Fault lines?

Guy Waters has a new book out about the Federal Vision. I have not yet read it because of the wonder of government run postal service. My tax money at work. Anyway, there are quite a few critiques out there to be read. Doug Wilson is blogging his way through the book, and his posts are very well done. Peter Leithart has a discussion about Rev. Waters views his books. Mark Horne also some related thoughts up on his page. It seems Rev. Waters is not friendly to the Federal Vision in his book, and I wonder if there is an avenue for a single pastor to bring other pastors up on charges if they lie in different presbyteries? Being unfamiliar with the ins and outs of PCA polity, I do not know the answer, but if Rev. Waters is charging men in his own denomination of heresy in print, he ought to do it in the church courts as well. Study Committee reports do not count. If there is no way for men in differing presbyteries to bring charges on one another, then there ought to be.

But that is a matter for another day. I want to specifically look at the opening of Joel Garver’s essay on Guy Waters. Rev. Garver writes about the current controversy:

These issues are not in themselves new, involving instead topics of perennial Reformed discussion such as the nature and practice of the Christian sacraments, the relationship between biblical and systematic theologies, the precise contours of a scripturally rooted covenant theology, how best to explain the free offer of the Gospel, how we pastorally apply a Calvinistic understanding of election, how we interconnect various aspects of soteriology, and so on. Any student of the history of reformational dogmatics will quickly recognize these as the dog-eared pages of past conversation and contention.

He then adds a few sentences later:

More often than not, I suspect (and shifting metaphors again), the discussion has had the effect of unearthing and shaking up the tradition’s existing fault lines that had lain dormant in the wake of liberalism’s assault upon orthodoxy, the hegemony of modernity and its assumptions, and the dominance of one particular variety of evangelical piety.

These are fascinating comments that could produce many different threads of discussion. One could argue his point about Reformed theology has long fought the battles he listed. It is a common argument that often involves defining ‘Reformed’. Was Luther ‘Reformed’? Do we consider men like Schaff and Nevin ‘Reformed’? One could also take the tact of arguing that Thomas Boston’s arguments about the Free Offer of the Gospel are not that same as the Federal Vision’s arguments. Or even asking the question of whether or not Biblical Theology pre-dates Vos in the late 19th century? Or one could discuss whether or not his list of discussions are really the heart issue or issues involved in the Federal Vision debate. I seem to remember justification being discussed quite a bit in the books that I have read, yet it fails to make his list. Unless that is what he means to convey when "interconnecting various aspects of soteriology". All worthy discussions.

However, I would like to get feedback on the idea of dormant fault lines running through the tradition, in this case presbyterianism or even the PCA specifically. It was said at the inception of the PCA that it would be a schismatical movement (obviously this was said by someone who did not join the PCA). While it is still a relatively young denomination it has yet to have a major schism. More than can be said for the beginning of the OPC. Is this Federal Vision shake up simply the ending of the honeymoon period of the PCA and the fault lines are showing of an inherently schismatic movement? Or is the ‘Truly Reformed’ camp more correct when they argue that the ‘Joining and Receiving’ of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod created the fault lines? I suppose in short my question is ‘do you agree with Rev. Garver that the PCA, Presbyterianism, or the Reformed tradition in general has fault lines that run just underneath the surface?’

History Lesson for the Mercersburg Revival

As each denomination works through the Federal Vision issue, I think it useful to step back as see where the RCUS failed to deal with it in its more original form, Mercersburg Theology. I do believe that Federal Vision is really nothing more than a revival of the Mercersburg System, and in that respect the RCUS could have done the world a favor in the mid 19th century. The failure for the ‘Old Reformed’, as the opponents of Mercersburg where then called, was twofold.

First, the top down structure that grew in the RCUS. This really began with the creation of the seminary itself, and the accompanying rule that forbid any other place of education. It gave the seminary great power, and with it all of the seminaries proponents. As Mercersburg Theology grew and spread it seldom actually made its way to disciplinary or judicial action. This is because the machinery of a top down denomination was controlled by the proponents of the Mercersburg Vision. Philip Schaff was only put on trial once for his beliefs, and that time the trial was about to be declared out of order, but Schaff waived his rights in order to have the trail. He was declared not guilty, but more proof was found the next year, and the Philadelphia Classis renewed its charges. This time Schaff did not waive his right to have the Board of Visitors of the Seminary investigate the charges before any trail would take place. And while the Board of Visitors did give him a verbal slap, and made him promise to not teach such doctrines in the Seminary, no judicial action was ever taken. After that the Board of Visitors simply refused to hear any more complaints, and with the Board of Visitors rejecting complaints, no trial could take place. Within a few years large scale debates about Liturgy would take place that had John Nevin in print rejecting the theology behind a pulpit based liturgy, and no charges were filled. Why? Because the denomination was controlled the Mercersburg men. They did not have to have a majority to run the denomination, they only had to have control of the machinery, which they did. The Presidents were always Mercersburg men, the Board of Visitors was always Mercersburg Men, the mission boards, you name it, they controlled it. A lesson well worth remembering. In a top heavy denomination, like the PCA for example, it only takes a few key positions to be held, and it no longer matters who has the majority of churches, members, delegates. It is always unimportant.

Second, the Old Reformed types often quit rather than fight, especially in the early stages. For example, in 1822, only two years after the vote for a seminary had been answered in the affirmative, a group of ministers broke off to form the Free German Synod. These ministers may have been able to turn the tide, or at least significantly change the impact of the seminary that would eventually produce the Mercersburg Theology. By the time this group rejoined the RCUS, it was far too late. The early antagonists of the Nevin and Schaff also deserted when they appeared to be stopped. Joseph Berg, the one who brought Philip Schaff up on charges, ended up leaving to join the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1853, just as the Liturgy wars were heating up, the North Carolina Classis withdrew from Synod specifically because of the “heresies of Mercersburg”. Losing an entire Classis of ‘Old Reformed’ men hindered the ‘Old Reformed’ cause in the fight that ensued. The Civil War took away more Southerners, who generally opposed the Mercersburg movement.

In the end, the Mercersburg Theology won the day. They controlled the key positions in a top heavy denomination, such as the seminary, the President, and other various posts like missions, and publications. They also succeeded in discouraging political and theological battles, which eased their path to victory. These are lessons that every denomination should remember, not just as it examines the Federal Vision, but as it examines any controversial issue it faces.

America and the World Cup

There is always a lot of hope after the World Cup that Soccer will catch on in America, and it never does. It will not this time either in case you are wondering. The highest rating of the World Cup was about the same as Friday Night Smackdown of the World Wrestling Entertainment. Hardly an encouraging note, but it was up from four years ago. There are always lots of theories why the world’s most popular game is a big dud in America. Rush Limbaugh thinks it is a political plot by the Left to make us more like the rest of the world. Possibly the motive of some, but hardly the real reason soccer is as popular as paint drying in America. Not that many Americans care about politics (see our voter turn out) and even less think about politics why they watch their sports. The real reasons are simply, and I can boil it down to two.

Reason 1: Scoring is non-existent. The reason that scoring is non-existent is because no one wants to score. The goals are huge, yet many games end zero to zero or one to one, as did the World Cup Final. Just watch a shoot out, and you can see that a goalie has no chance to stop a shot. None. He completely guesses every time, and half the time when he guesses right, he still cannot stop it. Why do they not score like that during the game. Lack of trying is the only reason I can come up with. They too often go backward on the ‘pitch’ or field in order to try and go forward, but the minute they go forward they turn it over. After the turnover the other team almost immediately starts going backward just so the defense can set up and take the ball back. It seems obvious that they do not have a real plan about how to get the ball on goal. Most goals seem accidental, and I really believe that most teams play for the penalty kick shoot out. Americans have a real trouble accepting this sort of game. See Hockey as another example.

Reason 2: The players are wimps and bad actors. Every time someone gets tripped or bumps another player going for the ball, they fall over and fling themselves about as if they were having some sort of spasm. A player that gets kicked in his shin guard will fall to the ground with a yell and hold his shin as if his foot was amputated before anesthesia was administered. It is a common site to see a player hauled off the field on a stretcher and then return the next time the ball goes out of bounds. It is so ingrained in the sport that the announcers do not even pretend that the player on the stretcher with the medical staff is hurt. Supposedly a player taking a dive or wasting time gets a yellow card, but I saw several players roll on the ground without being hit at all, and get free kicks for it rather than a yellow card. Even the Italian who took the controversial head butt flopped around as if he had been hit by a Mack Truck. Americans hate a games based on being a wimp. We cannot stand it when players flop in the NBA, and we really cannot stand seeing it happen every two minutes in a soccer game. I do not believe it a coincidence that the two teams that flop the least (the USA and England) did not win, and are the two countries most willing to stand up in the face of adversity in the real world. Thus, I also believe it strangely fitting that the two counties most known for falling over and wailing at the first sign of trouble in the real world, France and Italy, are the two countries that made the World Cup final.

Americans love soccer as a child’s sport. It is nice for children because they can run around and expend a lot of energy. But, as they grow into manhood, it is appropriate for them to choose a manly sport. Sadly for the rest of the world, this leaves soccer out of the equation.

General Assembly Roundup

The General Assemblies of the PCA and the OPC recently met, and I would like to make a few comments. However, my information is second hand, so feel free to correct me if anything is off.

First, I want to congratulate Rev. Dr. Dominic Aquila for his election as the Moderator of the PCA General Assembly. Dr. Aquila is the President of New Geneva Theological Seminary, from which I graduated, and he is deserving of the post. The JollyBlogger says that there was not as much "heat" in the discussions this year at the Assembly, and I have little doubt that Dr. Aqulia as the moderator had a great deal to with the civility of the discussions.

Second, I think the PCA made a mistake by creating a study committee on the Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Norman Shepherd’s views, commonly called Shepherdism. The vote to create a study committee overturned the majority opinion of the Bills and Overtures committee. One reason I believe this is wrong is the same reason I objected to the Mississippi Valley Report a few years ago: the scope is too broad. As a result, the report will either take years to complete or be too shallow. The RCUS handled it well, in my obviously biased opinion, by breaking each group into its own study committee. The majority opinion of the PCA Overtures Committee, which was overturned by the General Assembly, stated that the creation of a study committee would interfere with ongoing Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) cases. This is clearly a most important point. To what extent are the rulings of study committees binding? If the committee were to find that the Federal Vision is heresy, no Federal Visionists would be automatically removed from office; charges would still have to be brought before the SJC. Would the SJC even be bound to deliver a verdict that conforms to the Study Committee? If it were to take several years for the committee to report back, what happens to the trials pending? When I read Acts 15, I see the church coming together in a court to decide things, not creating non-binding study committees. Not to mention the nightmare of deciding who serves on the committee. Do you appoint a Federal Vision proponent to serve on the committee? If so, then how many? If not, then how do you answer the cries of foul that will most certainly appear? I would bet this committee comes back with a minority report, and then what happens? Study committees work well for deciding the biblical approach to denominational pension plans or for determining the biblical position concerning women in the military. However, the investigation of possible heresy charges is absolutely not the business of a study committee. This is why we have church courts. This debate will end up in the church courts anyway, so why bother with the committee? This is why I favor judicial process instead of study committees. It should be noted that I am in a minority on the web. JollyBlogger favors the study committee approach, and so does Rev. Polski. Rev. Polski has a great post on the PCA GA that reports how the Assembly decided to allow a minister to teach his exception to the Westminster Confession to his congregation without notifying his congregation that his teaching is out of accord with the WCF. This makes one wonder what the point of declaring an exception to the WCF is in the first place, but then I do come from a strict subscription church.

Third, I am also disappointed with the report brought back by the OPC study committee on the Federal Vision, even though it entails a negative assessment. This report itself has other detractors, and will merit an upcoming post. For now I want to note that the report was not adopted, instead it was commended to the churches for study. Now what exactly that means is up for discussion, and therein lies my problem with it. The Assembly, by neither recommending it nor voting it down, failed to clearly approve or disapprove of it. So, then, what is the will of the Assembly on this matter? I believe "straddling the fence" is the best phraseology. A similar discussion is taking place in conservative PCUSA churches over the new names for the Trinity report. The PCUSA decided neither to approve nor to adopt, but rather to commend for study, the idea that the Trinity could now properly be called, "fountain, well-spring, and river" or other manmade non-masculine names, and even a few feminine ones like "Mother, child, life-giving womb." It is the perfect way to satisfy both sides: by not taking one at all.

All in all, this General Assembly season has to be regarded as a giant victory for the Federal Vision movement (yes, I believe there is a movement, but if you would rather call it an impetus, that is fine). The RCUS failed to do anything by recommitting their report for another year, the PCA failed to allow the judicial process to take its course, the OPC failed to adopt its report critical of the Federal Vision, and the Christian Reformed Church passed paedocommunion.

General Assembly Round-Up

The General Assemblies of the PCA and the OPC recently met, and I would like to make a few comments. However, my information is second hand, so feel free to correct me if anything is off.

First, I want to congratulate Rev. Dr. Dominic Aquila for his election as the Moderator of the PCA General Assembly. Dr. Aquila is the President of New Geneva Theological Seminary, from which I graduated, and he is deserving of the post. The JollyBlogger says that there was not as much "heat" in the discussions this year at the Assembly, and I have little doubt that Dr. Aqulia as the moderator had a great deal to with the civility of the discussions.

Second, I think the PCA made a mistake by creating a study committee on the Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Norman Shepherd’s views, commonly called Shepherdism. The vote to create a study committee overturned the majority opinion of the Bills and Overtures committee. One reason I believe this is wrong is the same reason I objected to the Mississippi Valley Report a few years ago: the scope is too broad. As a result, the report will either take years to complete or be too shallow. The RCUS handled it well, in my obviously biased opinion, by breaking each group into its own study committee. The majority opinion of the PCA Overtures Committee, which was overturned by the General Assembly, stated that the creation of a study committee would interfere with ongoing Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) cases. This is clearly a most important point. To what extent are the rulings of study committees binding? If the committee were to find that the Federal Vision is heresy, no Federal Visionists would be automatically removed from office; charges would still have to be brought before the SJC. Would the SJC even be bound to deliver a verdict that conforms to the Study Committee? If it were to take several years for the committee to report back, what happens to the trials pending? When I read Acts 15, I see the church coming together in a court to decide things, not creating non-binding study committees. Not to mention the nightmare of deciding who serves on the committee. Do you appoint a Federal Vision proponent to serve on the committee? If so, then how many? If not, then how do you answer the cries of foul that will most certainly appear? I would bet this committee comes back with a minority report, and then what happens? Study committees work well for deciding the biblical approach to denominational pension plans or for determining the biblical position concerning women in the military. However, the investigation of possible heresy charges is absolutely not the business of a study committee. This is why we have church courts. This debate will end up in the church courts anyway, so why bother with the committee? This is why I favor judicial process instead of study committees. It should be noted that I am in a minority on the web. JollyBlogger favors the study committee approach, and so does Rev. Polski. Rev. Polski has a great post on the PCA GA that reports how the Assembly decided to allow a minister to teach his exception to the Westminster Confession to his congregation without notifying his congregation that his teaching is out of accord with the WCF. This makes one wonder what the point of declaring an exception to the WCF is in the first place, but then I do come from a strict subscription church.

Third, I am also disappointed with the report brought back by the OPC study committee on the Federal Vision, even though it entails a negative assessment. This report itself has other detractors, and will merit an upcoming post. For now I want to note that the report was not adopted, instead it was commended to the churches for study. Now what exactly that means is up for discussion, and therein lies my problem with it. The Assembly, by neither recommending it nor voting it down, failed to clearly approve or disapprove of it. So, then, what is the will of the Assembly on this matter? I believe “straddling the fence” is the best phraseology. A similar discussion is taking place in conservative PCUSA churches over the new names for the Trinity report. The PCUSA decided neither to approve nor to adopt, but rather to commend for study, the idea that the Trinity could now properly be called, "fountain, well-spring, and river" or other manmade non-masculine names, and even a few feminine ones like "Mother, child, and life-giving womb." It is the perfect way to satisfy both sides: by not taking one at all.

All in all, this General Assembly season has to be regarded as a giant victory for the Federal Vision movement (yes, I believe there is a movement, but if you would rather call it an impetus, that is fine). The RCUS failed to do anything by recommitting their report for another year, the PCA failed to allow the judicial process to take its course, the OPC failed to adopt its report critical of the Federal Vision, and the Christian Reformed Church passed paedocommunion.

The Old Ball Game

In addition to my other distractions and hobbies, I enjoy baseball. There is nothing like baseball, it is a one of a kind sport that is uniquely American. In fact, I believe the two are so interlinked that stages in American history parallel stages in baseball history. For example, the Roaring Twenties correspond with the ‘Live Ball Era’ or ‘Babe Ruth Era’ in baseball. Baseball went from a hard-nosed game to a rollicking good time, just as the rest of America. But, that is for another discussion.

I just finished a great baseball book, The Old Ball Game by Frank Deford. This book is really a dual biography of John McGraw and Christy Mathewson. In fact the sub-title is: How John McGraw, Christy Mathewson, and the New York Giants Created Modern Baseball. If you do not know who John McGraw and Christy Mathewson are first, Shame on You! Second, Christy Mathewson is arguably the greatest pitcher ever. He is one of the first class of Hall-of-Fame inductees along with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, and Honus Wagner. Not even the all time leader in wins, Cy Young, made the Hall-of-Fame on the first ballot. John McGraw is arguably the greatest manager of all time, and he made the Hall-of-Fame on the second ballot. He was also a great player in his own right before the major leagues were really set in stone back in the 1890s.

The book is a good read with lots of good stories and quotes. It is an easy read that can be done quickly. Deford gets you not only a good look a baseball life, but gets you involved with the two men he highlights throughout his books. This book is a great look into the personal life of two different men. Mathewson is described as a ‘muscular Christian’. He was a rare honest man in a time when most baseball players were ruffians. McGraw for example was a great ruffian. Deford actually contrasts the old time ‘muscular Christian’ of Christy Mathewson with the modern ‘born again’ Christians, and comes down on the side of Mathewson. Aside from that theological point, it is a good baseball book. You can also learn disturbing facts about history of which I was unaware. For example, the United States used chemical weapons on its own soldiers during WWI. Mathewson and Ty Cobb were officers in a Chemical Weapon unit and their job was to train men how to get their gas masks on. The US government trained men by releasing the ‘real McCoy’ gas on their own troops. Officers had to put their masks on last. Of course one time young troops panicked and Cobb and Mathewson got a real deep lung full of poison gas. Cobb had a cough for a month, returned to baseball the next year and hit .385. Mathewson never shook his cough, had damaged lungs, caught tuberculosis, and never had a chance.

My one criticism of this book is that it never really answers the sub-titles claim. How did McGraw and Mathewson create modern baseball? Was it because Mathewson was the game’s first larger then life star? Was it because McGraw and Mathewson built baseball in nations largest city, New York? Was it because during their time frame the game became a national pastime? These are possible answers, but noting is put forward as the answer. In fact, neither Mathewson nor McGraw really appear modern after reading the book. Mathewson was not a strike out pitcher, and his best pitch was the ‘fadeaway’ which was a ball that broke the opposite direction than the normal ‘curveball’. No one in modern baseball throw that pitch. No one can. McGraw was always a successful manager, but he was one that was quite resistant to change. After the first unofficial World Series was started by the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1903, McGraw refused to participate in 1904. The American League and the National League signed papers to make the World Series official and mandatory in 1905, but McGraw’s team showed up to play with World Champions already stitched into their jerseys. McGraw also hated the changes that came with Babe Ruth, and spent the rest of his life extolling the virtues of people before Ruth as better hitters and better ballplayers. This leaves the question in a desperate need of an answer. How did McGraw and Mathewson create modern baseball? I personally suspect they did not, and maybe publishers who had never read the book made up the sub-title. In the end, despite the unanswered questions, the book is a good read.

To Be the Man

I am going to make a confession, one that will probably bring me great embarrassment, but one that I have to make anyway. I am a wrestling fan. Yes, I have fond memories of watching the NWA (National Wrestling Alliance) with the Four Horsemen and the Nature Boy Ric Flair. I watched the greatest matches ever between Ricky the Dragon Steamboat and the Nature Boy Ric Flair. I watched in college as the Monday Night Wars made wrestling history. I still watch today from time to time, but sadly most wrestling shows have degenerated into quick five-minute matches sandwiched in-between blatant pornography. When I do watch, I watch the non-Vince McMahann owned TNA, which does not have the blatant pornography, and still has the old NWA belt. I miss the old NWA that focused so much on wrestling and crowd entertainment through actual wrestling matches.

I confess all of this to simply tell those other closet old-school wrestling fans out there that To Be the Man the autobiography of the Nature Boy Ric Flair is a good book to read. It is a fabulous glimpse into wrestling business and how it changed and evolved with the advent of cable, pay-per-view, and eventually the international domination of Vince and the WWE. For those of you up on wrestling biographies, To Be the Man does not quite have the same literary flow and quality of Mick Foley’s autobiography, Have a Nice Day, but it is a better book for a look into the wrestling industry. Mick Foley has great stories about crazy and bizarre matches because that is what he did. He was a hardcore legend, or as Ric Flair tells us, a “glorified stuntman”. Flair was a legend in his own time, and thus has a great look into the business of wrestling. Flair also has a lot more honest thoughts about other wrestlers spanning a great time frame since Ric is still wrestling at 55 years old. Mick Foley has more personal stories and life outside of wrestling, but one of Ric’s points is that for years he did not have a life outside of wrestling. He literally wrestled seven days a week, including every holiday, and twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday. The only days off Ric Flair took were days when he was on a plane traveling to wrestle in Japan. I suppose a life like that does not leave a lot of stories from home.

The other interesting thing about Ric Flair’s book is the honest look at life of people who are entertainers for a living. Ric Flair freely admit he tried steroids a couple of times. He drank like a fish, something he regrets, but he still drinks some. He shows you all of his friends who loved to party with the Nature Boy who were into cocaine and other recreational drugs. He talks of the deaths of several of his wrestling buddies, the suicide of several others, and the crazy cover-ups pulled by many in the business. That is not something that you see a lot of in Mick Foley’s book. Ric refuses to blame wrestling as a sport, but the individuals themselves for the large amount of drug use. However, I do think it interesting that people who work in cubicles all day do not have stories about all night crack binges, but those in the entertainment industry have plenty of such stories. You could probably count the number of CEOs who have died in their prime from too much parting with illegal drugs on one hand, but I can think of ten wrestlers without blinking, not to mention the numerous movie stars like Chris Farley who have passed away because of drugs. Not to mention the ones who check into Betty Ford on a regular basis. Baseball players too are becoming notorious for abusing drugs, and football stars are not far behind. It is hard not to say some kind of difference exists between the real world and the entertainment world with regards to drugs, drinking, and work.

To be the man you have to beat the man, and the man was always Ric Flair. So if you want to know more about The Man, you have to read the book by the The Man. Wooooooo!

On the Road again

A Pastor's work is never done . . . well at least not this week.

I am off to Great Falls, MT with a fellow minister to investigate it as a possible place for an RCUS church plant. If you live in Great Falls and are interested drop a response, and we will get back to you. For that matter, if you live in North or South Dakota and want an RCUS church in your city, let me know.

I will write when I get back.

The Christian Reformed Church allows infants to the table

The Christian Reformed Church is approving infant communion, or all baptized-member-communion. One wonders if this a sign of things to come for Presbyterian denominations. The PCA and the OPC are both meeting in their respective General Assemblies this week. Each will be dealing with overtures about the Federal Vision, which does not necessarily include infant communion, but I believe it to be a step in that direction. We shall see how it all plays out.

Is Peter the Rock???

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In preparing a sermon on Matthew 16, I have become somewhat disheartened. It must have become fashionable at some time for Protestants to believe Peter himself is the rock upon which the church is built (though many try to qualify with Peter AND the other apostles). William Hendrickson takes this view as does the Reformation Study Bible in its notes on verse 18. Edmund Clowney, former President of Westminster Theological Seminary, in his book The Church, also holds to Peter as the rock. All three sadly fail to deal with historic Protestant exegesis of this passage, instead they simply dismiss it by saying that if Rome had not abused the passage in the first place, no one would question the Peter-is-the-rock interpretation. Allow me to remind everyone of the actual history of the Protestant exegesis, so the folly of such a dismissal will be apparent.

Those who hold the Rock is Christ (just for the record I hold to this position):
Not only do Reformers such as Turretin (3.18.Q17.164-5) and Bullinger (iv.81) hold that Jesus is the rock, but so do many church fathers. Augustine, one of the four doctors of the early church, held that Christ was the rock, as did Hilary of Pointers - both men predating any abuse by Rome. Jerome, another of the four doctors, also taught that the rock was Christ.

Those who hold the rock is the confession or faith:
Here we can see John Calvin make his stand, and he is not alone. Chrysostom of Constantinople in the early 5th century makes this claim. This was not against papal abuse, which was just beginning, but simply a commentary on the verse. Theophylact also holds that the rock is the confession and faith of Peter. Claudius Archbishop of Turin (early 9th century) wrote commentaries on the books of the Bible at the behest of the Holy Roman Emperor, Louis the Pious, and on Matthew 16:18 clearly shows he believes the rock is the “apostle’s doctrine” (J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1 pg. 22).

Those who reject Peter as the rock, but whose alternative unclear:
Athanasius of mid-4th century fame falls here. He never seems to support the idea of Peter as the rock, but does use the verse in a discourse about Christ seeming to refer to Jesus as God as the rock upon which the church is built (NPNF, vol. 4. Pg. 447) in his discourse against the Arians. Yet, again he does not apply the phrase to Peter, but rather says nothing will prevail against Faith after quoting verse 16 and 17 in a fragment from letter 29 (NPNF, vol. 4 pg. 551). Cyprian, too, denies Peter is the rock, seeming instead to apply the rock to all bishops everywhere, which has been interpreted by some to show a belief that the faith of Peter is what stands as the rock. However, he also seems to be the first to apply Peter as the rock in other places.

In fact, according to Launoi, only 17 of the Fathers of the church (leaders before the 12th century) can be found to express the opinion that Peter is ‘the rock’, and no less than 40 deny Peter as the rock (ANF vol. 5 pg. 561). With all of this evidence easily at hand, it seems odd that the authors of the study notes in the Reformation Study Bible would be so dismissive of any other interpretation. It also seems odd that so many people would think the not-Peter-rock interpretations arose only after the text was stolen by papists. This is untrue because we know that men like Augustine and Jerome were teaching such interpretations prior to its usurpation and perversion by roman bishops. Perhaps in a future post, I will be able to discuss this issue further. For now it is simply enough to show my displeasure at the growing trend.

Reading Reviews

It has been a while since I have given a book review, so let me give a quick update on what I have been reading.

I just finished reading The House by Robert Remini. A very informative book on the history of the House of Representatives. Want to know about the most powerful Speakers of the House, how the Republicans won back control, or how the Senate gained the ability to produce revenue bills? It is all in the book. Very readable, very interesting.

Peter Leithart’s book, A House for My Name was also interesting. It is an overview of the OT and how that impacts our understanding of the NT. He had some good insights, but I think he often makes too big a deal about certain things. For example, he lays a great deal of weight on Cain going east of Eden (Gen. 4:16). Traveling east becomes a symbol for going away from God, and traveling west becomes a symbol for returning to God. Thus, he points out all of the significant westward motion, such as crossing the Jordan. But, he fails to deal with Israel’s first attempt to go into the Promise Land, which was entering in the south and going north. How does that affect his theory? I believe he overplays the Exodus motif as well even making the Philistines taking of the arc and Exodus for the arc of the covenant. It makes me wonder about some exegetical principles where we may disagree, but the book still contains some helpful insights.

Yes Green Baggins is at it again. He may be gone this week and next to General Assembly, but he left a nugget of wisdom about the Westminster and the Covenant of Works at the Westminster Brass.

I also read Einhard’s biography of Charlemagne. A good quick read. Probably played up with faults played down, but a good read nonetheless.

I am currently reading Ben Franklin's autobiography, which my wife found in the "free" box at a garage sale, and the History of the Eastern Synod of the RCUS.

Free Prayers . . . Are they unacceptable?

Alastair has yet another thought provoking post. This time he tackles the subject of liturgy, mainly the subject of form versus free prayers. Alastair says,

The ‘heroic pose’ that Keillor speaks of is one in which the speaker presents God with his own words, deeming his own vocabulary to be sufficient. The reasoning behind such an approach is that the most authentic way of being is that of spontaneity as opposed to imitation. Prayers of spontaneity, no matter how rhetorically brilliant they are, will always fall short of truly public speech. True public speech is shared language, where the words are not the speaker’s own. Spontaneous speech always falls short, drawing attention to the speaker, who often has a desire for people’s praise.

While I can agree with Alastair that we should pray the promises of God back to him, I cannot agree that free prayers, prayers of spontaneity, in the worship fall short and only serve to draw attention to the speaker. True public speech is one where the language is shared, but does that necessitate that the words are not the speaker’s own? I do not believe this necessarily follows. Can a speaker not be the representative of people? Can a speaker’s own words not be concurred or agreed with by the people, or must they all share a book of prayer and the man must read a book of prayer to be truly public speech. Let us take this example out of the context of worship for a moment. President Reagan famously called for Ghorbachov to “tear this wall down” at the base of the Berlin Wall. Now Reagan was the representative of America, and his words spoke for me, and for thousands of others. The words were Reagan’s own, but they were still public speech because his words represented the will of America. He spoke for us. Why cannot a minister speak for his people in a similar way? I believe he can and does.

Alastair’s next point states,

In handing ourselves over to a language that has been handed over to us in tradition we confess that we do not have the words that are sufficient to approach God. Our verbal works are sinful and poor, so they are not the sacrifice of praise our tongues present to God. The words that we bring are words that have been given to us, words that are not our own. The shared language of liturgy is thus a natural extension of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Our own words are not good enough to approach God. I do admit that no one, no not one, is worthy enough to approach God on his own. Yet, the blood of Christ makes us able to approach the Lord in worship even with our own words. If man’s words are not worthy of approaching God, then they are never good enough to approach God. Man is then only allowed to approach God with the words of Scripture. Man made prayers that have been handed down to us through tradition are not made worthy by the passing of time. If they were not worthy when written, then they are not worthy today. Just because they are not my personal words does not make someone else’s personal words worthy. Alastair does grant later that hymns are sometimes acceptable, but if man’s words are not good enough then why are they good enough in song. The argument Alastair uses for form prayers is the argument often used by exclusive psalmody. A difference is also drawn between private prayers and public ones, but why a man’s words are not worthy in public, but in private found acceptable is not explained.

The other argument brought forth against free prayers is one of self-promotion. While I can see that this may indeed from time to time be a problem it is arguing that the personal faults of some destroy the worthiness of the entire system. Some people may try to show off in their prayers, but that does not mean that everyone shows off in prayer. Some may indeed draw attention to themselves during prayers, but others may not. The few certainly does not out weigh the many. One could just as easily argue that form prayers are bad because people mindless read, and do not understand what they are praying. Reading is not the same as praying; therefore, those who simply read, do not pray at all. Such an attack is probably true for some people. They may indeed not bother to pay attention. But does that necessarily mean the whole idea of a form prayer is corrupt? No, I do not think so. Each way has its own temptations, and it is good to be aware of them, but no way is temptation free.

My real point of contention with high liturgy is found in one of Alastair’s concluding points. One of the things that the Church could really benefit from today is a downplaying of preaching within the context of the liturgy and a denial of the primacy of the preacher. I believe in a liturgy, but one that is a pulpit based liturgy of which I believe free prayers are acceptable. Traditionally the high liturgy is an altar/table based liturgy that stress other elements than the word and the word preached. I am not against form prayers, in fact, we pray the Lord’s Prayer every week and we have responsive readings every week, but I do not think that one can be biblically against a representative free prayer either, which we also have every week.

Three Party System - Conclusion

Allow me to examine one last era of history for I believe it will answer some objections that have been raised. That is the Progressive Era around the turn of the 20th century. We have seen how 3rd Parties can overcome regional odds and win national elections eventually replacing old parties. The Progressive Era shows us a second way 3rd Parties are important. During this time we see two 3rd Parties rise and fall: the Bull-Moose Party and the Progressive Party. They had some electoral success such as La Follette being elected governor and into Congress. But nationally they failed. Or did they?

The Progressive Party stood for ‘progressing’ society, and they desired to use the government, at all levels, to accomplish that purpose. They clearly stood in the Nationalistic tradition. They were for government regulations on food industries, women having the right to vote, senators being directly elected by the people, prohibition, removal of the gold standard, women’s suffrage, income tax, busting up monopolies, and child labor laws. Sound familiar? All of them are laws today with the lone exception of prohibition, but that did make it into the Constitution for a time. There are child labor laws despite the child labor amendment to the Constitution being defeated. Yet, the Progressive Party never won a national election. Teddy Roosevelt defected to the Bull Moose Party, and only succeeded in getting Woodrow Wilson elected President. They never controlled congress, or even came close. How did these third parties get everything they wanted without winning?

They got everything they wanted because the other parties stood up and took notice. They never really had a large public face or great ballot box victories. La Follette from Wisconsin and La Guardia from New York were about as good as it got, but these men turned their positions in the House into soap boxes. These men were elected to seats and that kept seats from the two big Parties, the Republican and Democrats. It did not take long for the parties to respond. Woodrow Wilson helped kill the Bull-Moose Party by taking all their ideas. The Progressive Party died the same death when the two parties came around on the positions taken by the Progressives, eliminating the need for them. The Constitution was amended twice between the Bill of Rights, 1792, and the Civil War in 1860. Two times in 50 years. Then the Civil War necessitated three amendments. Those lasted until the Progressive era of 1900. 5 amendments in over 100 years. Then in a 25 year span (1910-1935) the Constitution was amended 6 times plus one amendment that passed Congress only to be struck down by the states. The Progressives dominated this time despite having no national power at all. People voted for them, and that was enough to send the message. The two big parties responded, and the 3rd Party died, but won the day. Its ideology became enshrined in the two party system.

This is why voting for a third party is not throwing your vote away. It is a signal to the two main parties they are losing touch. If they respond, the 3rd party has served its purpose and goes away. If they do not and continue to neglect the people, more and more will join the 3rd Party until it replaces a party at the table. Look back on Ross Perot. He cost President Bush the First the election with a campaign slogan of "throw the bums out" that decried government corruption. Since then we had the Republican Revolution, which ran on balancing the budget and reforming government. This was Perot’s platform, and Perot endorsed the Contract with America during the 1994 Congressional races. I think Perot’s Pie Charts about finances, corruption, and balanced budgets got through even though Perot’s party is now in shambles.

What about the Green Party of Ralph Nader? He severely hurt Al Gore in his bid for the White House. Since then we have seen the Democrats run to the far left with Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader, Howard Dean as DNC chair and Al Gore himself now makes Environmental movies. The Green Party responded by not nominating Nader in 2004, which sounded a lot like a death toll for them. The Democrats responded, and their need is diminishing. The Bull Moose Party did the same thing when they endorsed a Republican candidate against Wilson because the Republicans had taken up the Bull Moose cause.

The Republican Party is currently made up of anyone who believes in tax cuts. It houses big government men, it houses social liberals, it also holds libertarian leaning men. The Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party and any other far right 3rd Party has a real opportunity, in my opinion. They should probably not concentrate so much on Presidential races, but run local Congressional elections. The House is where the power is for 3rd Parties. They need to talk about boarders and run away spending. Those two issues alone would probably play well for this election and 2008. It would only take the election of one man to cause shock waves. Men like Tom Tancredo and Tom Coburn are being pushed aside in the Republican Party of Compassionate Conservatives, and 3rd Parties can either return them to power in the Republican base by calling it back to its small government roots, or it may well be replaced.

In short voting for someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is not throwing your vote away. It is a vote for an ideology. It is saying, "what is important to me is not represented by the two parties." When enough people ban together to make that statement, the parties listen. Voting for the lesser of two evils only guarantees evil. Voting against evil may allow evil to win or it may get someone to take notice.

Answers to Armstrong's Ponderings

I have to comment on this post by John Armstrong. It involves a list of questions he ponders as a Reformed Christian, and I believe he deserves some answers, or at least some reply questions.

Q1. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians seem to have historical amnesia when it comes to events that transpired in church history from the death of John on the Isle of Patmos, late in the first century, until the completion of the Canon several centuries later?

A. I do not believe most modern Reformed Christians ignore the first centuries of the church. Just check the back of any Trinity Hymnal, an OPC production, and you will find the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Both of which were written in the time period he describes. More importantly what is Rev. Armstrong implying in the question? Was the Canon of Scripture not completed after the last apostle died? Was it not completed the minute the last book of the Bible was written? What is the point is saying that there is a gap between the apostles and the formation of the Bible? It would appear that Rev. Armstrong believes the church created the Bible, and that is troubling.

Q2. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore the Church Fathers as well as the catholic creeds of the Christian church?

A. I fail to see how this is different than the first question, and it is just not true.

Q3. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians ignore the fact that John Calvin was especially influenced by the Church Fathers? For that matter why do these same conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore other Reformed writers who relied very heavily upon the classical catholic tradition such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley?

A. Obviously someone has an ax to grind by repeating the same thought in three questions. Would it not be faster just to come out and describe an example of how conservative Reformed Christians ignore the early church? Without examples it is really just the fallacy of ‘hasty generalization’ not to mention completely baseless.

Q4. Why do conservative Reformed Christians treat only certain confessional traditions, such as the Westminster Confession or its cousin the London Baptist Confession, as if only these confessions and catechisms were the proper confessional grounds for the Reformed faith and thus for contemporary understanding of the Bible and classical Christian thought, if they even care about classical thought? These important creedal standards of the 17th century are not the only standards for orthodoxy, for all time and all cultures, and few have ever treated them in this manner. Therefore, why do ordinary Christians hardly ever hear this from the many of the conservative Reformed spokesmen? (There are few if any conservative Reformed spokeswomen, which is another question for another time.)

A. Let us just leave aside the disturbing comment about women for today. Coming from a denomination that uses neither the Westminster nor the London Baptist Confession, I would argue that to make this question fit, Rev. Armstrong needs to replace the word “Reformed” with “Presbyterian”. There are many conservative Reformed denominations that use the Three Forms for example. More importantly note how Rev. Armstrong thinks that orthodoxy changes over time. He makes sure to include the idea that the WCF is not a standard “for all time”. If you do not think the WCF is orthodox, fine. Come out and defend your point. But arguing that it was orthodox, and now is not because of the advancement of contemporary thought is Hegelian, denying the truth can be known, and dangerous to say the least.

Q5. Why do conservative Reformed Christians demand a kind of purity from other modern Reformed writers that allows so many of them to never actually engage the culture and do the hard work of the Kingdom in the 21st century? Why do they attack all expressions of emerging culture and church life when in fact their tradition emerged in a specific time in history too?

A. While this is again purposefully vague, one gets the idea that this might be about opposition to the Emergent Church. However, the implication of his words seems to say that ‘purity’ presumably of doctrine forbids engaging the culture. From that opinion, I dissent.

Q6. Why do conservative Reformed Christians identify so strongly, and often so stridently, with other non-Reformed Christians in certain area of gospel controversy, especially in advocating very narrow definitions of the gospel in an attempt to impress lay people and inadequately taught pastors that they alone are standing for the truth in this dark day? This has been done over the last ten years with the issuance of various joint statements and widely promoted conferences, as if these faithful spokesmen alone have the courage to defend the gospel and the correct understanding of what actually constitutes the gospel.

A. I have to admit that I am lost on this one. Rev. Armstrong obviously has specifics in mind but refuses to name them. This puts him squarely in the tradition of Gilbert Tennent. But since I have no idea what he really means, and I do not attend many, if any, conferences I will just take a pass.

Q7. Why do conservative Reformed Christians generally treat Roman Catholics (and Orthodox Christians if they bother to respond to them at all) as non-Christians, especially in their public pronouncements? Do these same Reformed Christians, at least on the Presbyterian side of the aisle, ever admit that their own traditions have always accepted Catholic/Orthodox baptism as valid Christian baptism? I also wonder if these conservatives, who stand should-to-shoulder with other non-Reformed fundamentalists in a type of reductionism that results from their narrow gospel definitions (as noted as in question six above), really ever make these facts plain to their non-Reformed (Baptist and dispensational) allies, who I suppose would be aghast if they understood this?

A. This I believe is a valid question. One that was discussed recently by many ministers in my denomination. But, I do not think that accepting the validity of Baptism means that we are accepting the validity of the Roman/Popish/Eastern church. Baptism in the end is the work, not of the minister, but of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on the holiness of the man, but on the promises of God. And just to show I do not ignore history, Augustine made this argument against the Donatists many centuries ago, and it is the basis of the Reformed position. As for making it clear to Baptist allies that we accept the baptisms of Romanists, I hope we do. Because if there is one thing we need to have discussions with Baptists about it is baptism.

Q8. Why do conservative Reformed Christians rail so harshly, and react so emotionally, against liturgy in worship (a huge list could be constructed to make this point) on the one hand, while on the other they hate pop-cultural, happy-clappy, contemporary evangelical worship services with a passion? Do they realize that what they have created, in many cases, is a modern lecture hall with hymns and a collection? Do they realize that this is much more like a Plymouth Brethren gathering than a truly Reformed service, with all its variations and rich use of older liturgical tradition?

A. We rail against both because driving into a ditch on either side of the road is a bad idea. For clarification, liturgy itself is not bad, but I suspect that Rev. Armstrong mean a high altar-based liturgy. Conservative Reformed Christians usually argue for a Pulpit based liturgy. John Nevin, a proponent of altar based liturgy said it best, “They are two different theological systems.” Nevin was not confused by the railing. The altar based system and the pulpit based system are not the same liturgical tradition. If Rev. Armstrong does not mean to argue for Nevin’s system, then I suppose his attack is so narrow that I do not know much of the lecture hall environment he describes.

Q9. Why do conservative Reformed Christians often promote a high ecclesiology (in theory) while in practice they act much more like Southern Baptists who add presbyteries and general assemblies on to a modern form of culture religion? In practice these sorts of Reformed groups govern themselves, and do theology, less and less like historically Reformed bodies. Think populism and democractic idealism, not historic Reformed confessionalism, and you get my point.

A. I think the best answer there is sin. We tend toward populism rather than confessionalism naturally, and it is a constant battle. It is good to be reminded of our need for grace even in our ecclesiology.

Q10. Why do conservative Reformed Christians promote certain aspects of Puritanism, often without really understanding Puritanism in the way a real scholar like J. I. Packer does, while at the same time they despise the real Puritan approach to the Holy Spirit and to a practical experiential religion centered in the heart? And why do these same people hate almost every type of ascetical or mystical theology while whole segments of the Reformed movement have loved these parts of the Christian tradition deeply? (This is precisely why some conservative Reformed spokesmen despise Jonathan Edwards, which I discovered first-hand, to my profound surprise, about ten years ago.)

A. I am not a Puritan expert since I am not really in the Puritan tradition in the RCUS. I would be interested, however, in which parts of the Reformed traditions loved asceticism and mysticism. I am not sure why I am required to enjoy Jonathon Edwards either. He has his good points, and he has some bad points.

Rev. Armstrong challenges men to come out and abandon their narrow confessionalism. He adds his wishes that churches would live in the 21st century rather than the 17th. Yet, here is where I would challenge Rev. Armstrong. I wish he would have an open debate about Theological and Historical Development. Why is it that orthodoxy of the 17th century is now the unorthodoxy of the 21st? I believe the historical development theories of Hegel, Schaff, and Nevin are philosophically, theologically, and historically absurd. As a matrix for viewing history, the bible, and the church it fails completely. Yet it is historical development is the underpinning of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, and Rev. Armstrong’s entire post. However, I, like Rev. Armstrong, will not hold my breath.

Third Party Necessity continued

The importance of the third party is best seen in the Civil War, but before we examine that point, let us look at the election of Andrew Jackson first.

The 1824 election had only one party, and the party nominated John Quincy Adams, a Nationalist. The anti-federalist were not going to sit for this, and John C. Calhoun threw his name into the hat, as did a Southern Federalist named Crawford. Henry Clay, a lesser Nationalist also ran in 1824. Just to make the race even more interesting Andrew Jackson a Federalist was nominated by some friends at the Tennessee state convention. The one party had told people to vote for Adams, the people had listened when they put forth James Monroe twice. Yet, this time the people voted the way they felt rather than the way their were told by their party. Calhoun bowed out before election day accepting the only Vice Presidential nomination instead. He threw his support to Andrew Jackson, the next alliance of the anti-Federalists, and Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral count, but because Crawford and Clay also grabbed electoral votes, it went to the House where Adams was made President. Jackson went on to create the Democratic Party, which still exists today, and the National Republican party of Adams disappeared after two Jackson victories in 28 and 32, along with his Vice President, Martin Van Buren winning in 36. The electorate disregarded the party and while losing the actual election, created a party that rode into power easily in four years.

The three way ideological split is easily seen in the Civil War’s three great Senators.
William Seward was the Nationalist who favored banning slavery from the territories and viewed military struggle with the South as inevitable.
Stephen Douglas was the Federalist who favored the rights of those living in the Territories to decide the question not the federal government.
Jefferson Davis was the anti-Federalist who viewed the territories as belonging to the States in general; thus, slaves could be taken into any territory and only when the territory became a state did it have the right to settle the slavery question.

Both the Whig and the Democrats were alliances between these ideologies, and the existence of third parties like the Free Soil showed the discontent of the Nationalists. The Free Soil party merged with the Know-Nothings and gained some unhappy Whigs like Seward and made the Republican Party. This was a completely nationalist party. The first election for the Republicans showed their strength in 1856 even though they lost the election. By 1858 they had control of the House of Representatives, and in 1860 they won the Presidential election. They replaced the Whig Party which died out because it would not take a stand. Thus, one ideological group left and voted for a party more in line with its thinking, and it won out. The same can be said of the Democratic Party. It put forth a Federalist, Stephen Douglas and the anti-Federalist group walked out. They put forth John Beckonridge, and they finished second. The Federalist finished last because the leftover Federalist Whigs failed to support Douglas and put forth John Bell as a Constitutional Union candidate. The Federalist party failed to find a place to stand and thus with the Nationalists in control of the North and the anti-Federalist controlling the South it ended in bloodshed.

The third party point in all of this is that people voted their conscious and major changes ended up occurring. It may have taken many years to actually achieve a victory, but victory was achieved. The Free Soil party had been around for decades, and finally enough people saw their point, and voted with them to win the Presidency. It should be noted that Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot in every state because the Republican Party was a regional party. Yet, people voted for them anyway, and victory came. If people had the attitude of you need to be on every ballot Lincoln would have lost and slavery might still exist in Utah. Principle was more important the electability. Voting for principles beginning the process with the Free Soil Party, ended up changing the face of America forever. A point well worth remembering when trying to decide where to cast your vote.

Continuing the discussion about America’s Three Party system.

Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, and that was the beginning of the end for the Nationalist Group (then called the Federalist Party). The Democratic-Republicans (an alliance between Anti-Federalists and Federalists) began its long road to eventually becoming the only political party left in America. This occurred because of the death of Alexander Hamilton who was the main organizer of the Nationalists, and because of the treasonous stand that many New Englanders took during the War of 1812. The Federalist Party disappeared, so that even John Quincy Adams was a Democratic-Republican, although they soon became known as Republicans.

However the divide between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist becomes apparent as both Jefferson and Madison show their Federalist leanings while President. Jefferson does several things to increase the power of the Chief Executive and Madison charters the Second Bank of the US, something he thought unconstitutional while in the House. This leads to a visible break in party unity as John Randolph, a Representative from Virginia and an Anti-Federalist often voted against his party along with a few other Anti-Federalists in Congress. It was the beginning of a long search for a new political alliance for the Anti-Federalists that sadly ended in the Civil War.

With the Presidency of James Monroe the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ began where there was only one party in America. Yet, this one party contained men as diverse as Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and John C. Calhoun. In fact the three most famous Senators of all time illustrate quite well the three party system.

Daniel Webster – A senator from Massachusetts who was an extreme Nationalist. He ended up in the National Republican Party, and then later the Whig party. He argued for a loose construction of the Constitution that allowed the government to fund internal improvements within a state, chartering of a bank of the US, high protective tariffs, and against a state’s right to depart from the Union.

Henry Clay – A Representative and then Senator from Kentucky. He was also more a Nationalist than anything else, but his love for Union could have him considered a Federalist. He favored a loose construction allowing for Internal improvements and a Bank of the US. He also desired Protective Tariffs but was willing to sacrifice them in order to save the Union during the Nullification Controversy in South Carolina. He was against abolitionism because it interfered with State’s rights, but did think Congress had the right to legislate it in the territories, but never pushed it because he knew it was a contested right.

John Calhoun – A representative and then Senator from South Carolina. Calhoun was the model anti-federalist, and most of the South followed his lead. He was a strict constructionist. He argued tariffs were for revenue, not protection, was against government funded internal improvements, against a central Bank of the US, and favored not only a state’s right to leave the union but a state’s right to nullify laws that were unconstitutional.

One could also add to this Andrew Jackson as a better example of a Federalist than Clay. Jackson allowed high tariffs, viewed the Bank of the US as unconstitutional and destroyed it, vetoed internal improvements, did not think a state could nullify Federal laws and was willing to use military force to enforce those laws. But also he thought a state was sovereign over those within its boundaries, which led him to move the Indians to Oklahoma against the attempt at legislating laws from the Supreme Court’s leading Nationalist John Marshall.

This era also regularly had more than three parties on the ticket. Even three Presidential Candidates was a regular occurrence. The Republican Party dies, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party are born. The Free Soil Party is born, as is the American or Know-Nothing Party. The Democratic Party was an alliance between Anti-Federalists and Federalists, while the Whig was an alliance between Federalists and Nationalists. The Free Soil Party and American Parties were mostly Nationalists.

The next post will show how voting for third parties influences and eventually changes all other parties, which is why one should be voting for third parties when they more correctly line up with your beliefs.

Two Party or Three Party System?

Did I say three party system? Yes, I did. I have heard people over and over again say that voting for a third party is a waste of a vote because there are only two parties with a chance to win, and our country is founded upon a two party system. I disagree. I believe the country is founded upon at least a three party system and occasionally sustaining four. Now there are not always three parties in name, but there are always at least three parties in number. Hopefully over the next few blogs I will show that fact, and hopefully be able to draw applications from it. Admittedly this is not theological in nature, but a little variety on the blog never hurt anyone.

I should also say up front that I think the two party bias that circulates has colored a lot of history text books as well. For example, most books will tell you of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists at the Constitutional convention, and then again during the reign of Washington as President. Yet, this view falls into conflict with the facts. One good problem that the two party view encounters is James Madison. Which side did James Madison take? He was the author of the Constitution and a co-author of the Federalist papers, so he must be a Federalist. Yet, he led the opposition to fellow Federalist writer Alexander Hamilton in the House, introduced the Bill of Rights into Congress and worked closely with Thomas Jefferson. Those credentials would make him an anti-federalist. Most books try to solve this dilemma by claiming Madison did the first ever political flip-flop to curry favor with the voters. I have a different solution. The three party view.

The Constitutional Convention had three parties that continued into Washington’s Presidency. The anti-federalists did not want any real changes in the Articles of Confederation and were led by men like Patrick Henry, who refused to serve in the Senate because he so hated the Federal government, and George Mason, who walked out of the Constitutional Convention because it took too much power from the states. The Federalists wanted a new government that had more power, but still wanted to retain individual state rights. George Washington, James Madison, and even Thomas Jefferson fall into this category. Here many wanted different things, most of which show up in the Constitution. Washington wanted a chief executive because he had experienced the trouble of running an army that answered to a legislative body. Madison wanted the power to tax because a government had no authority without it. So on and so forth. The third party is the Nationalist party, who would have been happy to rid the nation of states completely. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams fall into this group. These men lost in the Constitutional Convention, but manage to pull the early republic more their direction. Hamilton won passage of debt assumption after a compromise was worked out about the location of the capital. Hamilton argued for loose construction to help win passage of the Bank of the US. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which criminalized speaking against the government. A lot of this happened because the true anti-federalists refused to participate in the Federal government, like Patrick Henry. However, by the Adams administration we see anti-federalists take a more active role, and the passing of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions opposing the sedition acts are a good example of anti-federalist thinking.

In summary we can see in the early years of the Republic there were three ideological parties.
Nationalists: Held to a ‘loose’ or ‘broad’ construction of the Constitution, and generally tried to gain more power for the Central government.
Federalists: Held to a ‘strict’ or ‘narrow’ construction of the Constitution, and tried to balance the Central with the States.
Anti-Federalists: Held to the state constitutions as above the Federal Constitution, and they tried to keep power in the state level.

Now the extreme anti-federalists faded as the first generation of Americans grew up under the Constitution. Less extreme Anti-Federalists, such as Richard Henry Lee, joined forces with the Federalists to oppose the power grabs of Hamilton and later Adams. The Nationalists made the political party known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists made up the group known as the Democratic-Republicans.

I promise this will get to a point in some future blog.

Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together

Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together is a document that gains signatures daily. Its main focus is to promote charity in theological discourse. The charity is not only in how we discourse with one another, but also in recognizing divergent views within the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. The following list of doctrines where it is “acceptable” to deviate is taken from their website, but put in my own words for the sake of space.

- the chronology and timing of creation
- the characterization of the Adamic covenant and its relation to the covenant of grace
- the priority of biblical theology, historical-grammatical exegesis, apostolic typology, and ancient contexts
- the role of conversion experience
- the spiritual life of covenant children
- whether sacraments are instruments or occasions for imparting grace
- what the bible teaches concerning worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper (read paedocommunion).
- application of the Regulative Principle of worship
- application of the 4th Commandment in the new covenant
- church polity
- relation between the church and culture as well as the civil magistrate (read theonomy)
- the application of election to the visible church
- how we view the second coming of Christ and the millenium.

We can see that this list covers almost everything that has been debated in Presbyterianism over the past several decades. It goes from the things where the creeds allow wiggle room such as the millenium to places where the creeds are clear such as paedocommunion. It allows for divergent views on the sacraments and exegesis along with creation. One wonders after reading this what is left to discuss. One can have charitable discourse on these subjects, but if signing this document means allowing all views on these things to be acceptable, what is the point of discourse? The end conclusion is already granted by the mere act of signing. All of these differences are acceptable.

It was pointed out to me that this tactic was used once before. The idea of claiming many biblical doctrines non-essential, able to be disputed, and calling accepting that reality ‘charity’ was used in the Auburn Affirmation in 1924. That declaration said that many theories about one subject, such as the virgin birth, could be deduced from Scripture. Thus, all were acceptable, and the church should accept all the views. This was basically made the position of the church in 1926. The Presbyterian Church in the United States has really never been the same sense. Within a decade Princeton was dismantled and rebuilt in the image of the new PCUSA, and men like Machen were expelled from the ministry. While, I cannot speak to the outcome of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together, I do believe that the two documents are similar in nature. Each declares the Scriptures are unclear and multiple legitimate theories can be deduced from them. The bible does not clearly state for us how God wants to be worshipped, what the sacraments do, who is to partake of the Lord’s Supper, how God created the world, nor how his church should relate to the culture or magistrate. These are just a few of the places where the Scriptures teach many different things, or at least unclear, according to the PPT document. I will not be signing, and I hope many others will consider exactly what they are doing when they put their name on a document. This is not a call to be nice in discussions, but a statement about the Bible itself.

Thoughts upon my return

I am back from Synod. It was a fun time and while not quite as productive as I had hoped, it was a meeting filled with remarkable unity. The issue we expected to divide and cause rifts (the idea of a denominational seminary), did not. We did recommit our Federal Vision report to make it stronger with more proofs, which did disappoint me a little. I did think the report was not up to usual standards, but I hoped we would make an effort to make some sort of statement. Older and wiser men than I prevailed, and we made no such statement. However, the unexpected highlight of the meetings was the passing of a salary for a missionary to Uganda in joint co-operation with the OPC. Apparently two men in our denomination now are praying about it, and we approved money for one to go for four years and teach in a seminary in Uganda. This is quite a high moment in the RCUS history as we have committed to foreign missions. It was a wonderful time over all.

And just to prove it was not all church politics and crunching numbers, I thought I would share a thought that was shared with me about the ‘word of the Lord’ phrases often used in the OT. I want to open this up for comment because it was an idea that had not occurred to me in the past, and I want the thoughts of others.

Places such as Genesis 15:4 or 2 Samuel 7:4 use the phrase, ‘the word of the Lord came unto him, saying’ and then follows the prophetic statement. Notice the statement literal claims the word of the Lord said something to the prophet. It is also similar in other places such as 1 Samuel 3:21 where the Lord is revealed to Samuel by the ‘word of the Lord’. Here the word of the Lord reveals Jehovah to Samuel. Do these type of references, which are common place, have any connotation of Jesus Christ being the agent or teacher or revealer. We know the Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1) and that Christ. So the term ‘word’ is not a difficulty. It may also fit with 1 Peter 3:18-20 where Christ preached in the days of Noah.

I would like to hear the thoughts of those more skilled in Hebrew, and those who have more commentaries than I do. It is an intriguing theory, but I am not yet convinced it is exegetically possible or sound. I look forward to comments.

The American Gospel by Jon Meacham

I read The American Gospel by Jon Meacham, who is the chief editor of Newsweek, because of his media blitz. I saw him on everything from Tim Russert to the Colbert Report. The premise of the book is America has always had its own gospel, a religious center that allowed public religion (ie. invoking God), but favored no religion. Meacham proclaims that America is not a Christian nation, and that freedom and liberty ruled the founders not Christianity. The book reports to prove this theory. Sadly it fails on many fronts. It fails so bad in fact, I have to say it was an absolutely awful book. My major critics of this book fall into several major categories.

Stylistic: This book is written in a halting style. He has a new topic or a new time period or person to deal with every four paragraphs or so and he chooses sub-chapter divisions to show this change. It also leads to very little connection between this sub-chapters. So much so in fact that the thesis of the book is sometimes lost, and one has to look back in the book to see what the point this disconnected stories are supposed to be proving. Perhaps this is the best way to deal with such a vast time period, but I did not enjoy it. I will admit this may simply be a preference of mine to enjoy connected paragraphs, but it is still my preference.

Scholarship: It is one thing to pile up examples that you think prove your point, but anyone can do it. The question is can you deal with the examples that do not fit your model. Of course Meacham loves to quote Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin. He has some quotes from Madison and Adams, and as history progresses he gets more ammo. He does a good job of making Jerry Fawell look like an idiot, but not once does he deal with contrary evidence. One can easily find quotes from Deists who think America is not a Christian nation, but what about those who thought it was a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson may support his argument, but what about Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams? How do they fit in? It is fine to quote Jefferson’s Religious Freedom Statute in Virginia or a Treaty with Tripoli, but what Holy Trinity Church v United States or public days of prayer and thanksgiving or chaplains in Congress, or state churches that existed long after the First Amendment. Meachem does not deal with these things at all. Not once does he take on what one might call evidence for the Christian heritage of the nation. That is poor scholarship in my opinion.

Theological: It is often a bad sign when non-Christians start writing about Christianity. If they do not understand it, can you trust their conclusions? I do not know the religious standing of Mr. Meacham, but he did make a few off hand comments about the ‘myth’ of sin and redemption that leads one to think he does not highly esteem Christianity. He makes a fundamental mistake, in my opinion, when evaluating our nations history. He does not understand the difference between a country founded on Christian principles and a Theocracy. He thinks Christian nation is a synonym for Established Church. That is not the case. Meacham wastes countless pages juxtaposing religious liberty and a Christian nation never stopping to consider that maybe a Christian nation is the foundation for religious liberty. I would argue that is what the Declaration of Independence is claiming when it invokes God and says ‘liberty’ is an inalienable right. Meacham comes away thinking the phrase liberty is there to protect us from Christianity. Meacham quotes Alexander Hamilton who states, “morality must fall without religion”, but fails to connect the dots. Meacham thinks all religions are acceptable standards of morality, and the founders wanted it that way. Yet, the morality of the Christian religion conflicts in many areas with the morality of Islam. Islam sees many times when it is okay to kill innocent people, but there is not a state in the Union that allows that morality. I have no doubt the founders wanted Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live together in a new nation, but that does not mean they were indifferent about the moral system used to set up our country, or that at some point ‘smiting infidels on the neck’ would be deemed acceptable behavior because any moral system will do. The vast majority of Meacham’s arguments and proofs are proof that the founders did not want Congress to establish a state church, and have very little to do with modern debates about the morality of homosexuality, abortion, and prayer in schools.

Political: I am not a big fan of modern conservatives, but in the later chapters of the book Meacham comes across as a man with an ax to grind. He praises Billy Graham’s inclusive move in his later years, and vilifies Jerry Fawell. I mean he does not waste an opportunity to jump on Jerry or Pat Robertson. I do not care for them that much either, but those two men do little to advance the cause of his book. Besides he has a hard time wiggling out of the conflict that he creates after praising Martin Luther King Jr., and criticizing Fawell.

In the end, I disagree with Meacham’s conclusions. I feel he did not interact with any evidence that might make his case look bad, and I think it was a slow read without much bang for the buck. It saddens me to think that he is being considered a scholar and speaking authoritatively on the subject on talk shows.

English Only

Lately I have been thinking a bit about immigration and English as the official language of America. I have heard the arguments on both sides. Some say that English is the language of the American culture and if you want to be a part, you need to speak the language. I know people who cannot get jobs as teachers because they are not bi-lingual and that seems unfair. Others claim that it is not merciful to make old men learn new languages, and that one culture is not necessarily better than another. Both make some good points.

I do believe that I am in favor of making English the official language and requiring those who wish to immigrate here learn English. The reason is because multiculturalism is dangerous. Do not mistake what I am saying. I am not trying to say there is something superior about cultures that speak English, but rather any time two cultures try to exist side by side, they eventually war. Language is very related to that subject. Different languages prohibit one from entering the culture. A non-Spanish speaker can never really be a part of a Spanish speaking culture until he learns the language. The same goes for any language. Different cultures with differing languages or even dialects have tried to exist side by side before, and it has not worked. Take Quebec and Canada for example. Quebec has always tried to separate from Canada because it has its own language and its own culture, and it does not like being part of Canada’s English speaking culture, and the feeling goes both ways. In fact, that problem can be traced all the way back to the American Revolution and the ‘Intolerable Acts’. One of the Intolerable Acts was allowing the newly acquired Quebec to remain French speaking and Roman Catholic. The colonists hated this idea, and during the revolution tried to invade Quebec. Even here in America the Southern accent is still viewed with disdain because at one time it was the sign of a completely different culture, a culture that the Civil War wiped out. The Southern and the Northern cultures could not exist because they were radically different. The same can be said for Ireland, and their they speak the same language. One need not look past modern Israel in this debate either. Two separate cultures cannot exist together in peace. Requiring the learning of English has worked to assimilate many different cultures already. American has always been the great melting pot. America does not have as big a problem with Islamic radicalism because we do a much better job of giving them access to American culture. England and France stand as very recent examples of violence that was homegrown. Thus, I believe it is more merciful to make that old immigrant learn English than to let his children or grandchildren die in a great deal of violence because we did not.

I look forward to some discussion on this topic.

Within the Bounds

Joseph Minich has written a paper called Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy. It is a paper about the current controversy regarding the Federal Vision. It has been endorsed by John Frame and Steve Wilkins and commented upon favorably by many other bloggers both pastors and laymen.

It is an interesting paper. It seeks to establish the faithfulness of the Federal Vision to both the historic Reformed positions and to the Bible. Although it concentrates on showing the Federal Vision to be a historically held position. The paper has an abundance of quotes and must be admired for its scholarship and research. Thus in evaluating this plea we must carefully look at the historical record he provides.

I do believe that a few glaring historical quotations have been taken out of context and twisted to fit a Federal Vision view point when what they really do the opposite. For example, Mr. Minich quotes Turretin as supporting the view that Jesus offers the Rich Young Ruler the gospel. First no one denies that Jesus offered the gospel, the difference comes in whether or not the offer of obedience to the law was the gospel or showing him the need for the gospel. Turretin says Rich Young Ruler must follow Christ, which is not the same as saying the ‘Law is Gospel and Gospel is the Law’ as Steve Schissel put it.
Minich next quotes Ursinus as saying, “Good works are necessary to salvation”, which he does say on page 485 of his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. But the Federal Vision relates good works not to salvation in general, but justification specifically. The same paragraph quoted by Minich of Ursinus says, "To say that good works are necessary in them that are to be justified, is to speak ambiguously, because it may be so understood as if they were required before justification, and so become a cause of justification." This is a fairly harsh condemnation of the language used by many Federal Vision men as well as an outright rejection that good works are a cause or ground of justification in anyway. Salvation and justification are not necessarily interchangeable and Mr. Minich has missed that point.

In discussing the Covenant of Grace and the issue of conditions, Mr. Minich argues that the Federal Vision does not claim man must fulfill conditions in anyway. To show the Federal Vision asserts Christ kept the conditions for us he turns to Rev. Rich Lusk:

He [Lusk] says further, "Any and all covenant conditions must be understood within this wider framework of union with Christ, the One who has already kept the covenant in full on our behalf, and who shares that covenant keeping (as both status and life) with us. All covenant conditions are intrinsic to our union with Christ, not extrinsic (as though they had to be met from outside of union with Christ). The conditions are not… ‘Do this and live.’"

Yet the fact that one can be in Christ and then fall out of Christ, and whether or not that implies conditions intrinsic to our union with Christ is not discussed at all. Thus, the major issue in the debate about conditions is artfully avoided.

When dealing with the objection that the Federal Vision makes justification a process with an initial justification and a final justification, Minich states that having a beginning and an end does not make something a process. This may very well be true, but Minich fails to deal with the most significant objection, and evidence that the Federal Vision makes justification a process. All advocates of the Federal Vision make clear that one can loss his status in Christ. He can be initially justified, but may not be finally justified. Thus, not only is there a beginning and an end, but also an ability to have started, but not finish. It is hard to deny the claims of a process when that element is considered. This fact should also be remembered when evaluating his quotes from old reformers. If they did not mean one could start and then not finish, they do not support the Federal Vision view of justification. When the paper does get around to the subject of apostasy it rejects the idea that one stays in the covenant by work. The paper does quote the Auburn Ave. Church by saying, "Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God." Yet, the fail to see this as work. What that quote reveals is that the difference between those who have only an initial justification and those who have both an initial and final is perseverance in faith and obedience. In fact, the same statement goes on to say that those who are not ordained to eternal life have all the benefits of Christ crucified except the gift of perseverance. The paper does not attempt to reconcile the idea of persevering obedient faithfulness being the sole difference between apostates and elect with the idea that remaining in the covenant is not of works.

When addressing the denial of imputation of the active obedience of Christ, Minich states that all affirm the doctrine. He specifically lists James Jordan as affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. One cannot find such support when reading Dr. Jordan. He states,

But merit theology often assumes that Jesus’ earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion. It is, in fact, hard to comprehend what is meant by it. . . . What we receive is not his earthly life and His death, but His death and His glorified life. What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity (Federal Vision. Pg. 194-195).

Minich does admit that the model of imputation is not the same with many favoring conjoining imputation with union with Christ. Mr. Minich fails to recognize that implantation or participationism is different from imputation. The mode is important in this discussion.

The paper concludes unhappily with a slap at American Presbyterianism pointing out that the Federal Vision controversy does not rage in Europe. The sad state of European Christianity should not be the standard to which we measure anything. Yet, later in that same paragraph Mr. Minich contradicts his own thesis by showing the Continental tradition does have conflicts about the Federal Vision by showing that both Norman Shepherd (Christian Reformed Church) and David Englesma (Protestant Reformed Church) are on opposite sides of the Federal Vision debate. He also argues for the Mercersburg duo of Schaff and Nevin, but fails to point out that their theology created the United Churches of Christ, hardly a Reformed entity at all. I will admit the Federal Vision is a much bigger deal in the American Presbyterian Churches. I could go on to argue for the superiority of the Three Forms of Unity, but that would cause needless anguish. The paper then goes on to state that the critics of the Federal Vision have never once accurately represented the Federal Vision. His proof? When critical statements come out the condemned speak out against it. Hardly convincing proof. Next, he claims that the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives are not movements, but rather they are "impulses". The distinction between the two is not elaborated. He then pleads for better communication and more open understanding as well as letting biblical theology be the guide and allow the ‘dynamic’ nature of language and words their rightful place.

In the end this paper designed to show the Federal Vision as within the bounds of orthodoxy is not a fair treatment of the debate at all. It should not surprise us that Federal Vision men were willing to so quickly endorse it. I can wholeheartedly endorse the need for further and better communication. Yet, the communication cannot simply be denying that critics understand the Federal Vision or its implications. Maybe the do, maybe they don’t, but denials do not make it so. The hard consequences of the Federal Vision thought must be laid bare on the table, which this essay avoids doing in every circumstance. It is good that they deny justification is a process, but is the result of all aspects of their thought that justification is a process. One does not have to outright affirm a process in justification to be teaching a process in justification. I hope Mr. Minich will consider that fact in any future writings.

Some light reading

A few links to keep you reading.

Tim Challies has a nice post on the importance of catechizing.

Johannes Weslianus has a nice piece about theology, its importance, and discussion of it.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that some immigrants are against a boycott on May 1st for fear that it might cause a backlash against the immigration cause. I bet it is too little too late to call of the boycott now. Whoever decided to put the boycott on the Communist May Day anyway? Why not wait until Cinco de Mayo and then you could at least claim a cultural heritage to it? Just some thoughts.

I have been at a workshop put on by Heidelberg Seminary. It was an enjoyable time. I will get something up later today.