the FV men. While explaining why the infants are baptized and not allowed to the table he says, “If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?” (4.7.1353).

This claim is made by more than just Mr. Johnson, but it has never really been backed up by evidence of any sort.

Loving Discipline

Somewhere along the line our culture has forgotten the idea that discipline is real motivated by love. My wife and I get a magazine called Parenting. It was a free subscription. This magazine always makes sure you know that children are never to be spanked. Never mind the proverb “spare the rod, spoil the child”. People today think it is just barbaric to spank a child. Our schools don’t do it, many parents don’t do it, and then we all wonder what happened when the kids become teenagers and they go crazy. People think that spanking a child is what angry child abusers do, but instead it is an act of love to drive folly from the child. It is for his own good. That is the real motivation of ‘corporal punishment’ as it is sometimes called. It was always just a good ole spankin’ back in my time.

This principle does not stop with parenting sadly enough. It infests our church. I have a friend, who is a believer, but attends a conservative Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA) church in Colorado Springs. Try as I might I cannot convince him his church is wrong, and that the denominations refusal to discipline the hundred or so pastors who actively support homosexuality as right is an abomination. He stubbornly holds to the idea that all should remain as it is, and it is better not to stir the pot too much. Somewhere the PCUSA lost the idea of loving discipline and now it treads water until it becomes the Anglican church with active gay men as ministers.

It also ties into the current debates that will be raging throughout the Reformed Churches regarding the Federal Vision. John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation in his latest Trinity Review makes a good point. Granted I am not in the habit of saying Robbins makes good points, but here I believe he raises a valid concern. Why would the Mississippi Valley Presbytery make a report condemning these things without trying to bring charges against fellow ministers? If you believe that what they teach is really a damnable error, then is it not the loving thing to do to bring charges? If not for the ministers’ souls then for the flocks they lead? How is it loving to leave them with only this innuendo over their heads, but no real charges to think over? I think the plain answer is it is not. I worry that many churches have lost the idea of loving discipline, just like many modern families. One day the church will wake up and wonder why the kids went crazy. They need look no further than the lack of church discipline.

Star Wars vs. Christianity

I just returned from watching Star Wars Episode III. It was simultaneously the greatest of the 6 movies and the worst. Let me confess up front that I am a Star Wars geek. I love the original trilogy, and I am one of the few who thought Episodes I and II were fantastic. Yet, Episode III trumped them all. Lucas accomplished the Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader transformation perfectly. The battle scenes were spectacular, the use of color was magnificent, and the Republic-cum-Empire topped them all. With the sole exception of Padme dying before baby Leia could possibly have formed any memories of her, (contrary to Leia’s account in Episode 6) the movie was consistent and well done.

Yet, I have this against the movie. There is one glaring out-of-place political insertion by George Lucas that taints the whole movie, undoes all his great work, proves he doesn’t understand his own movies, and declares war on Christians everywhere. The quote is the climax and occurs at the beginning of the battle between Darth Vader and Obi Wan.

Vader: "If you are not with me, you are my enemy."
Obi Wan: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

This small exchange of dialog is a clear attack on Christianity, especially in light of recent criticisms of Christians’ involvement in politics. First, Vader’s quote is an obvious reference to Christ and Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me." Thus Obi Wan’s (the good guy’s) reply is directed at those who hold that Christ is the only way to heaven and salvation. Second, this comment falls into a larger conversation concerning control of the Senate, which does fit well with the movie and the characters, but it serves to link the bad guy who believes in absolutes with the evil consolidation of Sith power that ultimately destroys democracy. Replace "bad guy" with "Pres. Bush" and "the evil consolidation of Sith power" with "Christians bringing their moral absolutes to the political arena" and you see where I’m going.

This blatant attack, in my opinion, only serves to make Lucas look stupid since the rest of Episode III sees the Jedi dealing in absolutes (just one example occurs when Obi Wan tells Vader he is lost because he can’t see that it’s really the Emperor that is "evil"), as well as the entire plot of the whole series, a series about the battle between good and evil, two very absolute things. Lucas should be ashamed of himself. As it is, he stands as yet another example of the inconsistency of a non-Christian worldview, which fails to understand what good and evil really are.

Synod Report

I have to admit that I enjoyed my first Synod. Yes, the RCUS argue a whole bunch, mostly about strange things like the price of e-books and the difference between a quasi-committee of the whole and an informal discussion. But, I think my Scotch-Irish heritage helps me enjoy such arguments.
I did learn a whole lot by simply listening, and I did do a little listening rather than always talking. I have returned excited about the RCUS, its future, and I hope to impart a real vision for how the church in Herreid, SD can play a real role in the spreading of the Kingdom of Christ. Because perhaps what I learned most was the importance of an energized Consistory. Food for thought.

However, the real point in posting tonight is to speak of the Report on N.T. Wright, entitled Wright is Wrong that passed “without dissenting voice”. Hopefully the RCUS website will have it posted soon, and I will make sure to post a link. In the report, the teaching of N.T. Wright are condemned as another gospel. I am sure that this will open up more debate than last year’s report which condemned the teachings of Norman Shepherd. Next year a report will be received about the Federal Vision. I look forward to that work once it is done.

I have also notice that the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report is now an overture to the PCA General Assembly rather than a mere communication. That ought to cause a fun discussion at GA. The OPC study committee is expected back, if I am not mistaken, and I am sure that more will happen at other assemblies around the nation. When I get news of each, I shall endeavor to pass them along.

Reformed Ecumenical Madness

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union - Schaff. What is Church History? Pg. 122

This was a bold prediction made by Philip Schaff in one of his early writings about Historical and Theological Development. Charles Hodge warned at the time that this would make people see every innovation "the growth of orthodox dogma, never a possible devolution from the Christian gospel." Hodge was proven a prophet indeed. For Schaff’s statement helped merge the old RCUS with the Evangelical Lutherans to become the Evangelical Reformed Church and then later the United Church of Christ. This current controversy over the Federal Vision is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, and has brought with it Scahff’s view of history, and consequently his view of Christian Union. This can be clearly seen in two areas:

First the view on Christian union appears in their demands for denominations to accept divergent positions on justification, sacraments, and even the use of creeds and confessions as part of the Reformed Heritage. They want to co-exist despite these major differences, even claiming that such things should fall under the the liberty of conscience.

Second, it can be seen in the leaders of this movement accepting with open arms modern evangelical trends. John Armstrong shows this in his treatment of the Emergent Church movement, Pentecostal ideals, and even borderline Name and Claim it messages like that ofJoel Osteen, where he declares that he formerly would have joined people like Michael Horton in critiquing the bad theology, but now appreciates all things. Andrew Sandlin is not much different and has a habit of calling Roman Catholics his Christian brothers and sisters. An increase in appreciation for non-Reformed and non-Protestant traditions can be seen all throughout the internet, as the followers of these principles put into practice the logical result of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, Shepherdism, a revival of Mercersburg Theology, or whatever one wants to call it.

It seems to me that the Reformed community will have to deal with these movements one way or another. The principle ‘Always Reforming’ must be upheld, but it does not mean ‘Always evolving’ as some claim, but rather it means 'Always remaining re-formed according to God’s Word’, lest we devolve back into a salvation by works.

Social Security Reform Flip-Flops

The reason I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat is because those parties seemed married to simply opposing each other. Trying to find a principle that those parties have stuck by and followed for their entire life is like trying to find a unicorn that has wings.

Allow me to give a recent example. Yesterday, I was listening to Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot on tape. It made me laugh a few times, but that is beside the point. In that book Al (or his fact checker Jeff depending on how seriously you take parts of the book) has a chapter about Social Security reform. Now this book was written during Clinton about 93 or so I think. Al does not give any specific plans, but seems committed to some sort of reform of the system. He uses phrases like “immanent collapse” of the system and critiques how the politicians have decided not to touch the problem just so they can have “20 more years of peace.” So, I thought for sure Al would be endorsing Bush’s plan or at least excited about the prospect of reform. Yet in the blog section of his web site, he seems to favor walking a way from the table and doing nothing because President Bush gambles with the future of Social Security. Flip flops like this hurt my head.

Just in case you think it is limited to Democrats please examine Republican positions on the Department of Education, balanced budgets, and deficit spending. Oh yeah, and when the Republican party came into existence in the 1850’s they were the party of Big Government and the Democrats were the party for limited government. Go figure.

Ascension Day

Today, May 5th, is Ascension Day. This is the day where the church remembers and celebrates the ascension of Christ into heaven. It is one of the five traditional Feast Days of the Reformed Church, so I thought I would post a few links to some good hymns about the occasion.

A Hymn of Glory by the Venerable Bede
Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise by Charles Wesley

Please do look around at the rest of the Cyber Hymnal. It is worth a few minutes to browse.