“ . . . no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.” (Report of the Complaint Review Committee, 62)
On January 8, 2011, Missouri Presbytery (MP) completed a Book of Church Order (BCO) 31-2 investigation of Federal Visionist TE Jeffrey Meyers and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt (and thus go to trial) in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification. On January 16, 2011, TEs Joseph Rollison and Jay Bennett complained against this action of MP. Today, MP convened and heard the report of its Complaint Review Committee (CRC) recommending that MP deny the complaint against the exoneration of TE Meyers. MP adopted the recommendations of its CRC.
The complaint alleged that MP had erred in four areas. They alleged that the presbytery had erred in its bias against the 29 signers of a letter that had originally requested the investigation; in its failure to properly weigh the evidence against TE Meyers; in its failure to address the concerns of the signers precisely; and in its failure to find a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance and justification.
You can read the full report here, but I will provide a brief summary of the CRC Report (CRCR) below.
Procedural Complaints
1. The first allegation was that MP had erred because they had already prejudged the case when they accused the signers of violating the 9th commandment. The complainants stated:
The investigation began in the context of accusing the signers of the Letter of Concern with violating the Ninth Commandment and stating, “The good name of TE Jeffrey Meyers has already been dishonored.” (CRCR, 5)
The CRC countered by saying that the concern was about process and not the allegations proper. They were concerned about the signers not having spoken with TE Meyers and with the publication of the Letter of Concern (LOC) on the internet. They wrote:
We regarded both of these flaws as profound and egregious, especially the latter. The LOC was published on the Internet right away, well before Missouri Presbytery was able to respond carefully to it. Many in our Presbytery interpreted that Internet “broadcast” as virtually making public accusations against a man who had not even been properly investigated, a clear violation of due process, and something the vast majority of our presbyters found appalling. (CRCR, 7)
Since the concern was process, this did not prevent MP from conducting a fair investigation. They had not prejudged the case itself.
2. The second allegation of error was that Missouri Presbytery, in spite of their insistence that the “full corpus of what a person has written and taught” should be considered, failed to adequately consider Meyers’ professed association with the Federal Vision movement. The CRC responded that they thought that this was guilt by association. They wrote:
Wholesale, blanket condemnations of movements are usually very inaccurate and therefore unjust. No church court of the PCA has condemned everything that every person associated the FV believes and teaches. (CRCR, 12, emphasis original)
Thus, the CRC did not feel that Meyers should be condemned simply for association with the Federal Vision movement.
On this same point, the complainants were also concerned that in spite of Meyers’ professed dependence on the controversial figure James Jordan, the Missouri Investigative Committee Report (MICR) did not even mention him once. This association was so close that Meyers wrote in his book, The Lord’s Service (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003), that “So deeply has James Jordan’s work affected my thought and life that I suspect many parts come perilously close to plagiarism.” The CRC responded as follows:
But should James Jordan’s positive influence on TE Meyers have been given as much weight as Meyers’ citation of men like O. Palmer Robertson, John Murray and Wilson Benton Jr.? We think not. . . . The burden of proof was on the complainants to demonstrate that James Jordan’s theology is so profoundly opposed to the Westminster Standards that merely claiming his influence should stimulate deep concern and investigation. In fact, complainants have demonstrated virtually nothing in regard to James Jordan. (CRCR, 15)
Thus, because the complainants had not demonstrated the heterodoxy of Mr. Jordan, the CRC did not feel stimulated to any “deep concern” over Mr. Jordan’s influence on Meyers.
3. For the sake of space, we shall skip over the third allegation of error and move on to the doctrinal complaints.
Doctrinal Complaints
1. The fourth allegation of error was that MP failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification.
a. In the area of covenant theology, the complainants were concerned that TE Meyers did deny the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards as evidenced by statements like the following:
I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that ‘merit’ had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole ‘system’ must be reworked. (CRCR, 29)
The CRC committee believed that those who held concerns about this statement evidenced a lack of charity:
Beginning broadly (and so also considering remarks contained in email extracts), it seems to the members of the CRC that TE Meyers is being read, once again, in a manner that violates the judgment of charity and the full measure of forbearance that has already been given expression in MICR II. (CRCR, 30)
As they stated elsewhere, they believed that Meyers had adequately affirmed his allegiance to the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards:
The MICR clearly attests to the fact that TE Meyers draws a distinction between the covenant before the fall and the covenant that comes after it, sometimes called the covenant of grace and expressed in various historically-conditioned covenantal arrangements (MICR, p. 9, lines 26-28). (CRCR, 25)
In regard to the specific statement by Meyers cited here, they felt satisfied with Meyers’ explanation of what he had overstated in the quote above:
I overstated my concerns with inflammatory language. That’s what I would change. The works/grace comment must be interpreted. I did not adequately explain to what I was referring. If you go back to my answers to the MICR on covenant and merit, I think you will see what I meant by this statement. It’s the overly “economic” view of the covenant of works that I have problems with. Obviously, there is a place for the biblical language of “works” verses “grace. (CRCR, 31)
Thus, with these and further qualifications, the CRC felt there was no reason to sustain the complaint.
b. In regard to the imputation of Christ’s merits, the CRC answered that while Meyers did not agree with the complainants’ understanding of the merit of Christ, Meyers was still orthodox on this point. They wrote:
Although he does not embrace the precise interpretation of the imputation of Christ’s merit held by the complainants, TE Meyers believes that the benefits of justification given to the elect (which include the favor of God and eternal life) are based solely on the righteousness of Christ, which is premised on the perfect obedience of Christ. In God’s forensic act of justification, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believing sinner. (CRCR, 40)
c. In regard to baptism, the complainants argued that Meyers believes that baptism is that which unites us to Christ. The CRC dealt with the following quotes from Meyers cited in the complaint:
“Baptism unites us to Christ and therefore makes us participate in the circumcision of Christ,” and, “Baptism unites us to Christ so that we can be said to have died and to have risen with him.” (CRCR, 41).
The CRC noted the following regarding these quotes:
Although complainants present the quotes accurately and seem to provide prima facie evidence of heterodoxy, the statements were not written in the context of instruction on the efficacy of baptism. (Ibid.).
They went on to quote Meyers as saying, “I was not suggesting that baptism and not faith unite us to Christ. Paul actually uses both in that passage” (Ibid.).
In addition, they asked Meyers about a Wrightsaid post, where Meyers stated that the Apostle Paul was converted when Ananias poured water on his head because “forgiveness of sins is attached to the action.” In that same post, he went on to say: “Normally God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism.” Here is how the CRC reported on their interaction with Meyers on this point:
Are you willing to accept our judgment that your statement, “Normally God forgive sins…in baptism” is too one-sided? If not, defend it; and if you are willing, how would you restate it?
TE Meyers answered:
“Yes, it is too categorical and needs qualification. But I’m not willing to restate it because, as I said in my answer to the last question, I’m not confident I can formulate a slogan that will express in the abstract, apart from concrete circumstances, exactly how God uses baptism in every situation.” (CRCR, 44)
MP felt satisfied with this explanation and denied the complaint.
d. In regard to perseverance, the CRC contended that Meyers had already answered the questions regard the perseverance of the saints thoroughly. They cited at two different points the following quotation:
The reprobate apostate does not lose eternal salvation, regeneration, justification, and a vital union with Christ by saving faith; rather, he loses many gracious gifts as well as a covenanted connection with Christ and his people in the church. I believe what I have written here is consistent with both the JFVP and the Westminster Standards. (JJM Response, p. 80, lines 3-6). (CRCR, 47)
They felt satisfied that there was no heterodoxy in Meyers’ statement and wrote:
When TE Meyers insists, as he did with the MIC, that he does not believe that people move in and out of a saving relationship with God, that only the elect enjoy the intimacy of a genuinely forgiven child with his or her Father; when he insists that he does not believe in or teach some kind of “parallel soteriology” that the reprobate might enjoy alongside the elect for a time, but then lose—the only charitable way of taking Meyers’ language that God draws sinners up into the “covenantal life” of Christ, is to put an orthodox interpretation on it, to wit, that any real spiritual benefit the reprobate might enjoy by being “in” the covenant community of the church is rooted in the very presence there of the triune God and his divine life that imbues, fills, and empowers Christ’s people for loving and for living lives of righteousness. There is nothing heretical about that at all. (CRCR, 47)
Thus, MP defended Meyers’ orthodoxy on this point.
e. In the matter of justification, the concern was that TE Meyers had stated that loyalty was a way of fleshing out the trust element in faith, thereby complicating the instrument of justification. Here is how the CRC summarized some of their interaction with Meyers on this point:
And, are you prepared to acknowledge that “personally loyal” as a description of justifying faith may—at least in some quarters—have obscured as much of the true meaning of the JFVP affirmation/denial as you had hoped it would express?
TE Meyers’ Answer:
“Yes. This all strikes me as a discussion that skates perilously close to violating Paul’s warning against quarreling about words (2 Timothy 2:14). I have made my convictions about justification explicit in my carefully-worded answers to the MIC. I have stated that I have no reservations about what the Westminster Standards say about the doctrine of justification. I am sorry that the way I’ve used the words “loyal” and “loyalty” have led to such confusion. It was not my intention to subvert the doctrine of justification by Christ alone through faith alone with my informal use of terms regarding covenant loyalty and faithfulness.” (CRCR, 56)
With this, the committee felt satisfied.
Conclusion
The committee concluded by stating that this was primarily a matter of allowing two acceptable interpretations of the Westminster Standards to exist side by side in the denomination:
We believe it is crucial for the Presbytery to take full account of the long history of difference and debate within orthodox Reformed circles on the very issues raised in this controversy–differences going all the way back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Complainants, as well as the 29 signers of the original letter of concern, would have us believe that nothing less is at stake than the doctrinal integrity of our church, that the central and most precious truths of Scripture are being compromised by allowing TE Meyers to remain a minister in good standing among us. The committee rejects this conclusion most emphatically. It is true that at times TE Meyers has been too polemical and too one-sided in his theological formulations, but he has acknowledged and confessed as much, and we are convinced he has matured theologically. But we believe that this controversy over his views and teaching is, essentially, a re-presentation of old intramural disputes within the Reformed camp and must be seen—and relativized—as such. In other words, we believe that no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others. That was the judgment as well of the Missouri Presbytery’s 2006 report on Federal Vision. (CRCR, 62, emphasis original)
In denying the complaint, the members of the CRC see themselves as maintaining the peace of the church by not allowing one school of interpretation of the Standards to take dominance over the other. In this way, they believe they are promoting the purity and unity of the church by maintaining the Confession and allowing the diversity of views that, according to them, have traditionally been allowed by presbyterians.
Tags: exoneration, Federal Vision, Jeffrey Meyers, Joint Federal Vision Profession, Missouri Presbytery
Interesting. I didn’t realize the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was a “disputed issue” within Evangelicalism, much less within the PCA.
Just a few random James Jordan quotes for the Missouri Presbytery to peruse:
“Oh, it’s true enough: We depart from the whole Reformation tradition at certain pretty basic points. It’s no good pretending otherwise. I think the PCA is perfectly within its rights to say no to all BH types. We are NOT traditional presbyterians. The PCA suffers us within itself, but we are poison to traditional presbyterianism.”
“The basic means for dealing tyrants in Genesis, and in the rest of Scripture, is through deception. The reason for this goes back to the garden. The serpent tricked Eve through deception (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14) while Adam stood by and failed to protect her. Accordingly, a theme emerges later in Scripture wherein the serpent attacks the bride and the husband must attempt to protect her. In each case it is the intention of the serpent to use the bride to raise up his own seed. In each case deception is used against the serpent as God acts to protect the bride.”
“We also don’t like the rationalism of the “grammatical historical method” (a good way of weeding out about 95% of what the text means).
“Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. The hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is worth fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian [sic] blogs hate it.”
Another one worth pondering from Jimmy Jo:
“The question of why FV mean don’t leave the PCA has another aspect. Mr. Webb and others here assume that THEY speak for the majority of the PCA. That is far from demonstrable. The fact that in a few presbyteries the bullies have gotten false statements about the FV passed, and the fact that the GA was hoodwinked into the doing the same, does not prove that the PCA is in fact hostile to what the FV actually stands for. It’s entirely possible that the antinomians and two-kingdom haters of Jesus’ kingship are the minority in the PCA, and that the FV represents the majority.”
Thanks for keeping us up to date, Wes. I’m shocked, shocked, to find gambling going on in here!
We all knew that this was going to be a replay of the LAP/Wilkins fiasco. MOP has so much invested in their defense of Meyers over the years, did anyone think the result would be any different? Now it’s on to the SJC for adult supervision…
“I was not suggesting that baptism and not faith unite us to Christ. Paul actually uses both in that passage”
This statement does not deny the position that faith *and* [water] baptism unite us to Christ or that faith through the instrument of baptism unites us, etc.
This is not clarity at all.
To distinguish well is to think well. Fuzzy thinking [writing, talking, ...] is the bane of good theology.
It occurs to me that there is a substantial issue of polity here.
The Missouri Presbytery seems to be saying that the FV is a permissible version of the Reformed faith, and therefore it should not be excluded from the PCA.
The General Assembly has said that it is not a permissible version of the Reformed faith and that presbyteries should oversee their ministers in this area.
It seems, at least on the surface, that the Missouri Presbytery is defying the express will of the General Assembly.
Am I mistaken in thinking that is highly irregular?
The PCA needs to be careful that we do not lose one of the three marks of a true church.
I want to savor the entire document and grok it in its fullness before commenting further in order to be as charitable as possible until forced to do otherwise. I kind of got a little teary and distracted reading about the poor little younger brother’s birthday party incident. Sad. Very sad. Almost as sad as a group of elders who refuse to see what is plainly before them.
RM, Captain Renault’s immortal words from “Casablanca” were the first to come to my mind as well. PNW will likely do the same with Leithart. I suppose it will be up to the SJC eventually. How will the “Coffin Doctrine” serve us there?
Brian,
Please see page 62, lines 29-33 of the CRC report in reference to your earlier note about polity.
Blessing to you and your family,
A Concerned Presbyter
MP:
“In other words, we believe that no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.”
AA:
“Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.”
Brad,
I believe all three marks are ultimately at stake when the broader issues are examined.
Kindest Regards,
Brian
Concerned Presbyter,
I do not see how the distinction they attempt to draw is at all helpful or valid. TE Meyers is one of the architects of a chief pillar in the Federal Vision movement, namely their theology of Covenant Renewal worship. He is a signatory of the Joint Federal Vision Profession. A profession is just that. It is a manifesto. It declares to the world, “Credo… I believe.” he is on the record as saying some very disturbing things about traditional Reformed theology, and particularly the expression of it found in the PCA.
The statement you referenced in the report is like saying that “we may judge Engels’ political views charitably, though in doing so one is in no way saying anything positive about Communism. Regrettably, however, some (Ninth Commandment breakers) will conclude otherwise.”
As my dear departed Grandmother would say, “That dog don’t hunt.”
Brian, I think you’re right on in your reply to CP but not exact enough. A closer analogy would be the following:
1. We do not believe in blanket condemnations of movements such as communism.
2. We have no “deep concern” over Engels’ association with Marx.
3. The issues raised by Engels in the Communist Manifesto are not such that we should be alarmed about.
4. Our study report on communism stated that it was not something to be concerned about.
5. Sadly, some will interpret this as a statement about communism.
Towne,
I’m assuming that AA stands for the Auburn Avenue Declaration and not Alcoholics Anonymous. Correct?
-B
That would be correct, Rev. Carpenter. I did not mean to be obscure.
But with due respect to the gentle brothers of the presbytery, I find I cannot avoid the comparison.
Towne,
the comparison with the accidental drunks or the purposeful heretics?
I expected no less, yet am still disappointed.
Pastor White,
That was an excellent analysis by analogy of the actual meaning of the CRC disclaimer in the conclusion. In all charity toward CTC, it was a pretty good try at something that is very difficult to maintain with any credibility, as you demonstrated. It is a combination of tactics which have become familiar: 1) The movement is not monolithic. 2) Our guy does not believe *all* of the things held by *all* of the people in the movement, so 3) we may dismiss with a Guilt-by-Association charge every attempt to hold our guy accountable for the propagation of those beliefs.
In contrast to your analysis, the CRC”s appeal to emotion in their birthday party analogy on page 7 lines10-22, the one that tugs at my flinty little heartstrings even until this morning, is way off the mark. It does not “illuminate the point” that MOP’s 9th accusation against the signatories of the LOC was about Matthew 18 process (presumably) and cannot, therefore, be linked to MOP’s ability to consider the actual substance of the complaint. It does, however, obscure (purposefully?) the issue and minimize the MOP’s culpability for a false accusation against the signatories.
1) Jeffrey Meyers makes public statements openly on the internet, among other places. Birthday Younger Brother allegedly stole from the neighbor, presumably covertly and in a way that the Birthday Party witnesses could not see, and, therefore they could not verify the allegation for themselves. Analogy Fail.
2) Some LOC signatories publish Jeffrey Meyers’ own public statements and say they are out of conformity with WS and Scripture. The statements and the means to evaluate both the statements by JJM and the signatories are available to all. Birthday Older Brother “blurts out” a public allegation of misconduct by BYB “in front of all his friends” at BYB’s party, and the alleged misconduct was not available for the Birthday Party Guests to either observe or analyze. Analogy Fail.
Appeal to emotion and attempt at distraction/deflection: Success
Attempt at persuasive and accurate analogy? Fail
FTA: “ . . . no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.”
1. Just because a debate is historical doesn’t mean all sides can be considered orthodox. See Arius.
2. Orthodox is by definition the established and accepted faith. An orthodox position defines all the opposing positions as heterodox.
3. MOP was not asked to determine if FV is outside the bounds of orthodoxy. That has already been done. See PCA report on FV/NPP. (Yes, I know that all of the FV/NPP guys disagree with the interpretation of their views in that report.)
4. MOP was charged with determining if TE Meyers views conformed to the established and accepted standards that we as a denomination have vowed to “receive and adopt.” See PCA BCO 21-5 : Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?
Breaking News:
Water is still wet…
Or, foregone conclusion reached at length of 123 pages.
The truth is we have a rogue, rebellious presbytery, one that has shown itself out of accord with the mind of the General Assembly expressed in 2007.
More fundamentally, we have an entire presbytery that does not understand salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
That our denominational seminary sits right in the heart of it does not pass unnoticed.
Pastor Carpenter,
You are not being fair to James B. Jordan by selectively quoting him. You should include the *entire* corpus of his work, a corpus which is not insubstantial. I think that if you did, you would find that his theology, when considered in its entirety, is hermeneutically sealed from the text of Scripture…
…which is why the Jordan acolytes, fanboys, and apologists (like JJM and others in the PCA and elsewhere) are so dangerous. I find it curious that elders in MOP, a presbytery in a denomination whose very existence is owed to concern for fidelity to Scripture and the WS, are not alarmed by Jordan’s considerable influence over some TEs in that denomination.
Rachel, in the future, please refrain from being reasonable. These are church matters we are discussing. ;o)
Eileen,
Just because a man is standing in the schoolyard knifing young children as they pass, please do not infer that he is a murderer.
After all, we know this man, and he works with us. We know he’s a good man. Be careful, you are treading on 9th commandment ground here.
Rachel,
You really need to understand that polemics, antithesis and mutual exclusivity are neither winsome nor incarnational. You are therefore in violation of the new orthodoxy.
Sean,
And not only that but the Great Commandment, the Law of Love, and are guilty of being insufficiently missional.
The penance is to attend two art gallery openings, buying fair trade coffee, listening to Sufjan Stephens, and taking a wine tasting course, saying nothing in the process, but being an incarnational presence.
Yes, yes, I know. And if I must not have really read what all of these guys have written because if I had I would agree, I’m sure. I obviously just misunderstand.
9th dude~ that’s one harsh penance.
It might be encouraging (or not?) to know in at least general terms what percentage of MP presbyters may have dissented from this ecclesiastical twaddle. Anybody know?
Hi Phil, my sources tell me that the vote was overwhelming, maybe something like 60-3, but I do not think there was an official count.
This is a bit of a tangent, but Rachel’s and Towne’s comments brought it to mind.
Some of the FV guys have apparently said, “If the PCA’s report is a description of what Federal Vision is, then nobody is Federal Vision.”
Interestingly enough, I read a theological liberal saying almost exactly that in Hart’s biography of Machen. If Machen’s description of liberalism in Christianity and Liberalism is accurate, then there are no liberals.”
On p. 79 of my edition I find the following quote:
“It is no surprise that liberal Protestants did not react as favorably. Presbyterians responded first and labeled Machen’s charges slanderous. William P. Merrill, the popular pastor of New York’s Old Brick Presbyterian Church, asserted that if liberalism were as “deadly and pernicious” as Machen claimed, most modernists would line up with the conservatives. A reviewer for the Presbyterian Advance wrote that, according to Machen’s definition of liberalism the church contained “no liberals.” Meanwhile, Nolan R. Best, editor of The Continent, accused Machen of impeaching the “sincerity of the evangelical postion” occupied by “admittedly progressive Presbyterians.” Had Machen been more judicious in his description of liberalism, Best wrote, he might have gained respect. But the book was “so totally lacking in the fundamental element of fidelity to the facts” that it was “simply an offense against the ninth commandment.” Gerald Birney Smith, the reviewer for the Journal of Religion, spoke for many liberals when he compared Machen’s tactics to those of the pope.”
As Mark Twain said, history may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
If only you had gone to Bi-Frost, Rachel, you’d understand the glories of the gospel include having just the right acoustics and archicture.
Yes, our ancestors worshipped in catacombs and barns, but that doesn’t mean we have to. We must conclude that they did not really worship, although we may presume they used acoustic instrumentation –very Clapton-esque.
Now, I’m off to set some obscure Toplady lyrics to the tune of “Layla…”
um that should be acoustics and ARCHITECTURE.
I guess I should leave my wine-tasting till after lunch.
9th Dude,
Are you sure that the guy with the knife is responsible for all the blood? Maybe the kids are bleeding out because, I dunno, they fell from the monkey bars across his knife. Isn’t that a possibility? I think it is possible, and therefore you should keep that possibility, with suitable charity, in mind until forced to do otherwise.
Really harsh sentence on Rachel. Cruel and unusual.
Pastor Carpenter,
History not only rhymes, if you are FV, you can chant it metrically. And you should chant metrically , according to Chief Musician James B. Jordan (PBUH.)
Are we sure it’s blood?
I mean, it could very well be ketchup.
Or fake vampire blood left over from Halloween.
All in all, quite harmless. Please continue to look the other way.
After all, Anne Rice has blood in her books and we all know she’s a Christian. So, the knife-wielder is just like Anne Rice. Or maybe more like Stephanie Meyer. We all know that the gore genre is big enough to include both Rice and Meyer. That’s the acceptable range. We know this because we said so.
How many dissenters? I was there and I will guess two.
In my opinion, and we all know about opinions, most of you commenting come across rather childless. I’m not saying you are childless, mind you. But your comments appear that way.
Well, I can assure you that I’m not childless, Les.:)
Thank you for the verification of the guess.
Childless? O, you mean CHILDISH. Gotcha.
Well, the whole thing is absurd perhaps we need to laugh so that we don’t cry.
Or, perhaps its a bit like Elijah having some fun at the expense of Baal’s prophets. We know our God will win out at the last, and we are looking forward to seeing how he might do that.
Following up on Rachel’s observations on the gem quoted at the top of the article ‘“ . . . no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.” (Report of the Complaint Review Committee, 62)’, a couple of points.
1) just because apples may be green or yellow or red does not mean that oranges either are or ever can be apples.
2) just because the AKC recognizes that poodles and rottweilers and golden retrievers, despite their evident differences, are acceptable breeds according to recognized standards does not mean that labradoodles and wolves are as well. And it does not mean that the difference between labradoodles and the recognized breeds of canis familiaris is the same as the difference between any breed of canis lupus and your family pet, whether it is a labradoodle or a recognized breed.
But the smoke blowing about is colorful and distracting…
Les,
Thank you for providing an estimate of the number of dissenters. Would you like to refute some of the actual points made in the comments here and elsewhere, or is your characterization of them as “childless” sufficient in your view?
Just for the record, I’m not childless. I was there and unimpaired by drugs each and every time.
Brian, you nailed it. The similarities between the mid-20′s and the first two decades of our own century are startling though we lack a Machen. I appreciate Hart and Horton a great deal, but it is sad that the “great men” of the PCA seem to lack the fortitude to fight this battle vigorously.
[...] this post for an analysis by Wes of the issues that have arisen between the complaint and the response to the [...]
1. In layman’s terms, what is the next step in the process? And how long does this next step usually last?
2. Is a presbytery voting record available to public? Or is it improper for non-presbytery attendees who may attend churches under the presbytery’s oversight to have this information?
Thanks!
And need I state that the PCA’s two biggest stars coddle/encourage/promote/tolerate/shelter FV men? Read Hart’s and Trueman’s recent comments on our celebvangelical culture and our problems become easier to understand.
Brad,
It has not gone unnoticed that some of our “leading lights” are remarkably silent. But then again, these debates are career-killers, so I suppose it’s not terribly surprising.
“While it is true that Missouri Presbytery criticized the way the 29 signers of the LOC formed, brought and published allegations against TE Meyers at two crucial points, it is not the case that criticizing a party’s process by which it brings allegations against someone necessarily implies a prejudice that will make objectivity impossible in a detailed and careful evaluation of the content of those allegations. To use a mundane and non-ecclesiastical analogy that, nevertheless, illuminates the point: A son runs to his mother with the claim that his younger brother has stolen something from a neighbor’s house. But he blurts out this allegation against his younger brother in the middle of the latter’s birthday party in front of all his friends. If, before investigating the allegation, the mother takes the accusing son aside and chides him for making the accusation in public rather than bringing it to her in private, does that count as evidence that she is prejudiced or biased against his claim that his younger brother has stolen something? No; that accusation would be a non sequitur—it simply does not follow.”
Big difference between acting a bit childish on a blog and acting childish in the courts of the Presbyerian church. The above is embarrassing and childish reasoning. Are they not capable of seeing that Meyers errors are public and correcting him must be done in public?
@9th,
How could I forget Missional! I don’t wanna know my penance
@Les,
Really?!, you’re going to call us out for a touch of snarkiness in a combox , while MOP winks at obfuscation, dishonest brokering and reformulation of Sola Fide?! There’s a lot of sober, intensive material out there on the FV phenomenon, including Guy Water’s, NAPARC judgements, SJC findings, etc.. which most of the commenters here have familiarized themselves with, besides just sensible, catechetically derived intuitive expressions of; “huh?!, he’s saying what?!” I personally find no good argument for devaluing people’s ability to “take temperature” and “sniff out” bad food being doled out as wholesome orthodox diet, it’s the very reason we catechize.
Wow…Something like 2 or 3 dissenters out of sixty or so. Looks like I’ll have to go with my “not” option…
So now I have another question. Does anyone know how to begin investigating a possible transfer of a church’s affiliation to a different (non-PCA) NAPARC denomination?
Not to mention that one of the most vocal and noxious FV advocates has written ad nauseum on his blog about the merits of….
Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
In case anyone was having trouble following the “childless” sarcasm.
Sean,
Not to mention Palmer Robertson’s (irony of ironies) book on the Shepherd affair at Westminster.
I wish he would take Meyers to the woodshed on this. Perhaps he will. I don’t agree with all of Palmer’s covenant view, but it’s egregious for Jeff to seek cover under his pinions.
Childish for sure was intended. Neither am I childless.
9th: laugh not to cry and Elijah response was totally expected.
Eileen: “Would you like to refute some of the actual points made in the comments here and elsewhere, or is your characterization of them as “childless” sufficient in your view?”
No, I prefer to let you all have your back and forth while the church courts work it out.
Who are the PCA’s two biggest “stars”, and who are the PCA’s “leading lights’?
Regarding my earlier question #2, I meant voting record of the commitee, not presbytery. Sorry.
Ah, the relative maturity of the drive-by blog commenter.
9th dude, great confirmation that my earlier comment was spot on.
Yes, Les, so glad you came here to display to all of us your “I follow Christ, whilst you all follow Paul, Cephas or Apollos” wisdom.
Your comments can be summed up thusly: “You all are stupid and unrighteous, unlike me. I will not, however, deign to show you where you may be wrong because you simply are not worth my time…”
Except, of course, the time to make snide, snarky comments.
The truth is –the time for sarcasm has come. This presbytery decision deserves to be mocked and derided as the overblown, noxious puffery that it is.
9th dude, I’ll try to make this my last comment. I surely did not intend to get into a back and forth with you or anyone else here.
Your last comments about me demonstrate well at least part of the problem here. On surely more than one occasion you and others appear to be able to read into hearts and motives. At least your comments display that.
Most recent example is your comment about me, “Your comments can be summed up thusly: “You all are stupid and unrighteous, unlike me. I will not, however, deign to show you where you may be wrong because you simply are not worth my time…”
I think that speaks for itself.
I have to say that I agree somewhat with Les. I would love to see some more helpful conversation on the matters raised in the report and my article on the report.
Turretinfan has given us an excellent example of the sorts of problems that can be found in the report here.
I think we can summarize what Turretinfan is describing here as a sort of ecclesiastical bumper bowling. MOP has made sure that Meyers’ bowling ball will never go in the gutters by placing bumpers in them. A very good example of this is found on pp. 56–61.
Les,
It surely does.
Brad,
What is the “Coffin Doctrine?” Sounds morbid.
Thanks,
TurturroFan
I read what TF has written on his blog. The portion he quotes regarding Meyers’ view on “union with Christ” makes me feel like we are speaking different languages. I have had FV supporters upset with me because I suggested we were using the same terms but using different meanings. That conclusion seems inescapable, however.
Meyers says:
Considering he has written that “if he’s been baptized, he’s a Christian,” then, his statement reads that all who have been baptized are “members of his body.” Is this consistent with the WCF? Or am I misreading? (These are honest questions.)
The Coffin doctrine (named after the ubiquitous GA delegate and Virginia pastor cum polity expert David Coffin) is that if one’s statements can be read as orthodox, then charity demands they should be read as orthodox.
That standard fails, however. It only works with the light of history and practically guarantees that no new teaching will ever be ruled out of bounds again.
For instance: could not Arius’ doctrine of Christ be read charitably and in an orthodox manner? Christ surely is, in some senses, similar and yet different from the Father. The problem is in WHAT senses he is similar and different, and there’s the rub.
Examples from church history could be multiplied. Likewise, some have said that teachings can be viewed as heretical only if the whole church rules they are heretical. Friends, that historical day has passed. The whole church will never rule anything heretical again, for the simple fact the whole church is fragmented now, and major portions of it are dead in apostasy.
All error is subtle. Coffin’s rule treats it as if it, rather, were always egregious, and, if we hold this view going forward, we can look forward to far more false teaching in our midst in the future.
Another thought occurred to me. Here are the lists of the men on the original committee and the CRC:
Original: TE Bob Burns, TE Stephen Estock (co-chair), TE Ryan Laughlin, TE Ron Lutjens (ex officio), TE Mark Ryan, TE Andrew VanderMaas (co-chair), RE Franz “Jay” Wippold (Kirk of the Hills PC), and RE David Yates (Covenant PC).
CRC: REs George Poland and Charles Waldron, and TEs Stephen Estock, Solomon Kendagor, Ron Lutjens (chair), Chris Polski and Mark Ryan.
Is there any conflict of interest in having men from the original committee on the CRC? Especially given the complaint was against how the original committee handled the first investigation?
Do these people not know what the word “Presbyterian” means?
I just got done writing a letter to the session and diaconate of my church in Missouri, where I and several others were quite insistent on not joining the PCA because of what we would have had to deal with in the Missouri Presbytery. We were just a few weeks ago received into the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church instead of the PCA — yes, I know the ARPs have their own problems, but not these problems, and they wouldn’t be things we’ll have to deal with in our own presbytery.
Here are the key points of my letter, deleting some local things that aren’t relevant:
This presbytery decision is wrong on several different levels.
If Rev. Meyers is an advocate of the Federal Vision theology, and if the Federal Vision theology is wrong, that’s bad enough. However, presbyteries and general assemblies do make mistakes, and it’s possible that either Rev. Meyers isn’t guilty of what he’s accused of, or perhaps the General Assembly was wrong is condemning the Federal Vision.
That, however, is not all the presbytery said.
What is even worse — much worse, frankly — is that the presbytery which includes Covenant Theological Seminary, the official PCA seminary, is openly declaring that the General Assembly report on the Federal Vision theology is wrong and are declaring that these views have been part of the Reformed tradition since the Reformation, all without overturing the General Assembly to change its decision and pointing out from the Bible why the GA is wrong.
First, the PCA report is not an aberration. It’s the standard position of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council, and of nearly all NAPARC member denominations — even the United Reformed Churches, which have a long history of tolerating the theology of Klaas Schilder, a Dutch Reformed church leader who is cited by Rev. Norman Shepherd and other Federal Visionists as one of their theological forebears.
Second, it’s dangerous because having one PCA presbytery essentially decide to ignore the General Assembly makes mincemeat out of presbyterianism. That opens the door to tremendously worse problems than the Federal Vision.
This may sound strange coming from a person like me, a Congregationalist who cannot sign the Westminster Confession of Faith because of its position on church government. However, I have more respect for an honest Baptist who joins a Baptist church and demands everyone in his church be baptized as believers or for an honest Presbyterian who enforces Presbyterian chruch government than I do for an entire presbytery which decides to act like congregationalists while still claiming to believe in presbyterian church government.
What else will the PCA tolerate if one particularly powerful presbytery can ignore the general assembly and defend one of its ministers with no consequences?
In fact, this PCA presbytery decision is not historic Congregationalism; it’s perverted independency advocated by people who want their subscription oaths to mean nothing. Congregationalism believes in mutual accountability to a written standard; these people either want no accountability at all or they want accountability only in the form of “we’ll be nice to our friends and isolate people who don’t play nice with us.”
If you’re going to swear an oath before God that you believe something, take that oath with all the seriousness God demands or don’t take it at all. What the PCA’s Missouri Presbytery is doing goes beyond bad theology. It’s outright violation of the most basic principles of presbyterian church government, and the PCA would be better off if these people — a number of whom are involved with Covenant Seminary — decided to stop calling themselves Presbyterians and left, either for the CERC (Federal Vision) denomination or to openly become the independent Bible churches that they act like most of the time anyway.
This piece saddens me deeply. I was the only OP student all three years I spent at RTS (the only campus in those days) and nearly all my friends were PCA, as were my professors (I even had a student pastorate in a PCA congregation.)
But the words from the MP are the same kind of words I read and heard when I served my first church: a congregation of a mainline (i.e. apostate) denomination.
I know that there are many good ministers and fine congregations in the PCA. But I fear for what the PCA will be in another 20-30 years. If those who really believe the Westminster Standards don’t take back the church now, then Warfield’s words to Machen about the PCUSA will apply in my life time: you can’t split rotten wood.
His 9thness has accurately portrayed the Coffin Doctrine. The PCA big “stars” have names that rhyme with Jim Zeller and Ryan Apple.
“The Coffin doctrine (named after the ubiquitous GA delegate and Virginia pastor cum polity expert David Coffin) is that if one’s statements can be read as orthodox, then charity demands they should be read as orthodox.”
Pleas take out your Bible and make the following correction. It should now read, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in wolves clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. “
On that quote from “AA” and the followup: “assuming that AA stands for the Auburn Avenue Declaration ”
Not that’s not correct. AA is not Auburn Avenue, it has to stand for the Auburn Affirmation of 1924. Note the reference within the quote to 1923. In 1923 the old northern PCUSA had singled out 5 historic truths of orthodox Christianity (Inerrancy of Scriptures – virgin birth/deity of Jesus – doctrine of substitutionary atonement – bodily resurrection of Jesus – authenticity of Christ’s miracles) as necessary doctrinal commitments for office.
The Auburn Affirmation argued against this approach by the GA, procedurally it was a form of adding to the standards; but theologically they stated that the meaning or interpretation of those 5 points was open to a variety of views. They used the term “particular theories”. One can affirm that “Christ is risen” without having to buy into the particular theory that his physical body was reanimated, stepped out of the tomb and was eventually received into heaven.
By extension, anything in Scripture or Westminster Stds is open to multiple views or interpretations. When none of the authors or signers of the Auburn Affirmation were investigated it was the theological death knell of that body. Some parts of that body died much sooner than others, but dead it was, nonetheless.
This lesson from the 1920′s (and 30′s) and that first Auburn needs to be understood. The statement of the CRCR from the MoP is the exact same thing. As such, the confessional orthodoxy of the CRCR party is compromised.
-=Cris=-
RE in an Overly Precise Church
Ah, that humorous signature should have read Orthodoxy Precise Church. But self-deprecating humor can leave it as Overly Precise Church…
“Obviously, there is a place for the biblical language of “works” verses “grace.”
Yes, that is obvious (Rom. 11:6). But what is not obvious is what he means by “works” vs. “grace”.
Further, we have confessional language for a reason. To use non-confessional language at the expense of the confessional language is a problem. It obscures issues. As does using confessional language with different content.
I am one of the complaintants, and I’m asking that y’all tone it down just a bit! The question is about the actions of MOP–whether they erred or not. We do not need to get into questions of motives of the men involved, “stars” in the PCA (who are not members of MOP), or even the “stance” of CTS which is geographically in MOP but not actually part of MOP (only a few profs are members of MOP).
MOP has acted honorably in this process. For instance, I argued against the original report, but I did not write the complaint, and so I was invited to be part of the Complaint Response Committee–because they thought it would be good to have an opposing voice on it. Instead, I joined the complaint itself. The men on the CRC who were also on the original Cmte, were in different roles, and so there was no conflict.
All I’m saying is to please keep the focus on the issues, facts, exegesis, and history, etc. Let’s keep the attacks on motives, etc out of it. The things you say here in the safety of cyberspace cause real-world issues for those of us actually in the contest.
Cris–I’m shocked! I thought OPC meant Only Perfect Church.
Cris is quite correct, and my apologies again for not having been clear from the start. I was indeed referencing the Auburn Affirmation. For those who might care to read it for themselves, the Overly Precise Church web site kindly provides the text:
http://www.opc.org/cce/AuburnAf.html
It was late and weariness had effect when I answered Rev. Carpenter without closely reading his reply.
On review now, I presume he was trying to be humorous. Is that not what we are supposed to do these days, presume the best?
Sean, thanks for your good work on this case. My reference to “stars” came in the context of comparisons of the present crisis (and that’s what it is) to the Presbyterian controversy of the 20′s and 30′s. Then, as now, attachment to personalities and a desire to get along/stay together/grow at all costs tilted the issue against the confessional baddies. I do not imply that outside influences were at work in the MoP case. I can well understand the dynamic at work there. Few people enjoy controversy or calling out their friends.
I think another sports analogy might be appropriate here.
The committee basically summarized TE Meyers’ statements back to him, but omitted several of his own qualifications, all of which were causes of concern. They then turned and asked him, “are these statements overly broad?”
To which he replied, “Yes.”
It’s sort of like moving the goalposts to wherever the ball happens to be and then raising both hands in the air and saying “Goal!” It doesn’t get at the issues.
I’ll write more later, but I’ve got a catalytic converter to install before it starts snowing again.
Les,
Let me make sure you have set up your straw man into his full upright and locked position. You complain about the childishness of those commenting/lamenting here and, when challenged to refute the substantive remarks, you simply dismiss them with, “No, I prefer to let you all have your back and forth while the church courts work it out.”
Is someone here suggesting the matter should be decided otherwise? Did anyone here really think this would end anywhere else than in the lap of the SJC? Expressing one’s disappointment with a ruling of a church court does not mean that one thinks that the church courts are not the place for these matters to be *decided.* Many of us also believe *at the same time* that there are many proper venues, including this one, where these matters may be *discussed* with some vigor and according to the models in Scripture. I don’t believe we have crossed any Biblical boundaries, but if you would care to cite one, I eagerly await the correction.
Deciding is not the same thing as Discussing or even Disagreeing Strongly. All of them deserve more consideration than a Drive-by Dismissal like yours. If you want your complaint to be taken seriously, then offer a serious rebuttal. If you just want everyone to sit down and shut up, then, by all means please just be forthright and say so. Honestly, I won’t complain about your tone if you choose to do so.
Towne et al,
The lateness of the hour fiddled me too. I meant Auburn Affirmation too. Auburn Avenue was a freudian slip I guess. The word auburn does have something of a checkered past in presbyterianism, doesn’t it?
Pastor Carpenter,
Precisely. In the business world, the question would effectively be, “What price does it need to be to get you to buy?” Same principle.
Or, those of us with a certain number of years on us remember the immortal response of of Maxwell Smart which are seared, seared into our collective memory: “Would you believe….?”
All,
I’m still reading the report. Has anyone found the part where MOP discusses the importance of elders protecting the flock relative to the importance of elders protecting the reputation of one of their own? Just wondering, because it seems to me from what I have seen in Scripture that MOP has it backward and is more interested in protecting their own. However, again, I’m willing to be corrected from Scripture on this pretty important point. I’m not particularly interested in Miss Manners’ Commentary on the topic.
It is evident from MOP’s decision to reject the complaint against Meyers that it constitutes a rogue presbytery in the PCA that should be dealt with.
Samuel Miller was acutely aware that Presbyterians must never tolerate rogue presbyteries to assault our Confessional integrity. He said:
If even a single subordinate part, or judicatory, does not believe, and refuses to act, in accordance with the rest, it is plain that the beauty, the purity, and even the safety of the whole, may be invaded by that one. And if a few more parts become erratic and impure, their influence may soon become, not merely unhappy, but fatal.
Let this course be pursued, and it is plain that no long time would be requisite to inoculate the whole church with the views of this single Presbytery, and that all faithful adherence to our public formularies would be at an end.
The question that now remains is whether the General Assembly of the PCA has the fortitude of character to discipline one of its rogue presbyteries. It is quite obvious that MOP’s decision is conflicting with the 2007 GA report on the Federal Vision.
Unless one takes assaults against the purity of the church seriously, then all hope is lost for the denomination.
MOP-”the long history of difference and debate within orthodox Reformed circles on the very issues raised in this controversy–differences going all the way back to the 16th and 17th centuries.”
So, if we take MOP literally we have in our standards parallel schemes of Baptism, Justification, Saving faith and a bi-covenantal scheme that though employing the terms works and grace upon further investigation hold no substantive difference apart from spelling and certainly not enough to maintain anything like a law/gospel contrast.
Hi Rachel,
I haven’t found that section, which seems to me would be a rather important issue to discuss in this kind of presbytery report. I haven’t finished reading the entire report, and I thought I had either overlooked it or that perhaps it was in a later portion.
If anyone can find the discussion of that issue anywhere in the documents, please provide the relevant pages and lines for us.
Pastor Otis,
I believe you are right. This may end the way the Missouri Compromise ultimately did. Systems which are fundamentally irreconcilable cannot coexist forever in either a country or a denomination. But this is not news, unfortunately.
Big surprise.
I confess, I haven’t the stomach yet to actually read Wes’ entire post, much less the replies as I just got back from an wonderful camping trip down in Ocracoke, NC (haven’t actually camped since the kid were little, but miles of empty beaches were reason enough to try it again). Plus, I just learned a good friend in the Lord went home while we were away.
But, let’s remember the ones who exonerated Meyers (now twice) are the same ones who are right now busy instructing future PCA pastors and theologians at Covenant. I’d say the ball lies squarely with Bryan Chapell.
As I recall Truman had a sign on his desk; The Buck Stops Here! Probably a myth, at least those at Covenant better hope it is.
From the CRC report: pg. 50
Apparently Meyers states and MOP agrees that the Westminster Standards do not speak to what the reprobate does or does not receive. The WCF states:
The Scripture verses for “common operations of the Spirit” include:
As for the Catechism, it states very clearly what members of the visible church receive:
This is different from what the elect, or members of the invisible church, receive:
It seems to me that the Standards do address what a reprobate does and does not receive. Note that “union with Christ” is what the elect have, not the reprobate.
“As I recall Truman had a sign on his desk; The Buck Stops Here! Probably a myth…”
Nope, it isn’t a myth at all.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/11/truman_buck_stops.jpg
For those of you who are interested in the possible implications of the SJC Coffin rule in the Moon case, please see page 18 lines 22-25 of the CRC report where MOP cites the ruling in support of its findings and calls it a “rather stunning pronouncement.”
I commented at that time that the SJC Coffin rule might just make prosecution of heterodoxy cases a practical impossibility going forward because of the extraordinarily wide, nearly unlimited definition of a judgment of charity: “But this violates the judgment of charity, that if a view can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise. SJC 2010-04,4.15-18.”
I was hoping I was wrong about that. I still hope I’m wrong.
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about cases like these is that while church leaders bend over backwards to provide a judgement of charity towards their fellow shepherds, they too often seem to do this at the expense of the flock under their care. I am speaking as someone who has served as a RE in the PCA and been guilty of sometime looking to protect a friend over an above protecting the sheep that God had given me.
Given the seriousness and protracted nature of this issue, I wish the Missouri Presbytery would have at least considered asking Rev. Meyers to refrain from the teaching ministry until the issue had been resolved, including all appeals.
Ah Kenneth, you’re singing my song.
Eileen, since some are creeped out by the sound of the “Coffin doctrine” I propose we call it the “One more nail doctrine” since that’s what it seems to be. Maybe David knows something we don’t and maybe the SJC will still strike a major blow in a future FV case. My hope, Eileen, is that you prove to be no true prophetess – - though I suspect in this case you are.
Brad,
I think that Pastor Coffin’s intentions were good at the time of the ruling and remain so. Unfortunately, that doesn’t immunize him or me or anyone else from the Law of Unintended Consequences (I’ve been a “victim” of my own good intentions more than a few times.) I hope that the SJC revisits and clarifies that definition of a judgment of charity, for the sake of the flock. FWIW, I’m not a prophetess. But I have lived quite awhile, and I’ve tried to pay attention and learn from experience, both my own and others’.
Kenneth,
I’m still looking for the part of the report that discusses the duty of a shepherd. It seems to me that a presbytery (or really any organization of pastors) ought to be an organization dedicated first and foremost to the protection of the flock through mutual and rigorous accountability, among other means. If it is, instead, dedicated first and foremost to the protection of its own members, then we ought to properly call it what it is: a professional guild, to put it as charitably as possible.
Brian Carpenter, quoting James Jordan, writes: “It’s entirely possible that the antinomians and two-kingdom haters of Jesus’ kingship are the minority in the PCA, and that the FV represents the majority.”
We need to separate these two issues.
It’s entirely possible to be opposed to the Two Kingdoms stuff, and even to regard it as incipient Anabaptism, while opposing Federal Vision theology.
Jordan is not stupid; on the contrary, he is a highly skilled ecclesiastical politician and student of history. He’s fully aware that the broad middle of the PCA is more fundamentalist than Reformed, and the typical PCA member may well be more proud to be in the denomination of Dr. D. James Kennedy based on his politics rather than based on his Calvinism. I can’t evaluate Jordan’s intent without reading much more than the few sentences which have been quoted, but it is certainly quite possible that he’s trying to drum up support in the middle-of-the-road PCA by statements such as what he wrote above.
The issue here is not whether Meyers, Leithert, et al are wrong in opposing the “Two Kingdoms” theology coming out of Westminster-West, but whether the Federal Visionists are wrong about key issues of soteriology, the role of baptism, and the proper qualifications for communion. It makes little difference if somebody is politically conservative and affirms biblical views about key political issues but gets the message of salvation wrong. After all, just because the Roman Catholics are right about abortion and deserve our support in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean they’re right on soteriology.
Personally, I have great difficulty seeing John Knox or John Calvin or John Owen or Jonathan Edwards looking at either the Federal Visionists or the WTSCA “Two Kingdoms” people and regarding either group as being within the Reformed tradition. The Southern “spirituality of the church” people, however, may indeed have a kindred spirit in the WTSCA professors, and I think it needs to be plainly recognized that D. James Kennedy, Francis Schaeffer, and Marvin Olasky represent a major deviation from the Southern Presbyterian tradition from which the PCA took its roots. I think that deviation was a good thing, but it was a deviation, and needs to be openly acknowledged as such.
9th Dude, you summarized the “Coffin Doctrine” as “if one’s statements can be read as orthodox, then charity demands they should be read as orthodox.” You’re right that if this is the standard then Arius nor anyone else would ever fail the orthodoxy test. But is this really TE Coffin’s standard? Do you truly believe that he would hold to such a statement in an unqualified way?
Eileen, you quoted from SJC 2010-04,4.15-18 “But this violates the judgment of charity, that if a view can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise.” I have not read much on the TE Moon case so I am not qualified to comment on it, but I would speculate that TE Coffin didn’t find that the weight of the evidence forced him to find TE Moon in error. TE Coffin may have exercised poor judgment in this, I do not know. But I don’t find the SJC quote, by itself, to be troubling, though it implies a very high standard for anyone bringing charges. Then again, I can’t deny your point about unintended consequences.
I may be naive, and I have a lot respect for many of the regular commenters here, but I don’t share what I discern to be pessimism with respect to the SJC in general and TE Coffin in particular. I hope and pray I’m right about that; rather, not that I’m right, but that the SJC (when the Meyers case gets before them) does the right thing.
Turturro –someone with access can supply the quote, which is lifted almost verbatim out of the SJC response to Siouxlands, if memory serves. If I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected.
Darrell,
Good thoughts. It is interesting that the response to the complaint would use Kline/Hortonism, which I view as incipiently Lutheran, and its toleration as a justification for tolerating Jordan/Meyers-ism (cloaked as it is under Murray and O. P. Robertson, who, I think, will suffer a fit of apoplexy to see his work used this way). One error never justifies another.
I do not think, however, that the PCA of today marches to Jim Kennedy’s drum, if ever it did. I have ministered in several very different PCA contexts, and I don’t think ra-ra Americanism is the beating force of the PCA. I really think the gospel still is. I see churches far more concerned with missions, evangelism, discipleship, etc than whether or not James Buchanan was a Christian.
We need to understand that the vast majority of the churches don’t get the press. Microbrews by churches get the press, big churches get the press, the avant garde stuff gets the press, but the vast middle and right of the PCA are still focused largely on the right things.
Another historical (hysterical) observation from that Orthodoxly Precise guy: Re the “Coffin Doctrine”:
Note that one of the 2 main authors of the Auburn Affirmation was Henry Sloane Coffin (the other Robert Hastings Nichols). Just another ironic link from the crises and events of the 20′s and 30′s of the Northern Presbyterians with today’s PCA.
I seriously recommend reading Loetscher’s The Broadening Church , which is the UP/PCUSA history of events from the 1880s through 1950s. The title tells the main argument: the PCUSA was successfully broadening itself as it modified in Arminian fashion the Westminster Standards (1903); received a chunk of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1906), that’s why they modifies the Standards; and then contrived to throw Machen out of the ministry. Loetscher is quite happy recounting that they were good to be rid of those that formed the OPC.
-=Cris=-
9th Dude wrote: “I do not think, however, that the PCA of today marches to Jim Kennedy’s drum, if ever it did. I have ministered in several very different PCA contexts, and I don’t think ra-ra Americanism is the beating force of the PCA. I really think the gospel still is. I see churches far more concerned with missions, evangelism, discipleship, etc than whether or not James Buchanan was a Christian. We need to understand that the vast majority of the churches don’t get the press. Microbrews by churches get the press, big churches get the press, the avant garde stuff gets the press, but the vast middle and right of the PCA are still focused largely on the right things.”
I think we can concur that the overwhelming majority of PCA ministers and virtually all PCA congregations are Bible-believing evangelicals. I also believe that especially in the earlier days of the PCA, Dr. Kennedy was a huge recruiting tool for the PCA by providing living, breathing proof on television that it was possible to be a Presbyterian and believe the Bible. The result is that huge numbers of people who would have left the old Southern PCUS and later the merged PC(USA) to join independent Bible churches or Baptist churches ended up in the PCA. Perhaps they didn’t share Dr. Kennedy’s “rah-rah Americanism” but they did like the fact that he believed the Bible, and that was a huge breath of fresh air compared to the death-stench coming out of lots of mainline Presbyterian pulpits.
The result is that the PCA got lots of people who didn’t know their confessions and who took their cues from the broader evangelical culture rather than from the written text of the confessions. After moving to the South, I’ve met enough PCA members who have never heard of the Westminster Standards that it’s become obvious the problem is not limited to the pews but extends into the elderships and the pulpits.
Of course, getting lots of non-Reformed people into the PCA wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lots of the smaller Reformed denominations are primarily “holy huddles” of covenant kids which rarely if ever see a non-Reformed visitor stick around long enough to become a member, and that is not good at all. Coupled with strong seminaries training strong preachers with a talent for presenting the Reformed faith to people who are evangelical but untaught in any sort of systematic doctrinal approach to the Bible, what’s happened in the PCA could have been a net positive for the Reformed faith instead of turning the PCA into a Southern Baptist Convention that dunks kids rather than waiting for them to grow up.
My history in the Dutch Reformed church world with its ethnocentric narrowness caused me at one time to be a major admirer of the PCA and what it was doing. In the 1990s, I think that admiration may well have been warranted, though there were clearly warning signals on the horizon even then.
However, I have personally seen far too many things in the PCA to believe that its view of “big tent Presbyterianism” has succeeded. Lack of confessional integrity is not a minor matter. You can’t expect to be blessed by God when you take an oath to believe something and don’t actually believe it or practice it.
I have enough respect for the Confessions, even at points where I disagree, that I worked as hard as I possibly could to keep my local church out of the PCA’s Missouri Presbytery once it became clear the church was going to become Presbyterian of some sort.
I don’t have a problem with Baptists who are consistent Baptists and enforce Baptist standards in their own Baptist churches, requiring rebaptism for prospective members who were baptized as babies. I don’t have a problem with Missouri Synod Lutherans who enforce their Lutheran standards and bar Calvinists such as me from communion because I don’t believe in consubstantiation.
I have a major problem with Presbyterians who claim to believe one thing about church government and then act like an association of independent Bible churches when they don’t like what the General Assembly says. That’s a far bigger problem than whatever Rev. Meyers may or may not believe. You can’t call yourself a Presbyterian and disregard the courts of the church the way that presbytery report has done.
Darrell,
I appreciated many of your insights about the PCA but I must respectfully take issue with where you ended up.
I think you are a little confused about PCA polity…the 2007 Ad Interim Report on the FV is not binding on Presbyteries. Thus, the MOP report does not “disregard the courts of the church.”
Each Presbytery is the court of record for those churches and ministers under its authority until such time as the entire General Assembly receives and adopts a particular doctrinal position or the SJC remands a judicial case to them with instructions to try a minister for false teaching.
This means that the Ad Interim Report on the FV is basically “advice.”
Grace…
TurturroFan,
Sorry about the delay in responding to you. Early this morning, Thor took out Gor, the internet god, at our house. A large, altar-model flat screen was collateral damage. I suspect a triangle “situation” with Gaia…Anyway, I’m just getting back online ;o).
I want to say categorically that I have zero reason to suspect Pastor Coffin of anything improper at all. I also want to emphasize that I believe that he had and has the best of intentions. I was not privy to the decision (because if I had been, we would be talking about a whole ‘nuther Big Problem), so I’m just going on what is public, and there is nothing I know which would cause me to think other than the best of Pastor Coffin.
I have no reason to question either his judgment or his motivation, since there may well be reasons which I do not know which prompted the SJC to define “judgment of charity” so inclusively. I’m making a practical point about consequences, which I am presuming to be unintended. Consequences are still consequences, however well-intentioned.
The reason that this particular language jumped out at me at the time is that I’ve spent many years looking for “mousetrap” language in documents, so I know it when I see it, and I think that this language will prove to be a big mousetrap for the PCA unless it is revisited.
I’m not a pessimist about either the SJC or the PCA. I am, however, an experienced optimist, and a firm believer in institutional entropy. Given that the CRC cited the Coffin Rule in at least two places, I think it is important not to underestimate its importance in the future of the PCA.
Eileen,
Thank you for your further thoughts on David Coffin and his judgement of charity statement. The notion of TE Coffin as an abettor of the Federal Vision distortion (even if unwittingly) comes as a shock to me, since it is inconsistent with what I know about the man and his commitments to orthodoxy and the proper, faithful care of God’s people that is to be expected of all pastors.
I appreciate your point about unintended consequences, and if nothing else it is a reminder to pray for Jason Stellman and others in the PNW, those of you in the MOP, for the men on the SJC, and others who are dealing with the FV head-on. I imagine the pressure to cave just a little here or there is enormous.
P.S. I’ll have none of your excuses for not responding to any of my posts immediately – even if you are R. Scott Clark’s hero, who is my hero (which makes you my hero once removed)! OK – so how do you people do it? I can barely check my favorite blogs twice a day, and if I try to write anything coherent (which is a real challenge) there are already a dozen thoughtful and insightful comments before I can compose the first clause of my first sentence. I guess I have something to aspire to.
TurtorroFan,
Sorry, I have no control over squabbles between Thor and Gor. When Gaia ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy…Pastor Carpenter has not yet bought his Prius, and Gaia ain’t happy about that, for one thing.
I suspect that I’m R. Scott Clark’s hero because I draw the Attitude K-9 Kops off his trail.
Turtorro Fan,
Dr. Coffin was on the panel gave the preliminary hearing to 2010-4. His hostility towards the complainants case was very surprising. His questioning of Wes was withering, and lasted a very long time, but Wes stood up very well to it. Neither TE Sartorius nor I could have managed so well.
I’m told that the complainants aren’t the only ones in the room who were surprised by his attitude.
I was puzzled by it then, and I remain puzzled by it to this day. Like you, it didn’t fit with what I thought I knew of the man. But I was there, and I saw it.
I don’t know how the deliberations went on the SJC, because those were private, but if Dr. Coffin was as forcefully hostile there as he was at the panel hearing (and I see no reason to believe he was not) then, given his influence and stature, he bears much of the responsibility for how the opinion was crafted. I think was a very bad ruling.
It will be interesting to see how things play out with Leithart and Meyers. My fear is that we are going to end up the same sort of judicial cul-de-sac that I see in other denominations, and particularly my old denomination. Things are declared to be out of accord with either polity or theology by the General Assembly, but the burden of proof in any particular case of it can never seem to be met, and if it is met, the punishment handed out to the offender is slight.
We must pray that doesn’t happen, and pray for the good men on the SJC to brace themselves to bear their duties well.
Pastor Carpenter,
Thank you for that additional information which I’m pretty sure most of us did not have previously. And which is why I try to focus on practical implications without going into motives which are pretty much irrelevant since we can’t know them.
Given my belief in institutional entropy, I share your fear regarding how this will play out. We can, however, maintain some hope for seemingly hopeless causes–Southern Seminary and R. Albert Mohler come immediately to mind, although there may be others.
Forgot to say that this might be a very good reason to support the “Sunshine” overture.
Pastor Carpenter,
Repeat of what Eileen said about the additional SJC info. I already respect Pastor White, and if he can withstand a withering David Coffin question session and not crumble, then he must be twice the man I already thought he was. I can only hope some of the FVers receive the same from TE Coffin.
“Pastor Carpenter has not yet bought his Prius, and Gaia ain’t happy about that, for one thing.”
Well, I shop at Whole Foods Market nearly every week so I have some kind of supererogation thing going. I’d be more than happy to apply some of my credits to Pastor Carpenter if it will keep Gaia off his case for a while.
I knew the PCA was in big trouble on this issue 8 years ago, when I began bringing up FV & covenant issues to several “conservative” PCA pastors. They seemed clueless! I would bring them Modern Reformation articles, other articles and web links only to be dismissed as………”That stuff is just majoring in the minors.” Seems those type of PCA elders would fight and talk all day about womens issues or culture warrior/Francis Schaffer stuff, but theologgically have really dropped the ball on this FV stuff. The PCA has got real problems. You think its bad now, if the train tracks are not turned around soon, I really don’t like where the PCA will be in 10-20 years. I’m very thankful for the few like Wes White and others in the PCA who are standing on the right side of this and many other issues that face the PCA.