And all the Democrats said, "Amen!"...
Cardinal Timothy Michael Dolan, Archbishop of the Diocese of New York, closed the Democratic Convention last night with the very faith largely absent among Reformed chaplains in the Armed Forces today. He explicitly prayed in that Glorious Name of the Only Lord Jesus Christ. He also explicitly prayed for the protection of those "inalienable rights bestowed upon us by You," and went on to say, "we ask Your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected."
It is such love for neighbor and faith in Jesus Christ by church officers down at the city gates that R2K men explicitly oppose. Why is it always the Roman Catholics who are faithful to our Lord's commands that we are to be salt and light? Why are they the ones out there testifying to Christian faith?
An officer in the PCA and a branch of our Armed Forces told me he chose to forgo the normal invocation and benediction given at the transfer of command in his branch of the military because he could not find one Protestant chaplain (including PCA chaplains) who would pray... in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This man is crying out against R2K's gelding of Reformed pastors. What am I to tell him? To check out the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy? At the end of our conversation, he pointed out that Orthodox chaplains are required by their church to pray Trinitarian prayers.
PCA chaplains have no such requirements.
And what do you think about the hypocrisy of all those bloodthirsty Democrats responding "Amen!"?
(w/thanks to Ben C.)
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- 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)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
Well, I’m impressed by Dolan’s prayer. His choice of words took courage. It was also entertaining to watch the various uncomfortable and bored responses by many the delegates. =)
The Democrats definitely did not all say, “Amen!” earlier in the week when Antonio Villaraigosa presided over a vote to restore to the party platform a few sentences that used the work “God” (once) and supported Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Awkward. I felt embarrassed for the guy just watching it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-in...
From what I've read this morning, they didn't all say "amen". The reports have it that many got up and left during the prayer, talking loudly as they did so and that sodomites held up rainbow flags during the prayer.
I'm glad for the directness of Cardinal Dolan's prayer, but part of me keeps thinking, "pearls before swine". How do you pronounce a godly benediction on a gathering of (to swipe a friend's term) death-eaters?
You are mistaken about one thing. "He explicitly prayed in that Glorious Name of the Only Lord Jesus Christ. " That was not the case.
Although Cardinal Dolan crossed himself, he did not pray (aloud), "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," which is the usual formula in RC prayer. Nor did Dolan pray, "In the name of Jesus." In fact, he did not include a spoken invocation. He did mention that Jesus is the Son of God, however, which is more than many public prayers do.
He was not explicitly pro-life (his "welcomed and protected" could be affirmed as "in that order"), just as he was not explicitly anti-gay-marriage (although he certainly alluded to that position).
So, it was certainly not as bold as it could have been, though I'm sure it was unwelcomed by the DNC delegates who wanted to see "God" out of the DNC platform.
-TurretinFan
Well, I thought his prayer was pretty bold. It blew me out of the water; it was pretty clear what he was saying. Regarding your wonder at why it seems to be Roman Catholics who remain faithful, connect the dots. It's a question of authority, which is why I plan to convert to Catholicism.
Rebecca, please don't turn to Rome. The Roman church has not the answer. True, many Roman Catholics are still at least taught to fear the Lord, which is often absent in our Evangelical churches in America. However, the sacerdotal, superstitious, idolatrous, and heretical Roman church is not the answer. Even how you say "I plan to convert" seems to say you know this already.
Find a local church where men elders lead with authority, truth, and love. Hope that helps.
In His service,
The question of authority is precisely why one ought not turn to Rome. The current Roman church would have expelled Athanasius as they did Luther. Anyone who places a teaching magisterium above the God breathed scriptures is in serious trouble. Our interpretation of scripture needs to be informed by tradition, not ruled by it. When it is ruled by it all the potency is sucked out of the scriptures as all the authority resides in the magisterium. Think about it.
You do not plan to convert to Rome because of her "authority". Rome has earned your "submission" because you were clever enough to buy into the silver bullet argument for her authority. It's theoretical obedience.
I've seen it many times. An old friend apostatized completely about 2 years ago after buying that line. He's an atheist now. He's an atheist for the same reason he converted to Rome. He's clever. He found another silver bullet and lives in a more blatant form of disobedience.
Three-quarters of a century ago, the president of a Protestant seminary was discussing with a Catholic university chaplain the question of praying in the name of Jesus Christ at civic events. The priest said that he did not do this, in the interest of civic unity, because, after all, "We all believe in God the Father" (I know, this really does date this).
The seminary president replied, "I have a commission to confess the Lord Jesus Christ in every place and under all circumstances!"
The name of the seminary president? Are you ready for this? Are you sure?
Henry Sloane Coffin, the author of the Auburn Affirmation and the president of that citadel of liberalism, Union Theological Seminary!
This is a true story. I heard it from that (by then former) Catholic chaplain.
David,
You said, "The current Roman church would have expelled Athanasius as they did Luther. Anyone who places a teaching magisterium above the God breathed scriptures is in serious trouble. "
That makes no sense, because the Church did not expel Athanasius, even though he was almost alone "contra mundum." And as C. S. Lewis once said, no one knows "what would have been." I don't and you don't. As far as placing a teaching magisterium above scriptures, that is not exactly the way it works, but think about it. We all have to interpret the scriptures, so Protestants/Reformed folks/Arminians/etc., all have to interpret scripture in light of their theological paradigm, just as the Roman Catholic Church does in light of its magisterium. Otherwise all Protestants would be Reformed, right?
Paul,
Thank you for your kind comments, but I don't view Rome as superstitious. The reason I haven't converted already is for family reasons.
The church then is not the current Roman church. That even predates the schism with the East.
It would be more accurate to say that isn't the way it is theorized. It is precisely how it works.
Rome doesn't just interpret in the light of its magisterium. The magisterium trumps the scriptures. And church history and the church fathers for that matter.
When I present this issue to many in the Reformed community online, they say that "God is not a political punch line" or something similar. Like the smarmy approach to the culture wars that many evangelicals utilize short-circuits all Christian involvement in politics. Talk about straw-men!
"The church then is not the current Roman church." Well, that is rather a point of disagreement, isn't it? I used to wonder at what point exactly the Catholic church ceased to be the true church. Did the gates of Hell prevail against the Church? Or exactly where did the stream move? Into Luther's church? Or Calvin's church? And when? In exactly 1517? Or a few years before? Which church is now the true church? That is one of the things that just doesn't work. The present Catholic church looks an awful lot like the ancient church, and the present Evangelical/Protestant church looks very little like it.
As far as the magisterium trumping the scriptures, whose interpretation of the scriptures does it trump?
Rebecca,
Medjugorje. Fatima. Superstition raised to the power of superstition! You may not see this in your back yard Roman congregation, but believe you me, it's everywhere around the globe.
And besides, the superstition isn't the main problem. It's the doctrine. Mary as co-redemptrix with Christ?! Utter blasphemy!...
Warmly,
Paul
It trumps the text itself.
So when Israel was divided into the Northern Kingdom and Judah which was true Israel? Which was the people of God?
There is a lot of presupposition packed into that question.
In many ways the present Roman church doesn't even look very much like the Roman church of the 19th century, let alone the ancient church. And you can find Lutheran and Reformed churches which resemble the ancient church more strongly. Even the Eastern Orthodox resemble the ancient church more strongly (hint they don't have clown masses and polka masses).
I'm confused. Isn't the RC church currently in legal action against HHS over the breach of religious freedom demanded by Obamacare's abortion mandate? But a RC Cardinal is willing to play nice with the very politicians who are oppressing his people and millions of unborn children? I think that one of these--the legal action, or the Cardinal's prayer--must be a charade for publicity's sake. Either that, or the RC church is not unified, and does not speak with one voice, like the monolith it claims to be...
"It trumps the text itself." No it doesn't. Otherwise, we wouldn't be arguing.
What is blasphemous about Mary being co-redemptrix? All that means is that Mary played a part in our redemption. Without Mary's assent, the "let it be done to me...," our redemption would not have been possible. But that does not elevate Mary to the Godhead; yet even the aforementioned Athanasius said that Mary was greater than the heavens and greater than the earth. Athanasius would have been the last person to be guilty of blasphemy. To say that Mary is the highest created being is not blasphemy. Because if it were, then as John Henry Cardinal Newman said, the Arians were not heretics.
Dunno what your officer friend did or didn't do in trying to find a chaplain. As a PCA chaplain, I regularly pray at events in Jesus' name (with an inclusive caveat to disarm critics). Maybe you should try meeting more chaplains?
Any reason why PCA chaplains wouldn't pray in the name of the Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 28:19)
The military brings pressure on them not to do so; and if they do, they're passed over. The friend I referred to above is in high command and knows many PCA chaplains.
Love,
The person who said, "...because he could not find one Protestant chaplain (including PCA chaplains) who would pray... in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Must not be looking at any of the PCA Chaplins I know. I do know a number of Chaplins.
General Doug Lee (Head of PCA chaplains as well as a number of Reformed Dominations) speak at our church last year. We even brought him back for the Marco Island Prayer Breakfast. General Lee, spoke clearly the name of Jesus in both areas. If the man had a hard time finding a Chaplain who would pray in the name of Jesus, please encourage him to contact General Lee @ 678-701-5151 or dlee@pcanet.org
Also, the chaplains I know personally, are bold in their faith and proclaim Jesus in a hostile environment. Here on staff, we have a former chaplain who I know would proclaim in the name of Jesus. So, if this person wants to disparage the PCA chaplains, have him first contact me and I will give him a list of many chaplains (Godly men who proclaim Jesus).
I don't know Gen Lee so these comments are not directed at him but I'd be surprised if there were PCA chaplains who didn't speak the name of Jesus at a church. The question is whether they are prepared to do so at official military functions at which they are asked to pray. There is a lot of pressure in DoD not to mention the name of Christ in such a prayer. It really started the last 2-3 years of my career, which ended in 2009.
Before attacking our PCA Chaplains, I would suggest reading the Reformed and Presbyterian Joint Commission which manages Chaplain ethics and ordination in the PCA (and other Confessionally allied denominations such as the OPC)
The PRJC states "we, the members of the Commission, subscribe to the following specific obligations, and further will require any chaplain we endorse to subscribe, confessing our conscious reliance on God’s enabling grace to do so."
Under "OBLIGATIONS" is named exactly what you speak of here.
"4. To respect and uphold the ethical and constitutional right of other endorsers and their respective chaplains, to maintain and express their doctrinal distinctives and ecclesiological practices. At the same time we thereby do not agree or imply any willingness, overtly or covertly, to deny or otherwise suppress the free and appropriate expression of our own distinctives, of which offering prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is a case in point."
http://pcamna.org/chaplain-ministries/chaplain-resources/prjc/prjccodeof...
If you have a specific name of a Chaplain that is not fulfilling his vows, then report him to his presbytery, if not, refrain from libeling the Chaplains with vague and broad accusations and apologize for your unbecoming behavior here. I only comment publicly because you have posted this publicly.
Solus Christos,
-Jared Nelson
T.E. Illiana Presbytery
You may contact Gen Lee (at the contact info above) and ask him what a Chaplain may say and how they are to conduct themselves. He is the one who is in the KNOW as that is part of what he does for the PCA Chaplains. You may be surprised at the freedom they do have.
>>if this person wants to disparage the PCA chaplains
Men, I've known and worked with bad PCA chaplains. Personally. And please keep in mind that I do not make statements without good hard evidence. That's one of the disciplines I have on this blog.
If you think this isn't a problem in the PCA, you're free to dismiss what I've written. Meanwhile, the man I'm quoting exists, is in high command, and wasn't speaking of the entire Armed Forces when he said he didn't have a chaplain who could open and close his ceremony in the Name of our Lord. He wasn't going to fly someone in for an invocation and benediction. Those men who were local (including some PCA men) were not willing to pray in a non-inclusive way, using the Name of Jesus.
Fact. And two other men who read this blog heard him recount his great disappointment at this. He wasn't disparaging PCA men or chaplains. He was lamenting the cowardice of PCA men, including chaplains.
Love,
Dear Jared,
Thank you for expressing your opposition to my statement. It's commendable to defend one's fellow denominational officers.
Love,
You might be surprised at what I know. I know the guidance provided to every member of the Air Force by the Air Force Chief of Staff on the need to avoid sectarian prayers and much of the gibberish which accompanied that notion. The notion that there is not substantial pressure to drain our prayers of Christian content and Christ's name can not be supported by an honest man who has spent time in the armed forces in the last 5-7 years.
My issue is simple, the broad brush stroke you have taken at the PCA Chaplains and now of PCA men. I would bet for every one you point out that is a coward [your description] I would be able to point out ten or more who would be brave.
Jared Nelson gave the simple answer in his post on how to deal with these men. “If you have a specific name of a Chaplain that is not fulfilling his vows, then report him to his presbytery, if not, refrain from libeling the Chaplains with vague and broad accusations and apologize for your unbecoming behavior here.”
Dear Bill,
"Cowardice" was not my word, but the officer's. Maybe it would be better to refer to them as men who are "ashamed of Jesus Christ." Such men have always made up a large part of the professional Christian class and denominational organizations have almost always demonstrated a mastery of avoiding seeing it.
Jesus' warning was no hypothetical construct.
Love,
My issue still remains, the broad brush stroke you (and this officer of the church) have taken at the PCA Chaplains and now of PCA men.
I would suggest to you to instruct this officer on our rules of polity and pass along the statement made by Jared Nelson “If you have a specific name of a Chaplain that is not fulfilling his vows, then report him to his presbytery, if not, refrain from libeling the Chaplains with vague and broad accusations and apologize for your unbecoming behavior here.”
BTW, I never challenged the warning giving by Jesus (if that is what you were trying to infer), what I challenge was the disparaging way the PCA chaplains as a whole were lumped together with tone or two men your source spoke of. I just spoke with two PCA Chaplains and they know of no other PCA Chaplain who would not pray in the name of Jesus Christ. In fact, this Commander in the Navy told me, “who ever made that statement does not really know our Chaplains at all.”
>>were lumped together with the one or two men your source spoke of...
Actually, he was speaking of chaplains as a whole as well as those chaplains local to his command. And by the way, the best judge of chaplains is not the high command, but grunts at the front. And I've known some excellent chaplains--absolutely excellent.
And yes, I know you disagree. You've made that clear a few times. God bless you, dear brother.
Love,
Dear Brothers,
I know one navy chaplain who I suspect would be bold in this area. For this reason--because of my friendship with one man--I'd not have reported what Tim did in this post.
But let me say as well that I was party to the conversation Tim describes and Tim is reporting the matter accurately. Which leaves us with basically two choices: either Tim and I and the officer we spoke with are generalizing unfairly and Protestant chaplains as a whole--and PCA chaplains in particular--are courageous proclaimers of the sole Lordship of Jesus Christ, or they're not.
Either way, Tim's report is accurate and I am confident the officer's firsthand report was equally correct. Which leaves us with one particular occasion of failure, but additionally, from my knowledge of chaplains--some acquired firsthand, more admittedly second-hand--the evidence suggests that Evangelical chaplains as a whole tend towards caution rather than boldness in proclaiming Jesus Christ and that PCA chaplains are not that different from other Evangelical chaplains.
I do know that a confessing Christian and career officer with over twenty years of experience in the military possessing first-hand knowledge of the PCA viewed it as a truism that chaplains, including those from the PCA, are not often courageous shepherds of souls.
To those chaplains who are, and there undoubtedly are such, I apologize for the insinuation of weakness which may accrue to you as a result of this report. Certainly there are men of courage serving as chaplains. But should the Church of Christ have the kind of spiritual climate where troubling charges are overlooked because we don't like the implications of such charges? If so, we're acting sadly like certain bishops of the Roman Catholic Church recently in the news....
Honestly, if those commenting critically on this post were willing to admit that there are weak chaplains, perhaps even weak PCA chaplains, I would listen more sympathetically to their desire to maintain the good name of the majority.
The fact that there were good Pharisees such as Nicodemus never kept Jesus from speaking negatively of the Pharisees. If it's true that even a few PCA chaplains fear the consequences of praying and preaching exclusively in Jesus' name, we can't be tender to the whole to protect the reputations of a subset. After all, this isn't a minor issue. Jesus says that he who is ashamed of Him He will be ashamed of on His return in glory. It's a basic tenet of our faith that is at stake here: the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ.
And does anyone think military life and the military chaplaincy have become more hospitable to the man professing faith in Jesus over the last several decades? But though the overall environment has grown increasingly hostile, our men are uninfluenced? Really?
We all know that if the PCA chaplains who declined to pray exclusively in Jesus' name were identified, and charges pressed against them, no action would be taken by presbyteries.
If you say that charges be pressed, where would you suggest the person preferring such charges turn to establish that what the chaplains did was wrong?
We all know such a thing is wrong, entirely unbecoming a minister of the Gospel, but we also know that the idea of pressing charges is quixotic. Name the statute, identify the portion of the WCF, WSC or BCF that would be used to prosecute such behaviour: put your money where your mouth is and tell the officer how to prosecute. The truth is, when people say, "Press charges," in situations like this, what they're actually saying is, "I don't believe you and I wish you would just shut up." The outrage isn't with the reported conduct. The outrage is that the conduct is reported.
And if a statute were found to make a charge by, presbyteries would respond by getting in a tither about the unique challenges of the chaplaincy, the need for wisdom and moderation in such sensitive positions... In the end, the fighting man looking for sacrificial courage from a man of the cloth would be informed by a presbytery full of men of the cloth that fighting is his job, not the chaplain's.
Love in Christ,
David
Tim Bayly said on September 11, 2011
>> And please keep in mind that I do not make statements without good hard evidence. That's one of the disciplines I have on this blog. >>
Tim Bayly said on August 27, 2011
>> This post is deleted on the advice of my better half. She's wise. >>
Love,
Are you trying to imply that those statements are contradictory? If so, you might want to rethink your logic. Just because something is unwise to say doesn't mean it was said "without good hard evidence."
Similarly, we can speak truth without love and be a resounding gong, but the truth isn't any less true for it. Surely you've noticed this when you argue with your wife, assuming you're married.
-Joseph
If you follow through, Rebecca, let me be one of the first to welcome you to Rome. The question of authority was a large part of what impelled me to switch feet thirteen years ago. And (pace Craig) I haven't descended into atheism so far. :)
As for the cardinal, I thought his prayers were exactly what was needed. He's a pastor, not a politician, and so his job is to ask God's guidance and exhort the politicians rather than dictate to them. This he did very well.
That's not to say that if you worked at it you couldn't find an example of a failure to keep to this discipline. Of course you could. That's the way with all disciplines, isn't it? Even so, it's been stated explicitly here that there is good hard evidence--by two different men. So even were you to get an example of failure, that isn't evidence that this post is a failure to keep the discipline.
Dear brothers,
Warning sheep and calling shepherds to faithfulness aren't torts. This work necessarily requires pointing out sin and danger. Pastor Tim Bayly heard a credible report about this sin from a man in a position of high civil authority who is himself an officer of Christ's church. This report is consistent with Pastor Tim's and Pastor David's own personal observations over many years.
It is also consistent with the increasing pressure other instruments of the federal government are applying to remove the offense of Jesus Christ from prayer offered in the public square. In 2005, a federal judge in Indiana forbade chaplains from praying in Jesus' name during sessions of the Indiana General Assembly. A few years later this same federal judge, David Hamilton, was elevated to the federal appellate court.
It is not unusual for men under church discipline to accuse shepherds of libel or slander. They would rather enjoy the kisses of an enemy than suffer the faithful wounds of a friend. We should be careful in making similar accusations. The post contained no false report or character assassination. No man was even identified by name or location. If what was reported is actionable (and it certainly would NOT be in any Indiana court), then the work of pastoral warning, rebuke, exhortation, and encouragement must cease.
Warmly,
Brian
No one should approve, including the PRJC and the presbyteries if what you are saying does occur. Indeed, such a person will be breaking their vows to the PRJC, and to prove such is happening would result in the loss of their certification and the loss of their being identified as an approved PCA Chaplain.
So again, I implore you, name names to a presbytery and do not add insult to injury by now characterizing presbyteries as infelicitous to THEIR vows. Please stop the ever growing list of ministers of the gospel that you are libeling in public. This is disgusting and it sickens me that you think this is a thing of virtue to broadly label most PCA ministers now (because the presbyteries are the elders) as vow breakers. Matthew 18, ( and you are accusing elders of sin mind you) does not include shooting your mouth off to everyone BUT the church. Fulfill 1 Tim 5:17 "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching."
Name names to a presbytery and if they don't do anything, THEN shoot your mouth off. But in the name of Christ, stop speaking against your fathers and brothers broadly for what you think they might do.
In case anyone else was confused as I was, Joseph is replying to "Richard" here, not to his Dad. It helps to make sense of Joseph's reply.
Dear Jared,
The libels here, brother, are flowing from you. I understand your anger. I even understand that you think it righteous anger. But you're wrong.
The depth of your failure here is illustrated by your inability to do as I asked and provide chapter and verse where one would go to press charges against a chaplain who prudentially chose to pray an inclusive prayer.
Even non-chaplain TEs do this at civic events. Has there ever been even one presbytery to discipline on this basis?
Please give answers and quit blowing steam if you respond. My respect for your willingness to defend friends and brothers is not sufficient to make me accept bald assertions that fly in the face of facts.
Love in Christ,
David
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
I’ll assume, though you did respond, you did not see my citation of the obligations (#4) of Chaplains certified by the PRJC: http://pcamna.org/chaplain-ministries/chaplain-resources/prjc/prjccodeof...
Also see Larger Catechism Q 178, Q180, Q181, of which I am sure you are familiar.
Also, Libel is defamation by written words. I use the word because you are attacking the character and resolve of elders to do their duty in discipline without giving them a chance to act. If I defamed you, please cite and I will repent. I do not believe I have said anything ad hominem, but rebuked the actions and words of Tim and yourself especially in not giving elders the chance even to act or not act and in broadly labeling an entire group of people for the alleged actions of unnamed people on the witness of unnamed sources.
The proper course is to have your source be a witness along with others you may find against the people he told you about. First go to them. Then take it to the church if they do not listen. BCO 34 might help.
Dear Jared,
You suggest pressing charges on the basis of a code of ethics which nowhere mentions any vow to pray in the name of Jesus taken by chaplains. You're evading even as you call us sinners. No more. Give chapter and verse where a chaplain can be charged for refusing to pray in the name of Jesus or, please, no more commenting here.
You suggest this establishes your point:
4. To respect and uphold the ethical and constitutional right of other endorsers and their respective chaplains, to maintain and express their doctrinal distinctives and ecclesiological practices. At the same time we thereby do not agree or imply any willingness, overtly or covertly, to deny or otherwise suppress the free and appropriate expression of our own distinctives, of which offering prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is a case in point.
This simply and clearly says that chaplains will uphold the right of other chaplains to do in accordance with their faiths, and that they likewise hold themselves from from any pressure to suppress their own distinctives, including prayer in the name of Jesus. Nothing in it forbids self-censorship.
Love in Christ,
David
During my time in the Air Force (04-08) I had to seek shepherding and sound preaching off base because I never could find it within her walls. I believe that my two brothers (Marines) would say the same of their bases.
And, I don't particularly have anything against chaplains all together. I knew a great Chaplain once... my dad. But then again, in my life, he is the acception to the rule of being a faithful chaplain.
Mr. Jared Nelson is spitting tacks over David's statement that he doubts presbyteries would take action against military chaplains who avoid praying in the Name of Jesus. Yet when Missouri Presbytery acquitted Jeff Myers, here's the comment Mr. Nelson left on Jason Stellman's blog. It's the first comment under the announcement of Jeff's acquittal:
He mocks a judicatory of his own denomination? He trashes the men of Missouri Presbytery who conscientiously deliberated and acquitted Jeff? He dares to equate the Missouri Presbytery officers' acquittal of Jeff with Pope Zosimus's acquittal of that arch-heretic, Pelagius!
Of course I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek. Mr. Nelson's cynicism concerning Missouri Presbytery's deliberations is just a normal part of the give and take of theological debate and Mr. Nelson didn't mean to make a formal accusation against the officers of Missouri Presbytery for being connivers or fools.
Theological debate is an important form of church discipline. The goal of public discourse and rebuke is to lead men to reform their doctrine and practice so that charges don't have to be filed. It's the same with the church discipline done by faithful men in their work of preaching, teaching, and pastoral care.
Too, generalizations concerning group errors and motivations behind those errors fill the New Testament. They also fill the published works of our Reformed fathers.
Love,
I'm not intending to be a troll here, and will cease to post after this. I disagree with your reading of the obligations since praying in the name of Jesus is expressly cited as a distinctive a PCA Chaplain is held to.
But then a question on what I already cited as part of the vows of the Chaplain:
Would you not consider LC 180-181 (that I did cite) as part of the vows to the PCA Chaplain, as they are to vow to uphold the Westminster Standards? [Especially since it is stated as an obedience to his command]
Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.
Q. 181. Why are we to pray in the name of Christ?
A. The sinfulness of man, and his distance from God by reason thereof, being so great, as that we can have no access into his presence without a mediator; and there being none in heaven or earth appointed to, or fit for, that glorious work but Christ alone, we are to pray in no other name but his only.
Nice find. However the distinction seems to be missed between actions done and pre-judging that elders will neglect their vows. Hence my words "Name names to a presbytery and if they don't do anything, THEN shoot your mouth off."
Dear Jared,
Nice response. Point taken.
Love,
Dear Jared,
I might disagree with you, even strongly on the specifics of how to deal with such a situation, but you've conducted yourself honorably here. No thought of your being a troll, but respect from both Tim and me.
Love in Christ,
David
Add new comment