Legalism emanating from Westminster West...

Why he might even make a professing Christian feel GUILTY for being COMPLACENT about human suffering and injustice!!

How dare he terrify God's frozen chosen with the cost of discipleship?

Who does he think he is? I wish he would just have stuck to proclaiming the grand indicatives of Christ, who did it all...

Why there is no lack in Christ's sufferings --nobody would dare say they had to fulfill what was lacking in Christ's sufferings.

Why Christ's sufferings were unique --how dare anyone say they had a share in them?

Christ bore unique wounds --what profanation to suggest that someone else bore about in their body the wounds of Christ?

What sort of preacher would say "I insist in it in the Lord that you no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking...."

Legalist ones, that's who.

The rhetoric employed in this post is neither helpful to the debate nor fair in the least to Scott Clark. Whatever you are going to say about the WSCal 2 Kingdom teaching, to compare it to the Levite walking past the injured man in Jesus' parable is inaccurate and wrong. Scott is not saying that he would walk past someone who is in need. What he is declining to do is have the church set up a "Road to Jerusalem" patrol ministry at the expense of the ordinary means of grace. Scott's point is that the calling of the church as an institution (and thus its officers) is not the same as the calling of individual Christians, many of whom will be called into things like protesting at abortion clinics. This is an easily defensible position (see Nancy's comment above mine); your criticism could be made just as equally about the churches founded by the apostle Paul, about which we read nothing along the lines of social action to oppose the brutal sins of the Roman authorities. You seem to be erecting a new standard -- I will decline to call it Pharisaism, a word that is used too casually in debates like this, because I do not believe you are doing it out of self-rightouesness -- in which only abortion protesting ministers are true servants of Christ. That is not a position that is going to stand up well to biblical scrutiny, in my opinion.

Your friend in Christ,

Rick Phillips

This is a really helpful and thoughtful post. I'm grateful for the careful way in which the Bayly's have helped me to think through my obligations as a minister of the Word. It's good to know that there are such resources for pastors and future pastors out there.

Thanks for your good work.

But doesn't the passage that Mrs. Wilson quoted above indicate that those particular disciples were implying that because of so much serving, they were having to "give up" the preaching of the gospel? Isn't this more of an issue of time than an issue of "proper duty?" Are there any pastors that have actually been in danger of giving up their pulpits because they just simply served too much? Because from what I remember, it's only a few hours on Thursday morning to protest in front of Planned Parenthood, Bloomington. Not like that's going to break the time bank. It just seems like a scapegoat for pride.

David and I are not arguing for betrayal of our pastoral calling in order to give ourselves to the diaconate. What we are saying is that it's our observation that, among reformed men called to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, there is a terrible silence in our preaching and teaching ministries concerning the slaughter of the unborn, newborn defective, feeble, and elderly going on all around us. And when I say all around us, I don't simply mean in the world, but in the Church--in God's House, the pillar and foundation of the truth. We have met the baby-slaughterer and he is us. The man in our sanctuary during Lord's Day corporate worship has never repented of paying for the murder of his first child. The woman who is married to one of our deacons or elders or pastors paid for Molech to burn up and swallow her child.

And trust me, pastors are silent--even with respect to calling our own people not to murder and to repent of the murders they have committed. Such a call to repentance is absolutely opposed in pulpits across the PCA. Why?

Sometimes because of fear of offending the seekers who attend but are unrepentant. Sometimes because of a smugness about two kindgom theology, and having a mistaken understanding of how two kingdom theology is to be applied.

But it's David's and my contention that this is not a misapplication of two kingdom theology. Rather, we see it as the natural consequence of two kingdom browbeating and censoriousness of those they judge to be pietists or moralists.

Reading what's been written here, it's completely understandable how the sheep under a two kingdom theology would think it's inappropriate for a pastor to preach against abortion, to protest against Terry Schiavo's judicial execution, to write editorials and blog posts against euthanasia, to expose the terrible evil of pornography that destroys so many men and women who have not repented, believed, and been baptized...

"Who have not repented, believed, and been baptized?" Yeah, right.

Rather, that destroys the souls of so many men and women who **have** believed, repented, and been baptized. Not my brother nor my sister but it's me O Lord, standing in the need of prayer.

I mean, if we take nothing other than the Apostle Pauls' command that we pray for the civil authority, how can we escape weekly prayers for the end of baby slaughterhouses across our nation? To pray for justices that hate injustice and love mercy and will stand against child slaughter during Lord's Day corporate worship services seems to be the direct obedience of a New Testament biblical command:

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

Truly, according to this command of the Holy Spirit, such prayers seem to be directly connected to the spread of the Gospel and the coming of our Lord's Kingdom.

Much love,

Both Pastor Bayly's

I myself have been working my way thru this issue (as I'm sure many many others have been). Your posts on this have been a great help to me.

Your blog has been much help to me, but, it hasn't been the only help.

A valid charge against Dr Clark seems to be his pugnaciousness. He hasn't denied this but he (to his credit) even admits this as being his duty before the Lord. Hopefully, I am correct here.

I guess, that for me (I understand the Bahnsenian logical fallacy here) I don't get Dr Clark's sarcastic answer here.

Continued ??????

Rick,

Brother, with much love and affection, I think you are wrong. What is coming out Westminster is anything but love for the "Christ transforms culture" of Calvinism.

If you wonder why Tim and Joseph are so exercised, consider that they are reacting to an unfair critique, not of themselves merely, but of a lot of faithful, gospel-centered, Reformed pulpiteers who can feel a bit under-seige in our "all grace, all the time" milieu.

Rick, I am sure you have run into this. It may not have come to you from WSC --but it might. What is interesting is that it can come from the right, or the left in the PCA.

I have had pastors I know, who grew up under great gospel Reformed preaching, say "I never heard anyone expound grace till I went to Covenant Seminary." Please.

I have heard other similar sentiments.

And now, the very guys that should be our allies in the confessional fight are turning their guns on their brothers in arms, and have decided, voila, that Edwards and Lloyd-Jones are not the solution to nominalism or antinomianism, but THE PROBLEM.

Brother, please understand. The rhetoric is heightened because the situation is a serious one.

Ken, but I thought the issue with Clark was his not picketing aborition clinics? I find it amazing how this discussion keeps moving back and forth between revivals and their proponents and anti-abortion. The only connection I see is that you hold to both -- an existential link. But the battles in our churches are not the same as the ones at the voting booth.

That is why you would be hard pressed to find a seminary that has stood more fulsomely against the threats to our churches, such as Federal Vision, relaxed worship, women in office, the need for church polity and discipline, than Westminster Seminary California. It is possible for people to question Lloyd-Jones and Edwards, and come down on the right side of those issues. And if you're really looking for allies on women in office, are you seriously going to turn to dead guys?

But then that isn't good enough. So you can do battle against WSC on 2 kingdom grounds and disparage Clark for his high view of his pastoral calling. But, thank the Lord, abortion is not an issue in confessional churches. In which case, you don't like California because their not helping you with the culture wars.

But can't you at least appreciate their help in the church controversies? Wouldn't a loving response be able to appreciate a glass-half full?

Actually, I think a much worse threat to our nation comes from militant Islam, and so it is the duty of every able bodied American Christian man to join the U.S. Armed Forces (or the equivalent), so that our freedom to worship can be maintained. And ministers also ought to do their time, so they don't just stay snug in their nice, clean offices.

To not do so is to not stand up for the weak and defenseless, the same as walking by the other side of the road and leave the robbed man for the dead. It is to be a pharisee, which is to be a legalist, and everyone associated with you is also a legalist.

The point is that the logic and charity of this original post is not very sound at all. Has no one here read "Learning in War Time," by C.S. Lewis?

>And ministers also ought to do their time, so they don't just stay snug in their nice, clean offices.

We call those people "chaplains." And faithful chaplains are always badly needed.

http://www.wscal.edu/about/doctrine/testimonytoourtime.php

"A Testimony to Our Time
by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California

Teachers of Christ's church are called to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) by addressing the challenges to the faith that arise in each generation. The Board and Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (WSC) confess our faith in the Sovereign God who has revealed himself in his creation, in Christ the incarnate Word, and in Scripture the Word of God written.

Our understanding of God's self-revelation is summarized in the Reformed confessions: the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. In our time, as in the past, biblical faith faces particular challenges. Recognizing that faithfulness to Christ entails our readiness to speak his truth specifically at those points in which it is under attack in our day, we offer to the church this statement of our understanding of the Scriptures' teaching regarding issues now causing controversy among the people of God. The Board and Faculty of WSC have unanimously adopted this testimony.

Concerning the Inerrancy of Scripture we believe:

That the Scripture is the very Word of God written. Since God can neither lie, be mistaken, nor change, his Word cannot contain error. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

That Scripture's authority extends to all that it actually teaches. The careful study of Scripture will sometimes require us to correct our traditional views of what it says. But once the actual teachings of Scripture are ascertained, they bind our consciences, our theories, and our behavior. They take precedence over any rival claims to knowledge.

That God's special revelation in the Bible is compatible in every respect with his general revelation in nature. Human interpretations of general revelation, however, must submit to the authority of special revelation.

That Scripture's primary subject is the message of redemption from sin through Jesus Christ. But all Scripture's subject matter is God's Word and always true. When Scripture speaks to matters of history, science, ethics, or anything else, it is true and authoritative, and it governs our thinking in these areas.

That the infallibility of Scripture necessarily implies the inerrancy of Scripture.

Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture we believe:

That since the Scripture is the Word of God, it is a unity and cannot contradict itself.

That the meaning of Scripture must be learned through the faithful and accurate interpretation of the text of Scripture. The meaning of Scripture is not established by tradition, by appeals to continuing revelation, or by the decisions of church councils.

That in the process of interpretation, understanding the original intent of the human author, the literary character of specific texts, the need to compare one text with another, the role of specific texts in the progressive unfolding of revelation, and the Christ-centered dimension of all Scripture are essential.

That thorough study of the original languages of Scripture and of ancient and modern cultures, as well as careful self-examination joined to humble faith and prayer, are the best preparation for the scholarly study of Scripture.

That a scholarly study of the Bible does not and must not undermine the perspicuity of Scripture. The truths necessary for salvation are so clearly expressed in Scripture that both learned and unlearned readers may and should understand them.

Concerning Genesis 1-3 we believe:

That the book of Genesis was written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in all its parts is an accurate, historical presentation.

That Genesis 1 teaches that God created everything out of nothing and that he created it good. The meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 has been debated in the church at least since the days of Augustine. The literary form of the passage in its relation to other Scriptures is important for its interpretation. Responsible Reformed theologians have differed as to whether Genesis 1 teaches a young earth or allows for an old earth. While one of these interpretations must be mistaken, we believe that either position can be held by faithful Reformed people.

That God created the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground and the first woman, Eve, from that man. The first man was a unique creation of God, not descending from any previously existing creature. All human beings are descended from these first parents.

Concerning the Ordination of Women we believe:

That men and women equally bear the image of God and are to serve him with all their gifts according to his specific callings to them.

That from creation, men were given authority and ultimate leadership in the family and in the covenant community.

That Christ, as he makes clear in his Word, does not call women to the authoritative offices of teaching elder (minister) and ruling elder in the church and therefore the church may not ordain them to these offices.

That the purpose of spiritual gifts given to men and women in Christ is not self-fulfillment but service to others, to the end that God receives all the glory.

Concerning Abortion we believe:

That the unborn child from conception is a human being in the image of God.

That abortion as practiced today is a scandal and a grievous sin.

That laws to protect the right to life of the unborn are needed in our land and throughout the world.

That the Christian community must teach and exemplify biblically responsible sexuality and reproduction and must provide support services for pregnant women to facilitate the choice of a live birth.

Concerning Homosexuality we believe:

That homosexual desires and actions are a result of the Fall and are sinful.

That homosexuals who give in to these desires and actions or who argue their legitimacy, like all sinners, must be clearly called to faith and repentance. The unrepentant must be disciplined by the church. Those who practice or advocate homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle must not be ordained to ecclesiastical office.

That Christians must provide loving support and care for those struggling against homosexual temptations, encouraging them to seek forgiveness and grace to overcome their temptations.

That Christians must support all moral efforts to stop the spread of AIDS and must offer all possible comfort and spiritual help to those dying of AIDS.

That the church acts contrary to love for God and neighbor when it declares morally neutral anything which God has declared sinful.?

Dear Nancy,

But remember that the apostles began their apostolic ministry by waiting on tables. They never declared such works outside the sphere of church authority or responsibility. Instead, they devoted their best lieutenants to the work. And, of course, we have absolutely no reason to believe they made a principle of opposing apostles ever again waiting on tables--or washing feet, for that matter.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly

Ken,

what counts as consistency, who measures it, & on what basis?

Pastor Bayly said "This statement of the Biblical doctrine of sexuality certainly does remove much of the awkwardness of our living in this world. Go ahead and draft women into the military, make them combatants, elect them president, have them train future pastors in theology; it's not the church or the home."
Your post is rightly addressed to men, but I would like to add that here I agree with you. I'm saddened (and indeed frustrated) at how many men who should know better see nothing wrong with women in the military (or are in fear of man too much to admit that this should not be so), women having careers while someone else raises their children, women teaching men (with the excuse that it's in a non-church setting) etc. And also how many Reformed men have fallen onto the Sarah Palin for president bandwagon? Would God call men to lead only in the church and the home, but nowhere else? My husband and I discuss this often and are grieved by it.
In Christ,
Nancy Wilson

I'm a 2k guy. I've never picketed an abortion clinic. But I have supported pregnancy care centers and adopted two children. So whose application of caring for orphans is better? It seems like if someone doesn't do it the way you think is best, you take that to mean they're not doing anything.

Ken,

You didn't really answer my question. How can I stop being a Pharisee? What do I have to do to qualify to not be a pharisee? Who writes those rules? Where are they found and who judges my performance of them?

I'm serious. I've not said a word about Kline or republlication. Lots of theocrats taught republication so I don't how that's relevant exactly.

We all agree, don't we, that the civil laws expired with national Israel. We all agree, don't we, with WCF as revised by the American Presbyterians (who did so long before Meredith Kline).

So, under those conditions, what are my obligations as minister to the unborn? I preach the law that murder is sin and that includes taking the life of civilly innocent (we're not Pelagians!) human beings in utero and extra utero. That's what ministers do, they preach the Word. I know it's foolishness, but that's what I'm called to do.

My congregation, I trust, will act accordingly as God gives them grace. Some of them may well set up homes for unwed mothers, as Christians have done. Others may picket but that's a matter of wisdom and strategy not sin isn't it?

So, what else besides preaching the whole counsel of God's inspired, inerrant, infallible Word (the law and the gospel) and administering the holy sacraments, and helping the elders to administer discipline, am I to do? Pray? Yes. Pray. Teach? Yes, teach. What else? Counsel the grieving? Yes, even those who've tragically chosen to abort their own children.

What else?

is it that I must take a certain stance, attitude? I'm really not sure.

Dr. Clark,

I don't recall calling you a Pharisee, or giving you a list of how to stop, which, of course, would defeat the purpose.

Again, I don't think the issue is 2 kingdoms, necessarily, or how its construed. I know two kingdoms guys whose preaching would be indistinguishable from mine. If a man is preaching imperatives based upon the great indicatives, and if he is pressing his people not to be complacent, but somehow be in the fight, whatever the fight may look like, then, I have no quibble.

Where I think 2K becomes trouble is when it takes on people for being different than y'all are. IN short, for preaching the way Calvin or Hodge or Thornwell or Palmer or Lloyd Jones or Schaeffer or de Witt preach. And calling those things somehow sub-Reformed. Or legalistic. Or not Christ-centered.

Or, have I totally misread your enterprise? I hope I have.

And again, I will read your book, and would be delighted to be wrong.

Tim has been blunt and pointed. But, he didn't issue the opening volley here, did he? I mean, the books from WSC authors are the opening volley.

As far as republication goes, I am just piecing together a puzzle. Obviously, not everyone believing in republication takes it to this position. I understand that. But, I also see how one could take it there.

Ken,

I read the original post to be saying that Dr. Clark was a legalist for choosing not to picket abortion clinics as part of his ministerial vocation. Did I read it wrongly?

Chris

Chris,

I read it more as saying that Dr. Clark was wrong in saying that any minister should picket an abortion clinic, as if it were in itself a denial of ministerial vocation.

Dr. Clark said in a comment,

"So, under those conditions, what are my obligations as minister to the unborn? I preach the law that murder is sin and that includes taking the life of civilly innocent (we're not Pelagians!) human beings in utero and extra utero. That's what ministers do, they preach the Word."

The original post was good, and so is this response, because both make things concrete. Dr. Clark's job is to teach seminary students and church attenders. Mine is to teach economics students. It is the job of neither of us to oppose abortion, pornography, or injustice. In fact, it's hardly anybody's job. Rather, it's something people, or at least men, and especially those with talent and status, do without pay in balance with duties to job and family. Pastors and economists aren't exempt. In fact, they usually are in a position to have a bigger public effect than most people. If a pastor, especially, shows up to a demonstration, people notice.

I'm not saying I actually do any better in practice than Dr. Clark. In fact, I may be more culpable because I realize I don't have a good excuse to be passive. But I do think it's important for us to realize that having one vocation doesn't exclude us from "leveraging" that vocation into another sphere.

That's why the Good Samaritan analogy is valid. The priest could say it wasn't his job to help robbery victims. He could even go a step further and say that to help this victim would interfere with his real job by defiling him. But that's no excuse.

Bro Tim, well I apologize for getting all this wrong, but you are saying that abortion is at the center of Presbyterian congregatoins, right? So the issue here is abortion. But then Ken says it is criticism of Lloyd-Jones and Edwards. (I didn't know criticism of saints was covered by the sixth commandment. But why criticism of Saint Scott Clark is legitimate I don't know.).

So I'm trying to understand, please help me Bro. Is abortion part of the controversy in conservative Presbyterian communions? If so, how can I help?

Some love (saving the rest for my wife, as long as she submits, on St. Valentine's Day), dgh

Dear Darryl,

You wouldn't have liked the Apostle Paul, methinks; he was always folding Valentine greetings into his correspondence. Pretty soon, I'm going to ask you to greet me with a holy kiss, and then see how submissive your wife is.

Love and a holy kiss,

Re abortion in the URC and OPC, and the PCA.

What we are finding in the PCA, methinks, is that we assume too much about people having formed a concrete world and life view, as if we never had to educate our people on the why's and how's of cultural evil, or how to respond to it in the body politic.

So, my predecessor, now in his new pulpit, would comment on the number of Obama bumper stickers in the parking lot of his PCA mega church as well as the nearby RTS campus (not Jackson), and use it for a reason to speak prophetically to that evil. Sometimes Christians don't think CHristianly.

I guess I would rather stand before God in judgment with Francis Schaeffer than with a person who had made sense of the 2 kingdoms puzzle and its neat lines about what the church should and should not do.

Mrs. Wilson,

True enough. A few months back Piper said, "What I wrote in the Minneapolis Star could get this church firebombed. YOu don't want to go to a church that could be firebombed? Find another church!"

So, moralism no (of course, who disagrees with that?).

Gospel obedience, and following hard after the Spirit, yes!