Rev. David Coffin's views on Church and state...
ByFaith Online points its readers to a recent interview of Rev. David Coffin in the Washingon Examiner in which David says that when churches become involved in politics, "It's a kind of apostasy." (You can find the interview here.)
It should be noted that the man who advocates a strict separation of Church and state in this interview is the same man who told my brother Tim, during the 2002 General Assembly debate, that the PCA should not oppose women serving as combatants in the U.S. Armed Forces.
So here's a minister of the Word of God pedantically parsing his Biblical obligations in such a way that he can justify turning an official blind eye to one of the most depraved aspects of our culture's destruction of women--almost as bad as urging them to kill unborn babies in their wombs.
To lodge his Uriah Heapish kowtowing to our culture's attack on motherhood in the Westminster Standards is ludicrous. Has David read Reformed history--any at all? And if so, can he be serious? The Westminster Divines agreeing with him that the Church should be silent about men commanding women to take up arms as combatants in the defense of their country?
But worse, David claims God's approval of this ridiculous two-kingdom novelty, a claim worthy of condemnation by every shepherd of God's flock. Unfortunately, few will take him on. And that's where we find the PCA--lurching between Tim Keller's feminism and David Coffin's pedantry.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- June 2013 (17)
- May 2013 (28)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Tim Bayly on Hold me back...
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Steve Morris on Hold me back...
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Jacob Johnston on Hold me back...
Comments
I'm trying to recall if the pamphlet/brochure I saw at the GA then was the cogent statement of the case to be made against women in combat (the statement made did not impress me either biblically/ theologically, nor exegetically...it seemed more a cultural/ conservative attempt). Is there a biblical case to be made, which someone can point me to? Thanks.
Dear Kenneth,
Here's the link to the PCA General Assembly's Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military Majority Report. Anyone interested in the subject should start here. It's all Scripture and hermeneutics with Church fathers thrown in for good measure.
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/01-278.html
Love,
Kenneth,do not the prophets warn those about to be conquered that their solders are [as] women?
Besides, there is a great case to be made for a careful review of general revelation. To put it mildly, womens' Olympic basketball and hockey teams practice against high school boys' teams and rarely Division 3 college teams.
Now ask yourself a question; are America's enemies going to send their high school boys teams into combat instead of their elite soldiers just because they know they'll be fighting women, or will they still send their elite soldiers and annihilate them while raping those unfortunate enough to be captured alive?
War ain't beanbag, Kenneth, and reducing standards to allow women into combat will result only in a lot of needless death and suffering.
This link:
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/01-278.html
is semi-wonky. It takes you to a page of links, and I'm guessing that the one I'm supposed to click on is titled "Man's Duty to Protect Women." Right?
But the link embedded in that link title is exactly the same as the page which contains a list of links, including this one. An endless circle.
Got a better link, perhaps?
Meanwhile anyone who gets as far as this page searching the report in question will be blocked at this point untill/unless those who maintain this page correct the problem.
Dear Bill,
Forget all the links. The Majority Report text is there on this page, and that's the document to read and study:
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/01-278.html
Forget the links on this page--just read the text. It's all there.
Love,
Ah so!
Because of vision problems, I run my browser (depending on the site) between 200 and 300 percent. At that magnification, when I click on that link, all I see is links, and it simply never occurred to me that the text attached to one of them ws "further down the page."
If you please, do not hesitate to remove this comment along with my earlier question and your answer, to clean up the thread from this detour.
Dear Bill,
I just posted the entire document on the main page under the title, "Man's duty to protect woman..."
Here's the link:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/10/majority-report-2001mans-duty-to-protect-woman-we-the-undersigned-endorse-the-consensus-report-while-realizing-that-rep.html
Love,
David and Tim:
Thanks for the link...I will read it, and if it's loaded with Scripture, etc., then that will be helpful. Much appreciated!
Burt Perry:
I would agree in the case of, say, women's wrestling, etc. Women in the military is slightly different...there really are some women stronger than men, and some men weaker than women. Having seen war and combat (in Afghanistan, and being shot at, rockets, blown up, etc.), I think I know the difference. I have also served with some excellent women soldiers. We may have some disagreements over whether they should be serving (be nice if we didn't need them, but that's not where we are right now), but I'm not about to condemn the troops I've worked with and ministered to. The bad guys really don't care, however: they want to kill Americans, whether men or women.
Kennothos,
"I would agree with you in the case of, say, women's wrestling"...so not OK for a women to put a young men in scissor but it's OK if she stabs a man with a bayonet...overseas...in the desert...protecting what and who and how exactly?
"there really are some women stronger than men"...No there really are not...if you need 500K men in your Army, you can always find 500K men, all of which are stronger than just about every female on earth...but that isn't the point, because army's aren't about arm wrestling anyway.
"I think I know the difference."...you know the difference between what? I have a daughter and a son. I would much rather see my son crying like a baby in the trenches doing his best to be a man than see my daughter in the trenches manning up. I could care less if my son could hit the broad side of a barn and my daughter was the next Annie Oakely...I WOULD WANT MY SON TO PLAY THE MAN AND DIE.
"I have also served with some excellent women soldiers."...Serious question have you served with any excellent women preachers? Have you seen any excellent house husbands?
"would be nice if we didn't need them (in the military)"...we don't, who says we do? What evidence do you have that America would be any worse off if we barred women from military service?
"The bad guys really don't care, however: they want to kill American, whether men or women."...and we "good" guys oblige them by sending them plenty of mothers and daughters to kill. I feel so much safer.
Kenneth, from my experience applying for ROTC and the academies:
Percentage of male soldiers who can do a pull-up: 100% (most do over ten)
Percentage of female soldiers who can do the same: 2%
Now consider the Rangers assaulting the cliffs of Normandy, or soldiers desperately needing to pull themselves out of the hatch of a burning vehicle. 100% of them needed to be able to do pull-ups, to put it mildly. Either we need to outright ban women from combat positions, or we need to use one physical standard for all.
Charitably,
the dear brother interviewed by the newspaper is a great and well respected Christian in our denomination who is an invaluable help to God's work in it.
We all ought know that journalism gets facts wrong, omits context, and often has an agenda to inflame, twist or slander rather than inform so people can make up their own minds.
Really, before we ascribe these kinds of beliefs, he ought be contacted beforehand.
Even in the leading question format of the newspaper interview, incomplete in scope as it is, the brother charitably can be read to hold what most of us believe:
Individual Christians ought be involved in the political process seeking to extend God's Kingdom there, as in all spheres of life. It's not the only sphere, not the primary one, but one of many.
Church authorities ought be very careful not to promote political means, nor become entangled in them.
Yet, church ought speak "extraordinarily" to civil authority on clear biblical imperatives.
"Extraordinary" to its central purpose, which is not that, yet part of its right and responsibility.
Charitably, as limited as the excerpt is, I can read that as being the position of the interviewee. (And also rejoice at the integrity of the responses in the article, and for this dear brother's witness).
Blessings.
Dear PCA Friend,
The interview is classic David Coffin. No part of it strikes me as inconsistent with what hours of observing him on the floor of GA and time spent talking with him in person would lead me to expect.
Let's keep in mind that David Coffin fought hard on the floor of GA to keep the PCA from opposing women serving as combatants in defense of their nation. I'm thankful to God that the assembly did not give in to David, but rather stated our Scriptural opposition to allowing our wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers to bear arms in defense of their husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers.
The women combatants debate defines David Coffin's gagging of the Church as she works to obey her Lord's command to be salt and light, the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
And if I remember correctly, during our conversation it was clear that David not only opposed the church condemning women combatants in the U.S. Armed Forces, but also that he had no idea what was wrong with women combatants in the first place.
Maybe he's come to a better position since then, but I'm guessing he remains opposed to the PCA's godly opposition to this crime against the book of nature and the Book of God.
Thus I believe his position on the spirituality of the church is along the lines of the Ridiculous Two Kingdom view--that view being ridiculous because it bears no resemblance to the Westminster Divines' caution against intermeddling nor to any Church fathers' position on this issue across history (other than maybe some slight resemblance to the views of a few Southern Presbyterians arguing the case of the Confederacy in Civil War times).
So, to bring it on home, when the PCA made a statement against women combatants contrary to David Coffin's will and arguments, according to this interview David today considers our statement "a kind of apostasy."
We should all put that in our pipes and smoke it. Note that we are not the ones accusing the PCA of "a kind of apostasy." David Coffin is the one.
A kind of apostasy.
I respect you, PCA Friend (whoever you are), and am sorry to have to disagree with you concerning the relative merits of David Coffin's constant presence at the mic on the floor of GA and his presentation in this interview as "one of the most learned men of his denomination."
Love,
Tim Bayly
Those troublesome links have been fixed.
To all: Please don't hesitate to let me know when you find glitches like that on the pcahistory.org web site.
If you're able to make space in your vicious and clearly very personal dislike of Dr. Coffin, I'd be interested in hearing whether and where you see Scripture and reformed intellectual tradition making the distinction between church and state. However disagreeable your interpretation might be to me, a positive statement of theological conviction would be more persuasive than this curious post.
If it is indeed the duty of the Church as the Church to oppose, say, women serving in the military, and any notion to the contrary is either pedantry or "ridiculous" as you put it, then are we to believe that J. Gresham Machen was, like the fictitious version of Dr. Coffin you've described, simply malnourished in his reading when he offered up the thoughtful New York Times column stating forcefully that the exploitation of children was not an ecclesiastical matter ( http://continuing.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/266/ )?
And how, under this model, is the Church to pursue this responsibility toward "one of the most depraved aspects of our culture's destruction of women"? Should the Church announce which votes on public issues are the Church sanctioned vote? Should it direct its members, as Dr. Coffin asked, to pack the court in opposition to abortion? One of the more surprising logical fallacies you commit in your short post is that the only possible alternative to official church edicts condemning this or that bill, political issue, etc. is "silence". Believers exercising their conscience and conviction informed by sound Biblical teaching is hardly a silence. The question is what you see as the biblical mandate for the Church's role.
As I said, I would be greatly interested in hearing your opinion on that furthered, rather than this curious ad hominem business.
Dr. Coffin's truncated interview very ably expressed a Biblical and necessary distinction between Church and State, outlining the particular calling of the Church to preach the word of God. It remains a curiosity to me that you insist on such a warlike stance concerning disagreement among believers in the same denomination.
If indeed you find it to be a shame that there are few willing to "take him on" I would cheerfully refer you to two resources which may help you in your quest. The first is Ken Sande's wonderful book THE PEACEMAKER, which contains some very useful guidance for dealing with conflict in a Biblical way. Secondly I highly recommend Guy Waters short volume refuting the New Perspectives movement. Guy's book is a shining example of a gentle polemic - the seventy or so pages of the short volume dedicated to a history of New Testament scholarship, and only in the final chapters addressing the problems with the New Perspectives.
Thus armed, I'm hopeful that you would happily divest yourself of the demonstrably false presumption that Dr. Coffin, who indeed has read, studied, processed, taught, written and preached an immense amount on reformed history and theology, comes to his differing opinion through ignorance.
yours in Christ,
Mr. Standfast
I meant to mention, I hope you've had a chance to read this: http://oldlife.org/2011/10/one-way-to-tell-the-difference-between-two-kingdom-theology-and-its-critics/
Dr. Hart manages to say very well what, in my relatively inarticulate way, I simply registered as shock when I saw you compare women serving in the military to abortion. Dr. Hart's example of the reducto ad absurdium to that logic was much gentler.
>>I'd be interested in hearing whether and where you see Scripture and reformed intellectual tradition making the distinction between church and state. However disagreeable your interpretation might be to me, a positive statement of theological conviction would be more persuasive than this curious post.
Dear Mr. Standfast,
"Mr. Standfast?" Why not identify yourself? We do. Why shoot from the shadows? If you're committed to standing fast, why the anonymity? Give us your real first and last name, sir.
You say you'd be interested in hearing from us this and that. What kind of a request is that? If I were speaking to you in person, I'd smile and respond, saying, "I'm not interested in spending time teaching a man who's merely interested in what I have to say when others are hungry and thirsty for the Word of God and humble enough to be taught.
You see what I'm doing, right? Calvin constantly points out the pride of man that causes him to be unteachable and it's that pride that makes me not even slightly interested in what you're interested in.
Love,
Doesn't the Bible tell us that "husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church"? What did Christ do for the Church? He died for it. God's word does not say "wives love your husbands as Christ loved the church". Sorry, but God's Word and His natural revelation do not support women in combat protecting their "men". It may be adversarial to say so, but men who accept women as warriors to "protect" them don't understand what it is to be a man. I'm a woman who is a "keeper at home" - the very important and necessary job God has given to women. It is not respected by most in the Church. Instead Titus 2 is ignored, and women are expected to be all things manly, while men are expected to stand by, shut-up, and accept the "new normal". This "new normal" redefines God's order of headship. I find it disgusting that there are men in the Church willing to defend this heresy. Yes, it is heresy. The Biblical order of headship is God, Christ, man, woman. Subverting this amounts to heresy. We are arrogant and prideful to think that we know better than God.
Add new comment