Announcing Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together
I am extrememly pleased to bring you news tonight that I have been bursting at the seams to share for nearly two weeks now.
This evening the Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together website is live. The opening of the website is the public unveiling of what I feel to be the most important document I have affixed my name to since my marriage certificate.
“Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together” is an inter-denominational grass-roots movement among Reformed pastors and leaders that desires to heal and move beyond the various rifts that seem to perennially surface in our tradition. While we acknowledge that important and substantive issues need to be considered and worked-through, we want to do so in the bonds of peace, not in a context of mistrust, suspicion, and sectarianism.
We do this all for the sake of Christ’s Gospel and our Triune God’s mission to a lost and broken world. God calls us in Christ, empowered by his Spirit, and guided by his Word, to proclaim and be a sign of his reign before the eyes of a watching world. Living as people shaped by that calling, we remain committed to truth and pursuing truth in love. It is in that spirit that we offer the petition of this document.
As of this evening, 87 pastors, church leaders, ministry leaders, seminary professors and students, and “ordinary” church members have signed it. You can find the list of signatories on the web site. It includes a diverse group, with many names quite familiar to most of my readers.
Understandably, there have already been expressions of concern over this declaration. Some I’ve encountered personally from friends whom I’ve invited to sign. Others have come from a few Presbyterian leaders. Concerns range from “why is this needed?” to suggestions of hidden or even dark motives. I would urge anyone with such concerns to carefully read the statements on the new site under the headings “About” and “FAQ.” Because of my personal relationship with at least one of the originators of the document, I can say that I personally stand behind the veracity and sincerity of those statements.
I invite all my readers who are Presbyterian, or any persons of Reformed faith who have personal concern over how certain issues within Presbyterianism are presently being handled, to read through the site carefully, and especially the declaration itself, and decide if this is something you want to have your name associated with. There is a form on the site to add your signature. Before signing, please carefully examine your heart to insure that you are ready to commit to the principles of charitable dialogue as befits the sons and daughters of God in Christ to which the document calls us. I know they will be a challenge to me in the days to come, in particular in how I present myself on this blog.
Though I think the website does a good job of answering the questions most folks might have, I would be glad to offer my personal response to any questions or concerns you might have about my having signed it. You may address those either publically as comments to this post, or privately by email to trappermark AT gmail DOT com.
For the glory of Christ and the peace of his Church,
Mark W. Traphagen
Share on Facebook
May 11th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Who are the Blue Presbyterians and who are the Yellow? Will I be able to tell by which shirts all of you crazy Presbyterians are wearing tomorrow in our final? Is this going to be like the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine last year?
Mark, the official, ex cathedra word from the Westminster Theological Seminary Student Directory 2005-2006, p. 88, is that you are a “Baptist.” If we Baptists had a pope, a heirarchical church government, and some of those sweet 15th-century Swiss guards, you’d be in big trouble.
OK, I will stop saying ridiculous things on your post now. Time to return to OTHT2.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:06 am
You can probably tell how dilligently I’m pursuing OTHT2 tonight, cantcha?
Personally, I’m signing up for the Big Blue Meanie Presbyterians, although if the Yellow Presbyterians get the Yellow Submarine, I may switch sides.
I guess I should alert central casting that I’ve changed teams before next year’s directory, huh?
May 11th, 2006 at 1:11 am
To do so, I think you’ll need a letter of transfer and then they do some sort of trial by water ordeal. I think it is like Frat hazing without the alcohol, which comes later. Just be glad it’s not 2,200 years ago - trial by knife, if you know what I’m saying and I think you do.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:04 am
OOooh, who is RIGHT above John Frame on that list?
THAT’S RIGHT! IT’S ME!
I knew my last name would someday come in handy.
(I’d be REALLY cool and be stuck between him and Pete Enns, if not for that “Michael Farley” guy from St Louis. Confound it all!)
In other news, I, like yourself, visited Ref21 for the first time in a long time.
And then I remembered it infuriated me.
(But…it’s like a car crash…I can’t not watch….)
May 11th, 2006 at 5:37 am
On a more serious note….
I recognise my statement on being “infuriated” at the Ref 21 Blog seems to go against the idea of “charitable discourse”. And in one sense I do believe it’s a struggle, and perhaps “infuriating” isn’t really the term….but in another sense, I think it’s fair to get upset when folks you wish could come alongside you actually end up taking jabs.
Anyway….it’s just something I’ve been thinking about recently….
May 11th, 2006 at 6:39 am
I was about to rush to lend my signature to this document but found myself stopped in my tracks by the niggling question, “Should I sign this?” My question is not raised on account of me having any disagreement at all with the aims of PPT. It has more to do with me not being sure that I am yet capable of consistently putting aside my sarcasm, my sinful pride and my penchant for writing off those to my left as flaming liberals and those to my right as angry fist shaking fundies so as to not cheapen this document. Would my signature, and the signatures of those like me, in the long run end up evacuating this document of any real significance? Yikes. I need to pray over this one a little while….
May 11th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Michaela: I’m just glad you’re there. Scotland, represent!
David: I’m moved by your honesty and the fact that you realize this isn’t just a “statement” or “manifesto” but a personal committment to a way of conducting oneself. I am glad you are taking this seriously and taking the time to search your heart before signing.
Anyone who has followed this blog for any lenght of time (oh heck, for just a couple of weeks!) will know that this committment will be a struggle for me, also. I see my signature as one more way in which I am calling for public accountability for my speech and behavior.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:19 am
I wonder can I be on the P&PT Accountability Strike Team…so when Mark get out of line, I can shut down his blog at least temporarily or something.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Mark:
What do these things mean? What are the alternatives in view?
the relative role we grant to specific experiences of conversion in relation to practices of Christian nurture and the ordinary means of grace within the covenant life of God’s people
how we best characterize the spiritual life of covenant children prior to their coming to a maturing faith through the ministry of the Word
the way we apply Scriptural teaching on election to the lived experience of God’s people as the church visible.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
So, are you the reason that I got some form email from them? Because it was impersonal, I trashed it out-of-hand.
Besides, I’m not Presbyterian!
May 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
For whoever cares I have some questions about this document:
1. I think we would all agree that charity cannot cause us to overlook infidelity to what the Bible teaches. Am I right in saying this? I am not saying that any of the listed concerns are unbiblical, but if some of them are… then it would not be uncharitable to question them. Correct?
That seems to be a major concern of those opposed to the Federal Vision/NPP/whatever theology of some in the PCA/OPC. If it is true that heretical things are being taught, then I hope that no one would ever say that the charitable thing to do would be to ignore these things.
The question is… are certain things being taught in Reformed circles heretical? That is what needs to be addressed. I am worried that a certain way of calling for charity could obscure genuine concerns on the part of some Christians over issues of biblical fidelity.
2. It is possible to be a genuine Christian and not be able in good conscience to hold to every point in the Westminster Confession of Faith (hard to beleive I know!).
Would we all not agree that since both the PCA/OPC require confessional subsrciption for their ministers that it would be dishonest for said ministers to affirm something as true which they do not believe?
An example related to this point: ” how we characterize the pre-lapsarian covenant, particularly as to probation, grace, merit, and reward, and its relationship to and distinction from the covenant of grace”
Since the WCF 7.2 states “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” we would all have to agree that it is contraconfessional to say that there is no covenant of works of any sort in the prefall arragement. Maybe what is meant by this is a different matter, but it certainly is a fairly obvious point of the confession. I bring this point up because it is one of the matters of controversy right now in our circles.
Once again I genuinely am not suggesting that anyone is being unconfessional, simply that we should all agree that ministers in denominations that adhere to the WCF should take care to be in line with what the confession actually teaches.
There is a place for changing the confession, but it would be a (very) slow process that would take place in the courts of the churches. If things need to be changed, there are means for that in Reformed denominations.
3. My last question is a clarification one like Jason’s:
Does anyone know what this means: “How we construe and implement biblical principles of church polity in accordance with our respective church orders”
Because it sounds like they are saying that there is acceptable diversity in the types of church polity that Presbyterians implement. Does this mean that it is okay to be a congregationalists or episcopalian and being a minister who subscribes to the WCF? I would assume it does not mean this, but I can’t figure out how this statement is meant to be understood. Any ideas?
4. This is my attempt to talk these issues through charitably. I welcome people’s comments and ideas. Given the level of acrimony currently seen in relation to these issues, I understand that I might be taken wrongly, but I sincerely hope no one feels like I am attacking them.
Ben
May 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
X: My wife would gladly grant you such power…and probably pay you to use it regularly and indiscriminately!
To all else: Great and valid questions. Just dropping a note that I will try to respond to them this evening…after a post-exam decrompession session with Karyn catching up on LOST. My priorities are fine, thanks for asking!
I’ll just say for now that no P&PT t-shirts have been issued, so let’s at least be thankful for that!
May 11th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
mark, any reason this document remains anonymous? i would think that a plea for charity would go farthest if it not only sought to draw signatures from both “sides” (an aim that with a few exceptions doesn’t seem to be being met yet) but was drafted and published by both “sides.” as it is those who have been most vocal in their attacks on the NPP, FV and emergent folks are tempted to see it as just the next ‘tactic’ of the heretical left, a suspicion voiced before it even really came out as you know.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
p.s. i asked that question because my first instinct is to sign it as my pastor has already done. but quickly realized that if i do so i will have to leave my seminary name out for fear of making it look like a “liberal” crowd that is signing up (even though i am more a good little van tillian and lover of our tradition).
May 11th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Wow. Lots of familiar names on that list…. worlds colliding. (Like that first guy… I went to his wedding years and years ago..)
Anyway, is this to bring the PCA together or all Presbyterians? It seems pretty one-dimensional thus far - where are the other flavors of presbyterian?
May 11th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Ben raises a number of very important questions. One would hope that no one whould hide heresy behind charity.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
I don’t think its exactly anonymous. Those who signed it include the drafters thereof.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
As a graphic designer (ex?) I do feel the need to comment. Hunter is right. That logo does not serve the purpose stated in the petition. (baptist creep? that is the best name I have ever seen! how about “dry baby”?)
if only there were a place in this world for a simple, green presbyterian. sigh.
spgs unite!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
um
“spgs” is what sgps are called in france. or eastern canada maybe. e
sgps unite!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Wow. A lot to get through here. But I invited it, didn’t I?
I should probably start off by saying something I should have said earlier: I certainly don’t mean to set myself up as some kind of “spokesman” for P&PT. I’m not. So anything I say is just my opinion, OK? Just my take on why I signed it, what it means to me, and what I know of what’s “behind” it (which is not everything, but enough to have convinced me of its sincerity and integrity).
First, then, I want to make a statement about the negative spin that’s already out there: that this is some kind of “cover” for certain controversial doctrinal positions–a cleverly crafted conspiracy (think Da Vinci Code!) to subvert the due process of Presbyterian church courts and ecclesiastical processes. I can deal with that in three words: it is not. Now you can either believe me on that or not. That’s up to you. It’s already obvious out there in blogdom that some people have made up there minds about that. One member of an influential Reformed group blog wrote a post stating that this “seems to be” a diversionary tactic by the supporters of Federal Vision theology, and the next thing we know, several other bloggers were posting that as proven fact. Well, many of you posting here know me personally. I’ve told you that I know some of the originators personally. I testify to you that I believe that their motives are nothing more or less than what is stated on the website. Choose to believe me or not; that’s what it comes down to.
To keep this comment from getting ridiculously long, I’ll answer each of the questions posed above in its own comment.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
From Jason:
I’m not completely sure, Jason, that I’m qualified to answer what all the alternatives to each of those issues might be. Some of them sound like they refer to the controversies over the so-called “Federal Vision” theology, which is probably what has led some, without any proof, to suspect that this document is actually a “cover” for FV supporters trying to raise sympathy for their positions.
I see that portion of the document as simply outlining examples of current areas in which good Presbyterians are expressing disagreement. Some aspect(s) of some of those things may at some point be ruled as heresies or outside confessional bounds by the GA’s of any of the several confessional Presby denominations. If that occurs, then the members of that denomination are duty bound by membership oath to support that resolution or leave the church. But the point is that in none of those cases have any such determinations been made yet. Until they have been made, the document simply calls for us to debate and discuss the various positions with patience, charity, and a willingness to attempt to understand the other’s position, and a committment to not pass final judgment before the procedures we believe in as Presbyterians have been carried out.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
From Geof:
If you got that from me, it was by mistake, and I apologize. We don’t want no stinkin’ Methodists on our document! I ain’t signed nothin’ sayin’ I have to be charitable to the likes of you Wesley boys!
May 11th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
From Ben:
Right on, brother Ben! I hope that my answer to Jason above already addressed your question. To state it once again: nothing in the document calls for us to excuse of gloss over heresy. However, it does call (by implication) for us to stop tossing the “H” bomb before there is any official declaration of such. As Presbyterians, we commit ourselves to a system of courts of appeal. Nothing should be declared heresy, and no brother/sister a heretic, until and unless those procedures have been carried out and such a determination has been made official.
I want to be clear here that I do not mean by this that we can never call attention to possible or potential heresy or contra-confessional teaching. That is how such things are uncovered in the first place. And in the process of that uncovering, it will be necessary to declare what one suspects the thing is or might be. But until our church courts and/or General Assemblies have given final rule, we should do such declarations with a high degree of qualification, and a generous giving of the doubt to those who are either supporting the position or struggling with it.
Once again, I find no problem generally with what you are saying. As someone (Jason, I believe?) has already said, ministers and WTS seminary professors are allowed to make limited exceptions to the confession as they pledge to subscribe to it. We all know that the Confession itself has been altered in the past to fit changing situations. I agree with you that any such changes should be done slowly and with great deliberation, but they are not inconceivable. It’s just that some of us believe in complete good conscience that we can be confessionally faithful without turning our brains off and swallowing that somehow one group of gentlemen meeting in the 17th century got it all right on everything for all eternity. Now I hasten to add that we should proceed with great caution and care toward any suggestion that they didn’t, but the fact remains that it is possible that we may come to better scholarship on certain areas, or that we may find certain areas were drawn too tightly (read: “tighter that the Bible itself demands”) and need to be loosened.
Let me repeat that the P&PT document is not supporting that we do or don’t do that. It’s not advocating any position or set of postions or any particular actions or changes or refusals to change. It is directed at behavior, not result.
Again, I can’t say for a certainty that I could describe to you all the intricacies or nuanced positions of all of the examples given in the document. I would have no reason to assume that it refers to any controversies in which Presbyterians are asking to be Episcopalians, since I know of no such controversy! I would suspect that it is referring to much lower level diversity, but what exactly that is, I’m not personally aware. Must be brewing somewhere in Presbyland, just not on my block.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Jed wrote:
That’s a great question, Jed, and one that I’m sure will be asked a lot. I don’t know all the reasons, but from what I do know it seems that the authors decided it would be wisest to not list themselves as authors because then immediately the document becomes pegged as being really about whatever it is that anyone might perceive those particular people might be “about.” The document belongs to all those who sign it; if it isn’t something you would feel comfortable about if you had written it yourself, then don’t sign it.
As for those who choose to impugn motives (or even pretend that they actually know the motives) upon those who either wrote or signed the document, I’ve already stated that there isn’t much I can do about what they choose to think, so I choose to ignore it.
I do personally know one of the authors, and he has assured me that all the authors are also signatories. So their names are there. You just have to ferret them out. Ask the albino, if you see him. See, I told you it’s like the Da Vinci Code. You think the timing of the release of this document was coincidence?
May 12th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Peter wrote:
Personally, I hide my heresy under this fake plastic rock in my front yard. It looks just like a real rock, see, but it’s actually hollow inside with a hole on the bottom so you can hide your spare key or personal heresy or the piece of paper on which you wrote the secret hidden link on the P&PT website that leads to a page revealing which Federal Vision lieutenants actually wrote the document, as well as who was behind the grassy knoll.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:55 am
Mark, you replied:
“I don’t know all the reasons, but from what I do know it seems that the authors decided it would be wisest to not list themselves as authors because then immediately the document becomes pegged as being really about whatever it is that anyone might perceive those particular people might be “about.â€
This is sort of what I was driving at. In an atmosphere that is already filled with suspicion, I wish this document didn’t make me afraid that by signing it I too might be “pegged” in the way you describe. It seems to me that a difficult but probably more effective way to arrive at the aims of P&PT would have been to take some of the more public figures on the different sides of these questions and work on something together. That’s really the only way beyond the camp mentality as far as I can tell. I am pessemistic about the possibility of something like that working but it might be tried at least. I guess I should go sign this thing.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Hey, it is what it is. Jed, if what you described were possible right now, we probably wouldn’t actually be needing something like this document.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Without knowing the authors’ intent, I took that clause about polity to probably be about the debate over two-office versus three-office views. For those who haven’t heard of that distinction, some presbyterians emphasize that there are simply two offices - elder and deacon. The pastor is a special kind of elder, but an elder nonetheless. That’s why you’re always hearing about “teaching elders” vs. “ruling elders.” The three office view is that there are pastors, elders, and deacons. Someone once quipped that the PCA is two office in writing but three office in practice. Or maybe the quip was even punchier than that, but you get the drift.
Another issue that sometimes generates heat is the distinction between communing and voting membership. Those churches in the PCA who want to commune younger children who can be examined in accordance with the BOCO still face the problem of not wanting such kids to be voting in church body decisions. So, many such churches simply include in their by-laws a distinction between voting and communing membership. Some that are not motivated by paedocommunion convictions also support this idea because they view children as members of the church, whether communing or not.
I also thought that the polity clause might be referring to the ongoing squabbles about how to conduct GA, where to make decisions, which committees can do what, how minutes are handled, etc.
But I think you guys are right that it is one of the harder clauses to interpret in the document - obviously it can’t mean that the presbyterian form of government is up for grabs. Probably it just is trying to problematize the idea that there is a single presbyterianism; like a blackbird, as you get close the various colors emerge very clearly and you realize that black birds don’t consist completely of black feathers.
I also think it is helpful to point out that there was already a pretty detailed examination of the FV/NPP issues by the Missouri Presbytery of the PCA. The “team” that drafted the document was huge - there were at least a dozen dudes divided into several committees that focused on one issue or another. The report is dull and temperate - just what one would hope for. And yet even a report drafted in large part by men from the denomination’s official seminary has not seemed to cool down debate over this topic. The Missouri report seems almost to have been ignored, but it represents a significant amount of true, give and take discussion between men well-qualified to look at the issues.
The charity part comes in here. It means that when we read statements from Greenville Seminary or Westminster California that we don’t automatically write the statements off as being from those “crusty rigorists.” Likewise, just because the Missouri report doesn’t use the word heresy, those in other places should not assume it is tainted. Same goes for the PPT statement itself - obviously it could be simply another technique, but what if it isn’t? What if it is sincerely born of the desire to see people in the PCA get along, by men who also grant the necessity of judicial resolution of these matters, and yet have already witnessed enough judicial action (the MO report, the Northwest’s vindication of Leithart, etc.) to be pretty confident that these are matters that do not strike at the vitals of religion.
Other parts of PPT seemed to be aimed at the creation days issue - something I was surprised to see was thought of as completely settled by some in the blogosphere. My guess is that there are still presbyteries where it is difficult to be ordained or transfer in if one holds to something other than a 144 hour creation view, and I know for a fact that many young seminary grads get grilled about this issue in some presbyteries.
The inclusion of matters pertaining to biblical background was probably in reference to Enns’ work and the work of many PCA men who are also forging new ground in biblical interpretation and archaeology.
So, I don’t find a reason to be cynical about the issues that are included in the document. Obviously, the drafters put thought into how to make a statement that is broader than simply the current controversy du jour, but at the same time, if the document focused only on one or two soteriological issues raised by the FV discussion, then cynics could say that the call for charity was only made on behalf of one set of controversial issues. We are all hypocrites to some degree or another, and so not only is the would-be peacemaker going to be charged with manipulation, but the would-be peacemaker will also *actually have* a bit of real hypocrisy in his or her heart. Just like the guy with the icthus on his car who tailgates other motorists relentlessly or speeds as a matter of personal policy. Of course, every charitable action has a motive - we are still afflicted by Adam’s curse, but often doing the right thing, whether we believe it in our bones or not, leads to believing the right thing - lex orandi, lex credendi.
Thinking through all these things today - the PPT statement’s release last night, and the reactions to it that began appearing on various blogs and forums, I remembered how important the debates over apologetic methodology were in the late eighties, early nineties. Classical apologetics vs. presuppositional apologetics was always on the front burner as a topic of conversation at the lunch table for guys my age. But when you stop to think about it, did all that talk (as important as it was - I am probably qualified to be an honorary westminsterian in my fondness for Frame and Van Til) end up contributing to our impetus to spread the gospel and engage the promoters of false ideologies and religions in conversation? It is almost as though the steadfast, winsome Schaefferians have continued to do their thing and work hard to reach the culture (the Francis Schaeffer Institute’s weekly lectures at Borders Books comes to mind) while the rest of us, on both sides of that methodology debate, were shouting at each other (and the occasional atheist) about epistemology, methodology, etc. Surely this FV thing is kind of similar. We’ll be hot about this for a few years until everyone realizes that pastors on both sides of the issue still love the scriptures, the standards, and put their pants on one leg at a time. And three years will have gone by when a lot of the brightest folks have been forced suddenly to sharpen iron with each other “on the witness stand” so to speak rather than in a decentralized way.
Anyway, I’ve already written too much here. But this PPT release thing has been so interesting, from a theological perspective of course, but also from a sociological one. My eye are closing, please forgive any type-os in the above.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Thanks, Barlow. That was most informative, and I’m sure that many of my readers will appreciate your clarity on certain topics of which I am obviously less informed.
I also appreciated your call for those of us who might be, let us say, not on the hard right of things, to exhibit just as much patience, charity, forbearance, and “benefit-of-the-doubtedness” to our brother and sisters who believe with all their hearts that the hard right position is the most God-honoring and best for the church, even as we call upon them to do likewise. I will confess that I have oft been guilty of attributing or assuming the worst possible motives to some who have expressed positions that just don’t click with me. The charity gate needs to swing both ways.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:11 am
I think the vagueness of the statements on the PPT is the main problem I have.
There very well may be acceptable diversity on every one of the issues that are listed. However, since nothing (or at least very little) is said as to the bounds of that diversity I have trouble seeing the usefullness of the document.
Since church courts have ruled on many of these issues we already know some of the limits of diversity, and since church courts have not ruled on certain of the issues we do not yet have bounds (beyond the confessions/catechisms) for those concerns.
Obviously, the call for charity is good, and we can never be reminded enough about how easy it is for us to become sinfully partisan and unloving toward our brothers and sisters in Christ. I just wonder how helpful something like this will be in actually facilitating common understanding and agreement about the various issues.
Ben
May 12th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Basically my concerns revolve around something I have learned from reading John Frame and being in Dr. Poythress’s hermeneutics class: in theological controversy it is important to be extremely precise in one’s language and to carefully define all doctrines/words/points of dispute.
Ben
May 12th, 2006 at 9:00 am
sorry, “eyes” are closing. But it is morning now and I still mostly agree with that 2 a.m. barlow guy
May 12th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I wanted to say a few things about “P&PT” since this seems to be “discussion central” on the topic and since I had a hand in the evolution of the document. Still, all of this is just my opinion as one signer and cannot be construed as representing what everyone would say.
First, you can probably imagine the difficulties of trying to do something like this. There are lots of decisions to be made and lots of viewpoints being offered in term of what should be said. Does one talk about charity and unity within differences in a general, abstract way? Or does that leave things all too vague and actual accountability all too vacuous?
So, then, does one at least mention some concrete examples? If one does mention concrete examples, does one only do so regarding issues that have been more or less “settled”? But mightn’t that, again, leave things all too vague without real application to what’s at hand right now? If so, then, does one also mention current, ongoing issues, yet to be resolved?
And when one does begin to mention current, ongoing issues, what can one do but what “P&PT” does in leaving them vague, while nonetheless setting them firmly within a larger context of confessional fidelity, good faith subscription, and the determinations of our gathered presbyters? To suggest boundaries where such boundaries don’t yet fully and clearly exist (beyond the content of our Standards, that is) would be to circumvent the proper process of church courts. So it’s a bit of a Catch-22.
In retrospect, I might have suggested more explicit language about “within the bonds of charity, trusting our church courts to carry out their processes effectively,” or something to that effect. But hindsight is 20/20 and it’s not easy to anticipate every objection.
Also, the intention was that this document could have a salutary effect not only intra-denominationally, but also inter-denominationally. But different denominations might draw boundaries in slightly different ways. Should that, then, be a barrier to future co-operation among churches that are, otherwise, confessional and fundamentally orthodox?
So, perhaps the document was overly-ambitious. On the other hand, many felt it was sorely needed and that it is very refreshing and gives them hope. Well, you can’t make everyone entirely satisfied. And that’s ok.
Second, regarding some of the specific language mentioned above, I think the responses others’ have already made are all good and helpful.
One thing I’ll add is that on these matters of debate, one perspective on the issues is not being favored over another in terms of charity.
For instance, with regard to covenant children, those who advocate paedocommunion need to learn to tone down the rhetoric that non-paedocommunists “spiritually starve our children,” as if some folks were just being maliciously stingy with the Supper.
Or, I’ve heard advocates of what might be called “covenant nurture” sometimes criticize others as leading children into “doubt and unbelief” when it’s suggested that covenant children need to come to a particular point where they consciously and deliberately “close with Christ.” But, of course, “trust in Christ” is precisely what this more conversionistic model of covenant children is directed towards, not doubt.
So, whatever one’s view of these things, it’s important not to overstate the case and to be careful with one’s rhetoric and polemics.
I don’t know who all will choose to sign “P&PT.” Perhaps some folks who have had a poor record of charity on these issues in the past will sign. I would certainly invite them to do so, if it means they firmly resolve, with the help of Christ’s Spirit, to amend their lives, particularly with regard to the tongue. After all, we all have room to grow in this area of sanctification, myself included.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Well, looks like you guys managed to “out” one of the authors!
Thanks, Joel. Your response to the concerns, especially of those so well expressed by my classmate Ben, is just what I would have said. Only better. I’ll let it stand without additional comment from me.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:34 am
I’ll add something more, as a personal note. I know that for some of us who signed the document - and this is true of me - we have good, personal, long-term friendships with people on various sides of a number of issues that have proven divisive.
And we’ve seen up close the significant damage that has resulted in people’s lives and ministries as a result of rancor, mistrust, careless words, and so on. People’s time and energy have been sapped, their gifts squandered, their reputations damaged (sometimes self-inflicted!), their callings neglected, their spirituality knocked out of shape, and so forth.
While debate in itself is a good and necessary thing in any process of discernment - even vigorous debate - it is not always carried out in ways that honor God and the gifts he gives us. A large portion of Proverbs is taken up with those issues, and is the Epistle of James also.
So some of the impetus for “P&PT” was, I think, to try to clear the air and bring some grace to whatever damage has occurred so folks could begin to move on or at least, step back, and re-enter needed discussions afresh.
Since some of the negativity wasn’t on just a “one-on-one” level, but becoming more public, impersonalized, and systemic, it seemed like a public, yet personal and self-committing, response was needed.
I hope that makes some sense.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Frickin’ Presbyterian spammers! If you guys tried to recreate Luther’s posting of 95 theses, you’d mailbomb it to the entire Internet! INGRATES!
May 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for the heads up on the website Mark. One of my pastors clued me in to this several days ago, I believe he was one of the original signers.
I signed the document. Regarding the earlier thoughts about hiding heresy here, I’d say I generally agree with NT Wright’s take that heresy is preferable to schism. I’m guessing I’m probably in the group that will be outed as heretics in this case, so that probably skews my attitude there. I think it would be terribly unfortunate if the majority of the PCA churches in my area were kicked out, or split off from, or however we Presbyterians have been doing it for decades. Hopefully this document can generate some positive, charitable dialogue.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
I;d have to say that what I hope PPT ‘means’ is a call, not to avoid hunting heresy, or avoid church courts where appropriate, but in pointing out potential heresy, to do so in a way that constitutes loving interaction. That would include detailed personal interaction with any person before going public with complaints or charges; That would include charitable readings of peopel’s words. That would include charitable belief about a person’s stated beliefs and motives. It would include public retractions of things demonstrated to be uncharitable. It would include standing up for people you disagree with against actual slanders from less charitable opponents.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
tommy and pduggie, i wonder if we should use the word ‘heresy’ in any of these discussions. maybe i am wrong here and someone can help me, but just because something is beyond the pale of presbyterianism doesn’t mean it is heretical. not in the sense of the word that i have always though it had anyway. are people using this term in a serious way regarding the issues listed in P&PT? heresy is a deadly serious charge. heresy can’t be preferable to schism. did wright really say that?
i want to think about and look into this more. what is heresy in the reformed tradition? do reformed theologians anathematize heresy? if so, when?
May 13th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
“if what you described were possible right now, we probably wouldn’t actually be needing something like this document.”
Mark, I guess idealistic me wonders if it has really been tried yet. we can’t say it is impossible until it has been tried. i don’t see doug wilson and rick philips sitting down but maybe within our denomination we could combat the camp tendency by actually taking our initial disagreements, if they are so serious, to the individuals involved and try hammering things out. I can dream can’t I?
May 14th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Jed,
First off, good call for caution on the H-bomb. There are probably any number of levels of things that might be grounds for parting ways before you get to the high level charge of heresy.
Also, sure you can dream. I see the P&PT not as a call for exactly what you’re dreaming for. Remember, we’re trying to see it as more a personal accountability statement than a directive “here’s what YOU should be doing.” The old four fingers pointing back at me counting more than the one I’m pointing at you.
May 14th, 2006 at 2:39 am
It seems like heresy is a charge levied by councils. And since we’ll probably never have one of those again, all heresies should already be on the table. Nothing new under the sun, right?
May 14th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
It seems to me that heresy usually refers to errors concerning the Trinity. Cults such as JWs and modalists are heretics, but Roman Catholics are not. So something can be anti-confessional without being heretical.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, I was using heresy loosely, to mean, things that are ‘beyond the bounds of confessional orthodoxy”
I think there is a difficulty for the confessional Christian who wants to maintain unity with belivers from different confessions. As the level of ‘precision’ or close reading of a confessional document increases to screen out problems or errors it decreases the ability of a person to appreciate truth expressed in a different confessional context or language.
Plain vanilla confessionalism becomes a confessionalism that denies hints of strawberry or french custard within the mix. And that forces those flavors out of the carton entirely.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
pduggie: Someone I know calls that “mere Christianity”…and he means for “mere” to rhyme with “sneer.”
May 16th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
mark,
“I see the P&PT not as a call for exactly what you’re dreaming for.”
except for the crucial fact that it was drafted anonymous. this feeds conspiracy theories that might be avoidable. if it is true, as all sides keep maintaining, that we all agree with charity and the proper use of church courts, why couldn’t all agree on a statement like this? what i mean is, if an aim of P&PT is to actually bring presbyterians together why do you think Rick Philips hasn’t signed it? is it because he is just a jerk? or maybe vocal critics of NPP, FV and emergents were left out of the whole thing too quickly. a call for love from the ‘inovators’ is never going to sound like anything but a tactic from the ‘traditionalists’ unless it is clearly not such. maybe i am crazy but i think a very similar statement could have been written that would have had Philips as one of the first signers. i just keep coming back to the anonymity and feel like it justifies claims that it is a maneuver. there does not seem to be any other reason to make it anonymous. if the drafters were afraid of being pegged then maybe there was a better way of easing that fear–working with the ones they are afraid of being pegged by, or maybe writing in such a way that is very clear to all sides that this is not a preference for any side. i have been harping on this too long. blessings on your summer.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
It’s like the Da Vinci Code or Kennedy asassination: if you’re predisposed to see a conspiracy then you’ll see a conspiracy. I can’t help you there.
At the risk of broke record syndrome, if the situation you pine for actually existed (i.e., it were even possible for the “sides” to talk with each other, let alone mutually ascribe to a document like this) then the document would not be necessary. People who insist that call-for-charity = “liberalism” have no interest in a document that promotes charity.
I’ve already given my defense of the anonimity, so there’s nothing to add there. The framers of this document were damned if they did (affix their names to it openly) and damned if they didn’t. I prefer it the way it is. As such, it becomes my document, my committment when I sign it, rather than my statement that I agree with whatever positions the originators may be associated with.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Mark, I stumbled on your blog because I am interested in the document. What disturbs me is that one man I know who signed, and you as well, confesses that he really doesn’t know the ramifications of some of the “What does it mean?” language, yet he signed because he respected someone who did. What you sign today is visible for all to see well into the future.
My advice, don’t sign ambiguous or vague documents. The fact that folks have questions about this should at least leave you uncomfortable is you have to defend your signature by saying you don’t know all the ramifications of what you signed.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
*sigh*
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I didn’t sign the document because it is for or against any positions known or unknown. THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT TAKE A POSITION ON ANY POSITIONS UNDER DEBATE. As has been explained, the examples given are purposely vague; they are examples of general areas in which good, faithful Presbyterians are disagreeing at this time. The document isn’t about any position on those issues; it’s about how we conduct ourselves in carrying out the debates over those or any other issues.
Why is it that I can’t get this across? I did not sign a position paper. I did not sign a manifesto. I did not sign a creed or confessional statement. I signed a PERSONAL COMMITTMENT to certain modes of behavior.
If some of you want to continue to “peg” me with certain positions on issues because I signed this document, after all I have said, then it is your problem, not mine. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate your certainty that I did sign to support any positions known or unknown.
I’m just incredulous. I’m a fairly new Presbyterian, and I have to say as someone coming in from the outside, you people amaze me. No, you exhaust me. What in the world are you so afraid of? You’d think that saying the word “charity” was like walking up behind you and shouting, “Boo!”
May 17th, 2006 at 9:13 am
I for one don’t want to peg you on any issues. I merely wanted to suggest that if you signed a document which was “purposely vague,” then you should understand that you are accountable for that. I am amazed in the number of people who would sign something without knowing who the authors all were, the extent of what is being suggested be treated with charity, and then get upset (yes, your charity slipped!) when someone says that is not a good idea. After all, we don’t sign blank checks and leave them around.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Mark
I understand what you’re saying. But it seems that the point remains that more is involved here than simply discussing these issues charitably. Of course this should be done. Yet, why are these specific issues the ones that have been picked out? Certainly there are other issues that people in the PCA and OPC quibble over that were not explicitly pointed out by this document. Why these ones and not others? It seems to me that some of the theological positions that lie behind these issues (and lets be honest, the FV certainly is involved here, theologically) are serious issues that need to be handled carefully and precisely in the proper ecclesiastical settings. The conclusion seems hard to avoid that the signers of this document are interested in making these theological positions acceptable within the bounds of confessional presbyterianism, and that is part of the purpose of the document.
It is just hard for me to believe that the ONLY reason this document was formed was to remind everyone that these issues need to be handled charitably. Maybe I’m just a cynic though.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
mark,
i also want to avoid the “broken-record” nature this little conversation of ours seems to be taking on. the only reason i have continued to comment is that your replies have given me the distinct impression that one, or both of us are talking past the other. this is most likely due to my opaque writing.
first, i hope you don’t think i am pestering you. if you don’t want to talk about p&pt anymore i’ll stop. i certainly am not trying to “peg” you, just in case you were wondering. further, i think p&pt was a fantastic idea. i even tried to sign it but for some reason my name still hasn’t shown up on it.
now, your response to my comment is to say the opposite of what i have been trying to say. you wrote: “if you’re predisposed to see a conspiracy then you’ll see a conspiracy. I can’t help you there.” what i have been trying to say is, if the motivation of p&pt is unity in charity, that aim would be served better by saying: “if you are predisposed to conspiracey theories, let’s make sure that you see that this is not one.” what i have been trying to say is that we can help them there. but not as easily now that no one knows who wrote it, can talk to them about what it means etc. that’s all. the means doesn’t quite live up to the stated end as well as i think it could have. i disagree that the authors were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. if they felt that way, maybe a different strategy should have been employed.
regarding bamabob’s comment, i think you may have overreacted but i can’t speak for her/him. i thought what s/he said was a thoughtful criticism. the document may not take any positions on the debate directly but it certainly implies that the positions being discussed are still up for debate. this is a position, and one that i agree with. not everyone agrees though. bamabob’s comment only asks why we would sign something that says certain positions should not be ruled a priori outside the pale of presbyterianism if we can’t understand what those positions being described are. if it were truly a bare call for a mode of behavior it wouldn’t have needed to include a list of contended issues.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I sincerely apologize for getting frustrated. I just feel like I’m answering the same objections over and over again.
Let me say more genteely (I hope!) that I do feel I’ve expressed my personal reasons for signing. I understand why some would either have objections or be reticent to sign. If you object or have any qualms of conscience, don’t sign. I’m perfectly OK with that.
I stand by the reasons I signed, and as I stated, those are personal reasons. Perhaps when I offered to answer question in the original post I inadvertantly gave the impression that I am taking on the mission of defending the document. That’s not my mission or job. I resign! I’m simply happy with what it says for me and have signed it for the reasons I noted.
It may very well be that this wasn’t done perfectly. It was good enough for me.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I’m thinking of signing it as a personal committment to conduct myself in debate in a more charitable way. That seems to be what’s its saying, so I would agree its a good thing. I’m not sure what else it could be saying.
That’s what I think it’s needed for. I know charitable debate can occurr: at one point I emailed one NPP critic with what I thought was a more cogent critique of the NPP than the one he was offering, even though I don’t think the NPP is particulalrly dangerous or unhelpful.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
One point that should be made is that in the recent history of the Episcopal church, control of official processes has been used as weapon by the theologically liberal to control the terms of the discussion.
Thus when I see, for example, your suggestion that the term “heretic” be confined to those officially so judged by appropriate institutions within the church organizational hierarchy, I become very wary. Of course, an atmosphere of Christian charity and humility should characterize all discussion in the church — and of course, it unfortunately sometimes does not. But surely someone who asserts that Jesus was not born of a virgin, or that the Resurrection never occurred, or that greed and materialism are not sinful, or that homosexual activity can be holy — a person who affirms any of these things is clearly denying the common teaching of the universal church for its entire history; applying the term “heresy” to such claims is merely accurate and descriptive.
Likewise I notice a “commitment to listening” in the PPT statement. This is all very well, but I have noticed in the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran controversies that those who most emphasize the necessity for listening to our oppressed brothers and sisters are by and large the ones least likely to actually listen to the voice of the church, or indeed to anyone’s voice but their own. I would not be surprised to learn that this is true among Presbyterians as well.
So of course the stated objectives of PPT are laudable and unexceptionable, but I have to question the practical value of the statement.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I want to disagree with you, Craig, but … I can’t! At least not amongst me and my Methodist brothers.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Craig,
A technical point, but one which might be worth noting: the episcopal form of church government is a top-down hierarchy. As with monarchies, when you have a good king the people prosper and when you have a bad king the people suffer. Local Episcopal churches are fairly powerless against a leadership who have gone over the edge.
Presbyterianism, on the other hand, is a bottom-up hierarchy. The locus of authority is in the local church, yet differing from congregationalism, presbyterianism is really a succession of “covering” courts. Most issues are to be settled at the local church level, but those too difficult or big are submitted up the ladder. Major policy and doctrinal decisions are made at a general assembly constituted by representatives. Thus it is much harder (but certainly not impossible!) for presbyterian denominations to run amuck. A few bad leaders at the top do not in themselves have sufficient independent power to harm the churches below them.
None of which is to say that Presbyterian church councils and courts are perfect. They are still subject to human foibles and the lingering effects of sin.
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 am
Jed,
Someone pointed this thread out to me and suggested that I read it. It has been an interesting discussion, and quite substantive at points. I thought it might be helpful if I responded to some of your querries. I am sorry to say that I will not be able to come back and respond to questions (or abuse!), and I know that this is bad blog etiquette. But I have a book manuscript due in a week and then my family goes on vacation, and I have some pressing pastoral matters as well, so I have to bear down very hard this week.
First, you wrote that it might be too much to expect that Doug Wilson and I might ever sit down together and have a positive exchange. But in fact this very thing has happened. Doug and I have met and discussed these issues and our relationship has always been cordial. I have fairly recently had the opportunity to comment positively in his blog (I especially liked his critique of post-modernity) and Doug responded with public appreciation.
This is one of my concerns with PPT. It may give the impression that at the root of our dispute is a lack of charity. But that is not at all my experience. Three years ago, many of the leading FV proponents met with a number of us FV critics for three days in Ft. Lauderdale. The meeting produced little agreement on these issues, but certainly advanced understanding. And it was all perfectly cordial. We carried on a private email discussion for many months that also was quite cordial. On a personal level, I have enjoyed good relations with a number of the FV writers – Rich Lusk comes to mind, for one. It is not easy to maintain a public dispute without friction, but I think these have been handled with a high degree of Christian cordiality. Since many of us have literally exhausted ourselves with cordial personal dialogue with our opposites, it is a little frustrating for people to think the problem is that the ultimate problem here is a lack of charity.
Secondly, you are right in suggesting that I would be quite willing to sign an agreeable document calling for charity in a general sense. My problem with PPT is that it is accompanied by a call to accept doctrines currently in dispute as “within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.†I agree that the list of said doctrines used oblique language, but in the context of this debate I thought it was all clear enough (i.e. “pre-lapsarian covenant = covenant of worksâ€). One concern of mine was that men and women of good will would thus think they were signing a doctrine for charity when in fact they were declaring as acceptable many doctrines that they might personally find objectionable. In saying this, I do not mean to assert devious intentions on the part of the unknown drafters, but rather on the likely results of the document itself.
In my opinion, Phil Ryken hit the nail on the head on Ref21, when he pointed out that there is a category mistake at work here. Charity is to be extended to persons, not to erroneous teaching. I do not at all mind when my public writing is subjected to critique, even when I think it is way off base. It is good for me — personally and theologically — to be criticized. Matters of Christian truth are so significant that we often have a duty to be critical, not charitable, in public debate of doctrinal matters. I think you will find this born out in the counsel of the apostles regarding such matters. (My favorite example is Paul’s criticism of Peter in Galatians 2. You can imagine a later meeting in which Peter says to Paul, “Did you have to put that in the Bible!” Paul replies, “Yes, I did!”)
Thirdly, I also agree with you that if the drafters of PPT wanted to avoid the impression of a partisan tactic, they might have done better to invite known critics of the FV and some of the other matters in dispute from the start – that is, in the drafting stage itself. Regardless of the motives of the drafters (to which I have no access), in the context of this debate I think it was reasonable for those on my side to view the PPT as an accusation rather than a plea. We all live and learn, and in my opinion you give good counsel here. (In my experience, though, this seldoms happens on either side when sign-on statements are published. The fact is that we all have an agenda, and it is usually naive to think that the agenda is going to be absent from any such documents.)
Lastly – and readers here may find this hard to believe – I was surprised at the vehemence of some peoples’ reaction to my original Ref21 post. As I pointed out in a later Ref21 post, I had no intention of impugning the motives of the unknown authors but was commenting on the evident implications of the document itself (of course, in my opinion). I had a number of people read my post before I put it up, and none of them thought it likely to incite offense. I have re-read it and still don’t see where I slandered anyone’s motives. But obviously, I was mistaken in the way many on the other side would take it, and I accept any criticism I may take for that. I would simply ask that those who took offense to accept my assurance that I did not mean to impugn their motives. (This was the point of the criticism, right? — not to assume another’s motives.) It is hard to write passionately and also without offense, but I will also try to live and prayerfully to learn.
My original concern is that we restore peace and true unity within our communions. The fact is that we have real disagreement on serious matters. It is my view that our church courts need to take up these matters and make decisions if we are to avoid more deeply harmful disunity. My concern is that at this stage to call for charity towards the doctrines under dispute can only hamper the process needed to achieve unity. That was the opinion behind my original post. I understand if some of you see things differently, but I ask you to consider the possibility that my and others’ alarm arises not out of a lack of charity but out of sincere conviction.
I do apologize for hitting and running on this blog, but I thought that these might be comments that readers would find helpful. May the Lord bless you all.
Rick Phillips
P.S. – Thanks, Jed, for considering at least the possibility that I may not be a jerk!
P.S.S. – Thanks, Mark, for your kind treatment of my wife and my book on dating on the WTS web site. We hope that it will be a blessing to many.
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:12 am
Rick,
I’m getting ready to leave for the day, so I’ll write a fuller response this evening. But I wanted to take a moment to thank you most sincerely for having the courage and love to comment on this lil’ ol’ blog, which certainly has been a part of the mini firestorm over P&PT. While I will politely disagree later with a couple of your assertions, your response on the whole has certainly been a huge help to me in understanding “where you’re coming from” as we used to say in the ’70s. Most of all, I am very grateful that you have broken out of the “fourth wall” of the Reformation21 blog to engage your critics. You have done so with all the “charity” and respect that any of us who signed P&PT could ever hope for in these debates. Since I signed the document more in response to what occurs on the Internet (blogosphere in particular) rather than within the “normal” circles of Presbyteriansm, I am most encouraged to hear of the numerous face-to-face encounters that you describe. That is what so many of us have hoped for, and I for one am glad to hear that is happening.
Mark
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
With Rick Phillip’s kind permission, I have placed a copy of his response above as a main post, which you can view here. Later, I’ll place my reponse to his response in that thread.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
[...] In the follow-up department, Joel Garver has finally gone public with his take on the behind-the-scenes thinking and planning that produced Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together (original document here, our discussion here and here). Published in: It’s All About Me | on June 23rd, 2006 Popularity: unranked | [...]