You are here

Home ›

Sincere questions for members of the PCA study committee on Federal Vision Theology...

by David and Tim Bayly on August 13, 2007 - 12:37pm

(by David) In a recent comment on this blog David Gilleran legitimately takes me to task for never completing my intended pair of posts on the PCA's report on Federal Vision theology.

I did complete my first post--Sincere Questions for Federal Visionaries--but I neglected to follow up with corresponding questions for members of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee and the reason I failed to do so is somewhat complicated. Primarily, I didn't proceed because I appreciated Pastor Wilson's answers to my questions and I didn't want to keep stirring the pot. But secondarily, I believed then--and still believe now--that the level of engagement and openness we're likely to receive from members of the ad interim committee will prove shallow. They won, after all. What reason do they have for further engagement now?

But in the interest of fairness, here are the questions I intended to ask members of the ad interim committee and their supporters.

First, was animus toward principals in the Federal Vision movement evident at any point during the committee's deliberations? It's one thing for members of a committee to hold opinions on the theology they're reporting on. We can't expect men to serve well who know or care nothing about such issues. And clearly, at least some members of the study committee entered the process with fixed opinions on Federal Vision theology. But it's another thing for personal animus to motivate a theological process. And having some knowledge of the personal attitude of one member of the committee toward a principal in the Federal Vision movement, I wonder if he or others allowed personal animosity to color the work of the committee as a whole. So committee members, were expressions of disdain, annoyance, contempt--any indications at all of animus toward Federal Vision principals in any area--present during the work of the committee?

Second (and this question requires some setup), given the overwhelming vote in favor of the ad interim committee's Federal Vision report, do members of the ad interim committee anticipate disciplinary action against any individual or group besides acknowledged PCA principals in the Federal Vision movement as a result of their report's adoption? I found it striking that no one from any seminary faculty spoke against the ad interim committee report on the floor of General Assembly, nor were Reformed advocates of NPP theology outside the Federal Vision movement identified in the report.

This would be understandable if the committee's report had dealt solely with Federal Vision theology but a significant portion of the report dealt with teachings of N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). And though Federal Vision theology may not be strongly represented on our seminary campuses, are we really to believe no one's pushing NPP theology there either? Have the fads of theological fashion really and truly been kept at bay at Covenant, Westminster and Reformed seminaries? Or are we doing as we always seem to do in such cases--cutting our institutions and their professors slack when they depart from Scriptural truth because of their need for "academic freedom"?

Third, is the alliance against Federal Vision theology between members of such normally opposed groups as the Warfield list and the PCA Leadership Network evidence of remarkable spiritual unity--or of warring agendas merging pragmatically to form an unholy--and untenable--alliance.

I've listed my questions according to the importance I assign them. I'm deeply concerned about the presence of personal animus in the committee process--and post-GA comments by members of the committee suggest such animus may have been present in the committee's work. And as one who opposes NPP teaching I'm concerned that the committee's report may end up a Pyrrhic victory because of its sole focus on Federal Vision theology. I fear we may be targeting people who don't stand with NPP teaching in many areas, who to a large degree aren't even within the PCA, even as we ignore those who are pushing an NPP agenda within our own seminaries.

Tags: 
Reformed theology

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by David A Booth on August 14, 2007 - 4:51pm
Ron, As someone who also is not a supporter of the FV, I see things somewhat differently than you do. I'm surprised when you suggest that our brothers who are attracted to the FV simply leave ("If I were FV--which I'm not--my course of action would simply be to leave quietly and peacefully and find a denomination where my views were upheld. Why is this impossible?"). Isn't premature separation over theological disagreements a serious mistake? On the one hand, continued dialog and genuine debate will sharpen our common insight into the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. On the other hand, we are called to tangibly express the love and longsuffering which our LORD has shown to us. Why do I suggest that separation is premature? First, the majority of PCA church courts that have examined men associated with the Federal Vision have found them to be within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy. We should take the decisions of these church courts seriously and not only when they agree with us. Second, most of the pastors with whom I have spoken at length about these issues have virtually no idea what the men associated with the FV actually teach. A good question to ask in your presbytery, the next time someone criticizes the FV, is: "which book(s) have you read by Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, or Jeff Meyers?" I am astonished how many times I have been told that, for example, Jeff Meyers (a PCA minister in good standing) denies justification by faith alone only to discover that the critic hasn't read anything that he has written. Admittedly, this is just anecdotal evidence, but I honestly believe that we need more time to wrestle with these issues and that the place for this to happen is the church courts. Your Session making an overture to your Presbytery is, procedurally at least, a step in the right direction. Yet, we should be quite careful about the scope of such proposals lest we end up with widely divergent standards of what each Presbytery will accept. It is not difficult to imagine the chaos that could develop when one Presbytery requires 6 day creationism, another requires strict Sabbatarianism, etc ... Your brother, David

Submitted by Douglas Wilson on August 14, 2007 - 8:21pm
Ron, the problem is that if you try to use the study committee's 9 point summary, all that summary proves is that I and my buddies must not be FV. I would deny that the body of the report is accurate in its handling of individuals, but I would be able to affirm the scriptural conclusions. And that by itself should show you that the report is all screwed up and ought not to be used for anything.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 14, 2007 - 10:53pm
Dear David & Doug, I don't think that theological discussion since, say, the publication of the Knox symposium that Cal Beisner edited is premature. I just returned from a Session meeting and it's late here so I cannot reference the publication date, but it was early in the 2000s. That's quite a bit of time to digest what the FV teaches. In one sense, this is the same argument that the Emergent Conversation uses. It's far too early to say anything much definitive, plus the movement is in flux. I disagree. Their authors have made some clear statements even though all their authors do not say the same thing all the time. I have some influence over what my Presbytery says is acceptable. Based on what I've read from the pens of the FV people I believe that you are mistaken on a number of key issues. Until I am convinced by exegesis otherwise I will continue to disagree and I pray that I will do so graciously. My studies in The Netherlands convinced me that I don't need to wrestle more with these issues. I believe that they are cut and dried and that there is a line in the sand. It's analogous to infant baptism. The texts are clear; we can look at them all again, but at the end of the day I'm probably going to remain one who holds to paedo-baptism. That being the case, I will, in some sense, part company with those who are non-paedo-baptists, even though I will still consider them brothers in Christ. Doug, I'm not certain where you are going with your comment, but I'm quite certain that I disagree and here's why: It is perhaps within the realm of possibility that the members of the committee missed the point completely and thereby led the lion's share of the delegates to the GA astray, but that's highly unlikely. I'll use the analogy of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Is it within the realm of possibility that the modern Protestant theologians embroiled in the debate completely missed the point? Perhaps, but I severely doubt it. I simply reiterate that when you read what the committee was mandated to do by the Atlanta GA, they did. Read that mandate carefully. They did their job and--to my way of thinking--they did it competently and well. The preponderance of the GA agrees that they did what they were tasked to do. Therefore, if I were in the shoes of men of the FV--yourself excluded because if I am not mistaken you are not PCA--I would prayerfully consider joining the CREC. What Fred Harrell did in San Fran was really honorable. He wanted to ordain women Elders; he understood that within the confines of the PCA that was impossible; therefore, he withdrew his congregation--relatively quietly--and went to the EPC. Not a bad move considering the circumstances. He can still debate his position on other forums. In reality, the summation of differences between the FV and the Westminster Standards are significant and huge. Why not go to where you can labor with joy. I would put aside my ideas of how the committee was formed and what was "nice" or not nice. There is no reason why further dialogue and debate cannot continue albeit from different denominations. With all due respect, Doug, your assessment of the report, its authors, and its conclusions is somewhat academic as you are outside the PCA. I am certain that various opinions can be offered about the committee report. All of that is a "done deal." The GA spoke and now each Session and Presbytery has a task. In one sense, it is that simple.

Submitted by David A Booth on August 15, 2007 - 4:08am
Ron, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A few short clarifications: 1. I'm not suggesting that it is premature for you to reject the FV, I'm suggesting that it is premature for the PCA and OPC (my denomination). This is simply because a significant majority of the pastors that I have spoken with in these two denominations have no idea what the men associated with the FV are teaching. 2. Why do you think that the GA's Ad Interim report trumps all work that has actually taken place within the Church courts? If PCA presbyteries examine men and find them to be within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy (as has been the case with Peter Leithart, Jeff Meyers, and Steve Wilkins) why should we not honor the work that these courts have done? Since no church court is above correction, I think it is quite reasonable for you and others to keep pursuing this issue at the Presbytery level. I may join you someday. Yet, shouldn't we acknowledge the current state of the situation to be that several PCA presbyteries have held that these men are within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy? 3. I don't think that adoption of the Nine Declarations by Presbyteries will actually end this debate within the PCA. They are sufficiently imprecise that two men of different convictions could both with clear consciences say they agree with them. Like it or not, we are going to be engaged in evaluating men for licensure and ordination on a case by case basis. I think that this is the right thing to do. Reports such as this should be touch stones that assist a Presbytery in examining a candidate. We certainly don't want to be in a position where candidates for ministry need to swear to uphold all of our Ad Interim reports. 4. I am far less sanguine than you about the nature of future dialog once a split has come. You and Doug Wilson may continue to talk with each other, but many people have already lined up into opposing "camps" that are defending their turf and shooting at the other side. This is not only bad for the PCA and OPC, I believe that it could seriously hurt the CREC which could easily become an FV denomination that is intolerant of those of us who see things somewhat differently. 5. You have capably critiqued feminism on your site. Unlike feminism, which is a clear and present danger, it is difficult for me to see the FV over-running our churches. This should give us the opportunity to make a more patient response. Your brother, David

Submitted by Douglas Wilson on August 15, 2007 - 6:08am
Ron, thanks for the response. I certainly don't believe that it is too early to come to a decision on FV issues. My point is that thoughtful deliberation should result in accurate summaries of the position you are rejecting, and those who are rejected (given basic honesty on both sides) should be able to recognize their position in what is being rejected. In my experience, the vast majority of critics have not successfully done this. They are fighting a caricature. The reason it matters to us here in the CREC is that when PCA men and/or congregations come over to us, we have no reason to believe that the controversy will settle down just because "those men are now flocking together with birds of their own feather." No, I have every reason to believe that we will be accused of harboring heretics, of disregarding the determinations of Christ's courts, of creating schism in the Reformed world, and so on. This is because, for whatever reason, the CREC is flourishing, and not displaying the sociology of a microbrew presbytery, three churches all told. The controversy will be less inchoate, and more defined. How that unfolds now matters to us.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on August 15, 2007 - 6:09am
>If PCA presbyteries examine men and find them to be within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy (as has been the case with Peter Leithart, Jeff Meyers, and Steve Wilkins) why should we not honor the work that these courts have done? We should. But it would be interesting to find out how many men who voted to affirm the orthodoxy of these men were also present at GA this summer and voted in support of the Ad Interim Committee's report. I'm betting a whole bunch. If I'm right, what does that demonstrate? Likely a number of things, but maybe the most significant explanation is that GA moves like an ocean tide whereas presbyteries and sessions provide no anonymity, and they face a man they love. >Like it or not, we are going to be engaged in evaluating men for licensure and ordination on a case by case basis. I think that this is the right thing to do. Yes, as we will also be examining men from other ecclesiastical homes seeking transfer into the PCA and weighing doctrinal charges concerning members of presbytery. And in these cases, there will be no abstract F-V "movement," or F-V positions in the aggregate, but one man's convictions who stands before us and looks in our eyes as we vote. As you say, this is "the right thing to do."

Submitted by David Gray on August 15, 2007 - 6:24am
Amen, Pastor Bayly...

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 15, 2007 - 10:40am
Allow me to respond, starting with David Booth and working my way to Tim. A few short clarifications: 1. I'm not suggesting that it is premature for you to reject the FV, I'm suggesting that it is premature for the PCA and OPC (my denomination). This is simply because a significant majority of the pastors that I have spoken with in these two denominations have no idea what the men associated with the FV are teaching. After the OPC document and the PCA Ad Interim report I simply disagree that a decision is premature. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. The OPC report was out a year before the PCA report and both say the same thing and draw the same conclusions, albeit the OPC does so in a lengthier format. I'm assured that the Ad Interim felt no need to reinvent the wheel. I might agree that a number of PCA are in the dark about what is at stake. I wouldn't go so far as to speculate that "significant majority." Unless we want to take a "nation of sheep" mentality, we should judge that a "significant majority" understood what was at stake and voted their conscience. If, however, some PCA are abysmally ignorant of the facts that is truly sad. Pastors should be intimately acquainted with the details of FV--it's their job; calling. I grant that some of my colleagues are more concerned with being "cutting edge" and "engaging the cultire"--I think if I hear that phrase one more time I'm going to vomit. That is their problem. To them I say, "Read William Still's 'The Work of the Pastor.'" In my study of Bavinck and the Dutch union of 1892 and eventual dissolution in 1944 there were pastors and laymen who were uninformed and disinterested for a variety of reasons--none of them good. Your point should be a clarion call for PCA pastors who are uninformed to get off their lazy duffs, stop trying to be so cool, forget about building their little empires, and become shepherds of God's people; Christ's Church. In fact, I join you in encouraging them to do so. 2. Why do you think that the GA's Ad Interim report trumps all work that has actually taken place within the Church courts? If PCA presbyteries examine men and find them to be within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy (as has been the case with Peter Leithart, Jeff Meyers, and Steve Wilkins) why should we not honor the work that these courts have done? Since no church court is above correction, I think it is quite reasonable for you and others to keep pursuing this issue at the Presbytery level. I may join you someday. Yet, shouldn't we acknowledge the current state of the situation to be that several PCA presbyteries have held that these men are within the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy? I'm not sure "trumps" is the proper term. Since it is the latest decision I do believe that it carries some weight. Here I'll appeal to my Reformed background. In the Church Order of Dordrecht, Article 31 states, "The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the the Word of God or the Church Order." So rather than "trumping" previous decisions, I would say that I consider what the GA decided is not considered settled and binding on all Presbyteries and Sessions within the PCA unless it can be proved that what the assembly concluded was unbiblical. The overwhelming majority of the assembly did not deem the work of the committee to be either heavy handed or unbiblical. 3. I don't think that adoption of the Nine Declarations by Presbyteries will actually end this debate within the PCA. They are sufficiently imprecise that two men of different convictions could both with clear consciences say they agree with them. Like it or not, we are going to be engaged in evaluating men for licensure and ordination on a case by case basis. I think that this is the right thing to do. Reports such as this should be touch stones that assist a Presbytery in examining a candidate. We certainly don't want to be in a position where candidates for ministry need to swear to uphold all of our Ad Interim reports. I believe the emphasis is misplaced here. When I ponder the decision the GA made re: the Ad Interim committee's report, I regard it as an assembly decision and not swearing fealty to the Ad Interim committee. In light of what I said above, however, I do consider the decisions of GA settled and binding unless unbiblical or against the BCO. It is my responsibility to take the necessary church polity steps if I disagree. 4. I am far less sanguine than you about the nature of future dialog once a split has come. You and Doug Wilson may continue to talk with each other, but many people have already lined up into opposing "camps" that are defending their turf and shooting at the other side. This is not only bad for the PCA and OPC, I believe that it could seriously hurt the CREC which could easily become an FV denomination that is intolerant of those of us who see things somewhat differently. Okay. Another way of looking at it is that it sorts out those who believe that the FV is biblically correct and those who don't. As I have studied the matter it has become quite evident to me that the differences are significant. To that end, parting company seems the best way to go because we are dealing with positions that are diametrically opposed. BTW, I believe the CREC has been known for some time now as the denomination of the FV so that much really shouldn't change. 5. You have capably critiqued feminism on your site. Unlike feminism, which is a clear and present danger, it is difficult for me to see the FV over-running our churches. This should give us the opportunity to make a more patient response. Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your comments about my critique of feminism. It is, indeed, a clear and present danger. For me it is not so much of a problem that the FV might over run our churches. I see it more in the light of causing confusion, sowing seeds of discord, and being out of step with Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the BCO. Therefore, recognizing and acknowledging their differences, the effects of the FV and Feminism both are a clear and present danger. We have debated the FV for long enough. It's time to accede to the fact that we are not going to agree. For the sake of the peace and unity of Christ's Church we need to separate in a manner that honors and glorifies Christ.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 15, 2007 - 10:51am
Doug, I'll respond briefly to your comments. Ron, thanks for the response. I certainly don't believe that it is too early to come to a decision on FV issues. My point is that thoughtful deliberation should result in accurate summaries of the position you are rejecting, and those who are rejected (given basic honesty on both sides) should be able to recognize their position in what is being rejected. In my experience, the vast majority of critics have not successfully done this. They are fighting a caricature. I cannot speak for everyone, but I will state that I have every confidence that the Ad Interim committee of the PCA as well as the committee from the OPC gave a great deal of "thoughtful deliberation" to what they presented to their respective denominations. I would also submit that their works were accurate summaries of the FV. One of the most frustrating things I encountered in Holland during my studies there was the phrase "You just don't understand me." In the cases I encountered I knew full well that I understood them, but was put off with their rejoinder. Why can't we simply admit that we understand each other and disagree? To my mind, that would be far more helpful not to mention honest. I cannot speak for the "vast majority" because I have no idea with whom you've spoken. I can speak for those I know and respect as well as my own reading and study. I try to be meticulous and accurate. Bavinck taught me that cheap shots were unacceptable. I'm convinced that I've done my homework. The reason it matters to us here in the CREC is that when PCA men and/or congregations come over to us, we have no reason to believe that the controversy will settle down just because "those men are now flocking together with birds of their own feather." No, I have every reason to believe that we will be accused of harboring heretics, of disregarding the determinations of Christ's courts, of creating schism in the Reformed world, and so on. This is because, for whatever reason, the CREC is flourishing, and not displaying the sociology of a microbrew presbytery, three churches all told. The controversy will be less inchoate, and more defined. How that unfolds now matters to us. The best manner of manifesting that you are truly Presbyterian/Reformed is not to kick at the shins of your opposition. Two things are needed in historical developments: 1) an absolute trust in the sovereignty of God & 2) to manifest clearly by your preaching, doctrines, and Christian charity that you are a truly Reformed church. How that unfolds should matter to all of us.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 15, 2007 - 11:03am
Tim, Here's a portion of what you wrote & here's my response: "Likely a number of things, but maybe the most significant explanation is that GA moves like an ocean tide whereas presbyteries and sessions provide no anonymity, and they face a man they love. "Yes, as we will also be examining men from other ecclesiastical homes seeking transfer into the PCA and weighing doctrinal charges concerning members of presbytery. And in these cases, there will be no abstract F-V "movement," or F-V positions in the aggregate, but one man's convictions who stands before us and looks in our eyes as we vote." My answer is the form of an illustration. When I attended The Citadel we had a simple code: A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal. We were also called upon to report any incident of lying, cheating, or stealing. I had a good friend in A Company who wanted to graduate with a 4.0 GPA. He went into his last exam with a B+ and made a cheat-sheet. Long story short, he got caught and three days before graduation appeared before the honor court and was found guilty. For the ceremony we lined up on number One barracks quad and watched a COL take the ring off my friend's finger. There were two columns of us facing each other. As he walked between the ranks as he passed by, we did an about face and turned our backs to him. As I say, he was a friend. Aren't we doing something substantially more important in the Church of our Lord, friendship and love notwithstanding? There is a time in leadership when hard decisions have to be made and we must, for the sake of the Church, be prepared to make them. If we are unwilling--no matter how painful--or unprepared to make the hard decisions--looking our friends in the eyes--then maybe we need to reconsider our leadership. None of our work is infallible, but we must be prepared to accomplish the work we've been called to do first and foremost for the Church of Christ.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on August 15, 2007 - 11:12am
Agreed, Ron. I'm pointing out that no man ought to cop the posture of an opponent of the F-V nationally who's unwilling (using your analogy) to turn his back on his brother in person, and then on the floor of presbytery. And as I said before, if men vote to sustain the orthodoxy of a F-V fellow presbyter in a presbytery meeting, while later voting to condemn F-V views and parties on the floor of GA, we likely have a serious problem. Although there are many things this problem could be attributed to, I'm guessing one likely explanation is the ease of voting in the context of the anonymity of the floor of GA. And were I asked which decision I trusted more, one taken by a presbytery or GA, one taken in a personal or another in an anonymous context, you know which I'd choose.

Submitted by David A Booth on August 15, 2007 - 12:38pm
Ron, Thank you for your interaction. Just one follow-up: You noted that: "In the Church Order of Dordrecht, Article 31 states, 'The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the the Word of God or the Church Order.'" It seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a member of the PCA) that this reflects a different view of the relationship between the GA and the Presbyteries than that adopted by the PCA. It certainly reflects a different view of the relationship between GA reports and Presbyteries than we have in the OPC. I believe that you would have a situation more analogous to that of Article 31 if we were discussing a decision made by the GA serving as a church court. But neither the Ad Interim committee, nor the GA in receiving the committee's report, was functioning as a court of the church. David

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 16, 2007 - 3:31pm
David, Granted. I knew it at the time, but was too involved in writing my Bavinck biography to get up and go to our BCO. In general, I believe that the BCO and the Church Order of Dort teach very comparable things. But in terms of our BCO I would contend that what the GA did was in full accord with 11-4 & 14-1.15, 14-6.g.i. & k as well as 14-7.

Submitted by David on August 16, 2007 - 4:43pm
Ron-It has been the common understanding that the adoption of an Ad-Interim report should be given due consideration but it does not change the standards of the church. More often you hear the term " pious advice" in relation to GA adoption of these reports. For example the PCA presbytery to the west of me will not accept anyone who is not a 24 hour 6 day creationist no matter what the PCA adopted in the Creation Ad-Interim report. They simply see it as pious advice. What is needed in the current flap in my opinion was not a study committee but a trial by a presbytery on these issues.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 16, 2007 - 5:41pm
Trial by Presbytery can work on if the Presbytery is overtured to adopt the Declarations and Recommendations of the committee. Then, if members of the Presbytery have violated their vow and not reported that they have changed their views on, say, justification, Baptism, paedo-communion, women as Deacons, etc., then the Presbyters need to have the moral fortitude to call their fellow-Presbyters on their change. Didn't we all promise that if our views changed we would, of our own accord, make our Presbyteries aware of our change? By adopting the report, we don't necessarily need to go the route of a court, but of simply declaring the candidate unordainable.

Submitted by David Gray on August 17, 2007 - 12:16am
>Didn't we all promise that if our views changed we would, of our own accord, make our Presbyteries aware of our change? I thought the standard was if one changed one's beliefs so that they are not in accord with the WCF.

Submitted by David on August 17, 2007 - 6:00pm
Ron-You do not need a report to declare a candidate unordainable. If the presbytery believes that his views/knowledge is not in accord with the WCF that is all that it takes.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 21, 2007 - 9:41pm
David, Yes,I know. Nonetheless, it is helpful both for the OPC as well as the PCA to have a good GA guideline. Don't you agree?

Submitted by David on August 22, 2007 - 7:59am
Ron-That goes back to the pious advice principle in the PCA. Ad-Interim reports are guidelines which presbyteries are free to accept, reject or modify in part or whole. See Westminster Presbytery on Creation. I could see a presbytery which has already studied the FV/NPP issue keep their own report rather than the GA report. However, a trial with a verdict( both pre and post SJC) carries more weight in examinations.

Submitted by David on August 22, 2007 - 7:59am
Ron-That goes back to the pious advice principle in the PCA. Ad-Interim reports are guidelines which presbyteries are free to accept, reject or modify in part or whole. See Westminster Presbytery on Creation. I could see a presbytery which has already studied the FV/NPP issue keep their own report rather than the GA report. However, a trial with a verdict( both pre and post SJC) carries more weight in examinations.

Submitted by Mike on October 19, 2007 - 4:38pm
Some of these questions could well be answered by simply listening to the discussion and debate on GA floor. One of the reasons why the FV/NPP position was not consulted was from Sproul's reasoning -- why listen to people we've already condemned? To me that's the essence of a foregone conclusion -- "why let the foxes guard the chicken coop?" Why, because you haven't made that identification before the fact. In fact the PCA study committee already had.

Submitted by Fred Greco on August 13, 2007 - 1:07pm
David, As one who was on the Steering Committee for Presbyterian Integrity (the chief opponents of the PPLN), I can honestly say that perhaps the best outcome of the entire FV controversy is that it has brought together men who have warred over secondary issues in the defense of primary issues. In my own ministry, it has forced me to "major on majors," and to appreciate men who disagree with me on secondary issues. I think I can speak for many men who supported the Ad Interim Committee, in that we intend to use this issue as a basis to forge greater unity in the PCA. You can ask my friend Bill Lyle (of the PPLN) his opinion as well.

Submitted by David Gray on August 13, 2007 - 1:17pm
>I think I can speak for many men who supported the Ad Interim Committee, in that we intend to use this issue as a basis to forge greater unity in the PCA. That sounds like a euphemism for a purge.

Submitted by Keith on August 13, 2007 - 3:29pm
Yeah, when people who strongly disagree on secondary issues come together in unity over primary issues, that's essentially a purge. In backwards-land, at least.

Submitted by Tim Keller on August 13, 2007 - 3:32pm
I agree with Fred. I think the justification controversy has taken brethren who were somewhat alienated from one another--over issues like the regulative principle, approaches to evangelism, etc--and forged greater unity. In the UK something similar has happened over the issue of substitutionary atonement.

Submitted by David Gray on August 13, 2007 - 4:16pm
>Yeah, when people who strongly disagree on secondary issues come together in unity over primary issues, that's essentially a purge. In backwards-land, at least. Well unity can be achieved by purging those who differ, such as those who take seriously what the confession says about sacraments. What we see is a bogey man raised high, machine political methods employed, all the while the feminists move the PCA down the PCUSA path.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on August 13, 2007 - 4:24pm
But really, how can we be engaged, culturally, if we don't wink at feminism? Smiling.

Submitted by David Gray on August 13, 2007 - 4:27pm
>But really, how can we be engaged, culturally, if we don't wink at feminism? Perhaps a Lutheresque style of engagement might not involve winking? :)

Submitted by Fred Greco on August 13, 2007 - 4:41pm
It must be truly hard to worry about unity, David Gray, when 95%+ of the PCA, the OPC, the RPCUS, the BPC, the URCNA, Reformed Seminary, Greenville Seminary, Mid America Seminary, Westminster Seminary California and every other Reformed body that has studied the FV has rejected it. Oh, I guess the CREC has a place for it, that denomination that takes the sacraments so seriously that it does not matter whether you believe in infant baptism or not.

Submitted by David Gray on August 13, 2007 - 4:43pm
>It must be truly hard to worry about unity, David Gray, when 95%+ of the PCA, the OPC, the RPCUS, the BPC, the URCNA, Reformed Seminary, Greenville Seminary, Mid America Seminary, Westminster Seminary California and every other Reformed body that has studied the FV has rejected it. Pastor Greco, were I to use your measure of truth, which is apparently raw numbers, I would truly be on the road to Rome...

Submitted by Fred Greco on August 13, 2007 - 4:49pm
Not raw numbers, but the Church of Jesus Christ speaking through her elders, in established courts of the Church. Apparently you prefer the Jehovah's witness (or Harold Camping) route, that of a few self-proclaimed purveyors of internet truth.

Submitted by David Gray on August 13, 2007 - 4:52pm
>Not raw numbers, but the Church of Jesus Christ speaking through her elders, in established courts of the Church. Apparently you prefer the Jehovah's witness (or Harold Camping) route, that of a few self-proclaimed purveyors of internet truth. Really? You are now working through the presbyteries? Rather than a few minutes of sharing the microphone and then a plebiscite? I wish some of you folk would consider that the methods being used are bad. If the FV is right and you are wrong it is clear enough that it is bad to use such methods. But if you are right and they are wrong it is arguably worse to use such methods because then you are tarnishing the truth, rather than tarnishing error.

Submitted by David on August 13, 2007 - 6:45pm
Dear David, thank you for finishing the other end of the debate on this blog. I would have added this question " Does it make sense for us to be latitudinarian on the doctrine of creation in the PCA while at the same time being strict on the doctrine of justification? Are we setting up two different standards of subscription to the same confession and thereby violating the Scriptural injunction of not having two different standards of measurement?"

Submitted by David on August 13, 2007 - 6:46pm
Dear David, thank you for finishing the other end of the debate on this blog. I would have added this question " Does it make sense for us to be latitudinarian on the doctrine of creation in the PCA while at the same time being strict on the doctrine of justification? Are we setting up two different standards of subscription to the same confession and thereby violating the Scriptural injunction of not having two different standards of measurement?"

Submitted by DP Cassidy on August 13, 2007 - 7:04pm
I was surprised to read in the latest issue of BY FAITH that the debate at the GA lasted several hours. Not by my watch. And that was a debate? I appreciate the questions the Bayly's raise here and look forward to reading answers from the committee. One day I hope I can sit and chat with a committee member (or members) as well about other questions I have in regard to this entire process. I certainly hope they will afford the authors the courtesy of answers. One obvious problem of course is that had the committee been made up of those who not only opposed FV but also those who even when disagreeing with FV at least understood and shared its concerns, the questions being asked now wouldn't even have to be put forward. Those other men need not have been the 'accused' - as they were so demeaningly referred to on the floor of GA. And it remains simply incredible to me that the men in the PCA named in the report were never once contacted by the committee to clarify and/or confirm views as the committee understood them and described them. That's old news now, but perhaps there are lessons to be learned. Is there greater unity in the PCA? Perhaps. But does unity on issue (A) mean that we should anticipate further unity when issues (B) and (C) are on the horizon? Given the history of conflict among the Reformed I guess I remain skeptical, while also hopeful. I enjoy this site very much, and thank God for your faithful ministry.

Submitted by Austin Storm on August 13, 2007 - 7:30pm
Is that *the* Tim Keller commenting here? Hi!

Submitted by Douglas Wilson on August 14, 2007 - 6:01am
Tim Keller, in response to your point about something similar happening in the UK, an important qualifier has to be added. It is something similar, I guess, in sociological terms. But one of the leaders on the "pro-substitutionary-atonement" side of things over there was just in my home last week over here. We are good friends, and he and his colleagues are doing good work. My point is that the lines are not where many people are trying to draw them. A response to the questions posted above would be very helpful clearing at least some of that confusion up. Btw, if you are the Tim Keller as Austin put it, thanks for your ministry to my nephew, who attends your church. He is a law student at Seton Hall, and has appreciated your ministry very much.

Submitted by barlow on August 14, 2007 - 7:27am
Every time there is a controversy in the PCA it is an opportunity for us to become better readers, better listeners, better exegetes, better historical theologians, better constructive theologians, better friends - hey, even better satirists - IF we use the controversies wisely. But the way that most of these controversies have been conducted seems to have really improved only our political and polemical skills. If you have ever heard the recording of the paedocommunion debate, you'll see again a situation where the floor debate was really weak; the only really substantive consideration of the issue coming from the authors of the majority and minority reports. In the FV debate in the PCA, we had something even worse: 1. A conflation of issues (FV with NPP, underground covenant theology battles) 2. Personal animus 3. Poorly constructed committee 4. Biased handling of FV brothers prior to the General Assembly a. Last GA, they were denied a booth that had previously been approved b. No announcements of FV publications in the By Faith Online emailings, etc. 5. No minority report so that the FV men could even get some signal that they were being heard accurately. 6. A report that was widely unsatisfying 7. A report that was "improved" by the means of its presentation; in other words, it would have been nice for the report to actually contain the qualifications that Sean Lucas made in his presentation of it. We basically have a faction that believes the Westminster Standards are not only sufficient but nearly infallible for faith and doctrine, sufficiently clear for all time, sufficiently studied, sufficiently applied, etc. In short, they don't believe in the concept of doctrinal development. Further, they have a functional belief that the WCF forms a paper magisterium - witness R. Scott Clark's approach (though with a more pan-confessional magisterium). It is as though Sola Scriptura was a temporary seedbed for the Reformation and now our seedlings have been re-potted into concrete in order to protect them. Now people on our side of the Reformation are using the slogan "all heretics quote scripture." The odd thing is that those opposing the "heretics" in the FV debate are *not* quoting scripture. Shouldn't the slogan "all orthodox quote scripture" be just as compelling? Rev. Keller, I love your ministry and what you do, but I think it is a mistake to view the anti-FV movement as in any way uniting anyone in a lasting and meaningful way. It is the path of the scapegoat, the path or strategy that Christ was supposed to have cancelled and drained of efficacy in his own atonement. And yet this path is alive and well in our circles. After the FV controversy dies down, next they will be going after you and your approach to women's issues. Or your approach to church planting, or your ecumenism. They will go after sonship, if sonship dares to raise its head in this climate again. Recall that prior to the Federal Vision scapegoating opportunity, Greenville Seminary was marshalling its forces against sonship theology. We have the perfect storm - the pretense of basing our theology and practice on the scriptures, while all the while shuttering the windows so that no scriptural light can penetrate. And so Reformed history will continue - with a constant oscillation between antinomianism and legalism, between revivalism and covenant nurture, between sacramentalism and pietism and no real consensus will come except perhaps at the presbytery level where men know each other and can see, week to week, where their hearts are. Add to this, we have now trained ourselves - whole denominations, seminaries, etc. to read each other poorly - such that if we must cut off Calvin and the Early Gaffin and John Murray to save infelicitous seventeenth century formulations, then so be it. I think that's a sad outcome, don't you all?

Submitted by Jon Swerens on August 14, 2007 - 7:55am
Fred said: "Not raw numbers, but the Church of Jesus Christ speaking through her elders, in established courts of the Church." You see, this is where I'm confused. In what way are standing judicial committees an "established court of the Church"? I mean, I see them as holding some value, but how can we consider them actual courts? In no way do these committees resemble courts, and I think a good presbyterian would be careful to not call them courts and confuse the issue.

Submitted by Sean Gerety on August 14, 2007 - 8:44am
"After the FV controversy dies down, next they will be going after you and your approach to women's issues. Or your approach to . . . " Fred Greco and Tim Keller are correct. The problem with their critics, like Barlow above, is that they don't see the doctrine of justification as holding a unique place in Christian theology.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 14, 2007 - 8:48am
Barlow, You and I must have attended very different GAs this year. For the record--and for what it's worth--I'll just add my comments as a supporter of the Ad Interim Committee's report. You wrote, "In the FV debate in the PCA, we had something even worse:" 1. A conflation of issues (FV with NPP, underground covenant theology battles) Do you see no relationship among FV, NPP, Auburn Ave. Theology, & Norm Shepherd? There is ample conflation for those willing to read. 2. Personal animus I found the debate quite civil on both sides of the aisle. Where did it get "personal?" The Moderator allowed both sides equal time and I don't recall any "name calling." 3. Poorly constructed committee I take this to mean you didn't like the outcome. The men on the committee were all truly qualified to serve. 4. Biased handling of FV brothers prior to the General Assembly Not really. As was clearly stated during the debate, the FV brothers had put a number of items in print. Once you do that, you're fair game. Anyone who does much writing at all knows that. a. Last GA, they were denied a booth that had previously been approved Are you aware that other vendors were also denied space due to not meeting the rules? You might want to check into this. b. No announcements of FV publications in the By Faith Online emailings, etc. This is a joke, right? ByFaith do anything other than be self-serving to its own agenda? Why do you think people opposed to the Emergent Conversation are not allowed to publish in ByFaith? Do we or ByFaith wonder why they're in financial kaka? 5. No minority report so that the FV men could even get some signal that they were being heard accurately. If you take the time to go back to the previous General Assembly there was no suggestion that a minority report was desired. That was not the mandate of the Committee. If, in the course of their deliberations, it became evident that a minority report was going to emerge, then so be it. That was, however, not the case. This argument is about as specious as those whining about no exegesis of the relevant texts being performed. It is my settled conviction that any TE or RE who signs on the dotted line better had performed meticulous exegesis of the texts before he gives his word. 6. A report that was widely unsatisfying Again, you didn't like the outcome. Live with it. 7. A report that was "improved" by the means of its presentation; in other words, it would have been nice for the report to actually contain the qualifications that Sean Lucas made in his presentation of it. If the report were as flawed as you're suggesting it's a veritable miracle that it passed with such overwhelming support. A lot of other things would have been "nice" as well, For example, someone might have served Starbuck's lattes during the debate. In closing, I'm convinced that any student of the FV must acknowledge that there are serious differences between the FV and the Westminster Standards. Having said that, please, please, please no one accuse me of elevating the WS to near-infallible status. That is such a cheap shot. I know quite a few PCA brothers and they all have a view of Scripture as infallible and the WS as fallible and yet a very reliable summary of the Word of God. Any cursory reading of the Presbyterian and Reformed confessions makes it crystal clear that nothing is on par with the Bible, so why don't we just drop that one? It is an unfair and detestable straw man. If I were FV--which I'm not--my course of action would simply be to leave quietly and peacefully and find a denomination where my views were upheld. Why is this impossible? That would allow the rest of the PCA free to put our efforts into the coming storm around the women's issues--and it is coming, sometimes the charge being led by the very ones who lived through the PCUSA debacle in the early 1970s.

Submitted by Sean Gerety on August 14, 2007 - 9:11am
"If I were FV--which I'm not--my course of action would simply be to leave quietly and peacefully and find a denomination where my views were upheld. Why is this impossible?" Excellent reply to Mr. Barlow . . . but, IMO it is impossible because to leave would be to admit that the FV is not Reformed at all. That is a concession that not one FV man in the PCA is willing to make. Conversely, and if the OPC is any example, none of these teachers will have to leave because no charges at all will be filed, much less sustained, against any one of them. That includes those who have already sent letters to their Presbyteries stating where they differ with the Committee Report. Instead, the Committee Report will stand as proof in the minds of the many that there is no false teaching undermining and controverting the doctrine of justification in the PCA. All can look to the Report and say the Gospel is being clearly and unequivocally proclaimed in the PCA. Now where is my latte. 8-)

Submitted by barlow on August 14, 2007 - 10:03am
I didn't mean to imply that the GA floor debate displayed "personal animus" - more that the wider debate in the PCA did. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

Submitted by David Gray on August 14, 2007 - 10:34am
>Excellent reply to Mr. Barlow . . . but, IMO it is impossible because to leave would be to admit that the FV is not Reformed at all. That is a concession that not one FV man in the PCA is willing to make. When the feminists are done there will be lots of reformed folk leaving the PCA. But they'll have purged many prior to that fight via the current Tammany Hall approach to church governance.

Submitted by Ron Gleason on August 14, 2007 - 1:45pm
Here is one possible solution to the dilemma: My Session is overturing South Coast Presbytery to adopt the Ad Interim Committee's report to the end that if a PCA man presents himself for licensure or ordination and holds FV doctrines that he will not be ordainable.

Submitted by David Gray on August 14, 2007 - 1:54pm
Of course most FV proponents don't recognize their doctrines as presented by the Ad Interim Committee report. So what would that solve?

Submitted by Jeff Hutchinson on August 14, 2007 - 2:15pm
Dear David Bayly, I was glad to meet you, however briefly, at GA. Yours are fascinating questions. I would be glad to hear from any member of the Committee, of course. In the meantime here is how I would think they could be answered (how I answer them anyway!): 1. Was there personal animus? I have no idea. What I do know is: a) Even the best attitudes of the Committee members towards the FV/NPP advocates would not be pure enough to please God apart from the blood of Christ. Even our "best works....are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection" (WCF 16.5). Thus, we may all agree that none of the members of the Committee loved any FV/NPP advocate as purely and truly as God called them to. But did they love them truly and genuinely, as flawed men? It sure seems so to me, from everything I've seen and heard and read and the personal conversations I've had with at least two of the Committee members. b) God still uses flawed men, and flawed motivations, to accomplish His good and pleasing will. He "draws straight lines with crooked sticks." Wherever men see their own crookedness, let us hope that we would all repent. But whether we do or we don't, the straight line drawn remains so. c) I hope this is not overly simplistic, but PhDs and Professors have confirmed to me the folksy truism that "God calls me to love everybody. He doesn't call me to like everybody." Not speaking at all for the Committee, only for myself (if anyone cares), I believe I love (not perfectly or purely, but genuinely and sincerely) every FV/NPP advocate I am aware of. And I even like some of them. 2. Personally, wherever folks (any officer in the PCA, beyond just the named principles) are holding to ANY of the unhealthy views declared to be so by the Assembly, I would hope "disciplinary action" (informal and patient at first, formal if necessary) would proceed. Like you, I am much, much, much more concerned about the NPP than the FV, because it has been around (and will be around) longer, it is more widely spread across all sorts of demographics, and it has unmeasurably more "street cred." And I definitely agree with you that we should NOT "cut our institutions and their professors slack when they depart from biblical truth." I believe they must be held to the highest standard. 3. This one I can answer first hand, i.e. I am an active member of the Warfield list and I was one of the most active and vocal opponents of the PPLN (no personal animus, though, with the caveats of WCF 16.5 in mind). I answer this for myself and everyone I know of, and without any reservations: The former, to be sure, and not the latter. I agree with Tim Keller and Fred Greco, and rejoice with them in the Spirit's profoundly good work among us! Your brother in Christ, Jeff Hutchinson

Add new comment

The Gospel Blimp
Man vs. Lust
 
Conference, I Believe in God the Father Almighty
 

Recent Comments

more
Subscribe to Recent Comments