Rick Phillips Responds to Our P&PT Discussion
I was both surprised and pleased to find this morning that Rev. Rick Phillips of Refomation21 Blog fame had posted a comment in our discussion of Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together. For those of you tuning in late, Rev. Phillps launched a preemptive strike in what has become a mini-firestorm in the little world of Reformed blogdom. His post set the agenda for the debates that have errupted over the last few weeks: Is the call for charitable disourse in P&PT actually a call for a gag on criticism of certain controversial positions? Is it perhaps even more insidious than that…a conspiracy hatched by a secretive group of Federal Vision or NPP supporters? Is it a slap in the face to Presbyterians already engaged in and committed to irenic discussion of such matters? Does it implicitly support doctrines that should not even be open for discussion?
Since this blogger has obviously adopted a position in support of P&PT, it was most encouraging to see Rev. Phillips take the time to comment on our discussion. While I still choose to disagree at several points (which I will delineate in the comments to this post), I am grateful for the clarifications Rev. Phillips offered of his position. He has earned my respect as one who is willing to act in accord with the heart of P&PT, even if his conscience and convictions do not allow him to sign it.
I have posted his comment in this front page post–in its entirety and with his permission–because I believe it to be important enough not to be buried deep in an already-too-long thread. Some context: Rev. Phillips begins by responding to frequent-commentor Jedediah Sloboda. Jed had stated that he thought P&PT would have been a much more effective document if it had been drafted in cooperation with people on all sides of the various Presbyterian controversies. Here is Rev. Phillips response:Â
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!â€)
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.
Note: The book to which Rick refers is Holding Hands, Holding Hearts: A Balanced Approach to Christian Dating. Highly recommended by the Foolish Sage!
Share on Facebook
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Rick (since we’re now email buddies, I suppose I can call you Rick? Feel free to call me Foolish. Many people think it is an appropriate name for me!),
First off, I want to reiterate how glad it makes me to hear that there have indeed been some “face-to-face” meetings between FV proponents and critics. I don’t think that P&PT was intended to imply that there are no such efforts taking place, that no one in Presbyterian circles is attempting to act with charity and respect, so if that impression was given, I for one am sorry. I’m sure that there are many good things taking place of which most of us are (necessarily in some cases) ignorant.
I signed the P&PT not because I thought that everyone in official capacities in conservative Presbyterian denominations was acting out of line, but more because of what I have been observing taking place on the Internet. Under cover of the oft-discussed anonymity of the blogosphere, hurtful and unfair accusations and insinuations have been hurled from all sides. I confess to having been guilty of participating in that at times, and in my opinion, Reformation21 has also, at times, been guilty of the same. So I signed P&PT as an act of public accountability, committing to do my part to stop feeding the fires of accusation and character assassination that have dominated far too much theological discussion on the Internet. On the other hand, I no more than you want to hinder or impede valid discussion and even criticism in the course of working through difficult and important doctrinal issues.
As to your second point, that P&PT is “a call to accept doctrines currently in dispute as ‘within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy,’” I must respectully disagree with your characterization. It was most emphatically not a call to “accept” anything other than a mode of discourse. This is made very clear in the P&PT FAQ which states, “This document does not advocate a particular point-of-view on any issue, but only suggests that various differences have always found their home within the bounds of the historic Reformed tradition and that the church must be allowed to discern appropriate boundaries without needlessly hostile rhetoric.” Now I will admit that part of that statement is unfortunate wording. It could be inferred (and obviously it has!) that the “various differences” referred to are the specific controversies used as examples in the document. From my discussions with some of the originators of the document, I do not believe that was the intent of “various differences.” Rather it was a reference to the limited diversity (within confessional bounds) that has always existed in Presbyterian circles. As the statement goes on to say, “the church must be allowed to discern appropriate boundaries,” and everyone I know who has signed the document wholeheartedly agrees. No final, authoritative ruling has been made in any of the conservative Presbyterian denominations on any of the matters listed. Therefore, it is premature and unfair for anyone to rule them as out-of-bounds for continued discussion. Summing up: the P&PT is neither a gag nor an apologetic for any particular set of positions. It is simply a call for continued dialogue in a charitable and respectful manner while our denominations are sorting out these issues.
Next, I don’t think any of us would disagree with Ryken’s observation that charity is due “persons not positions.” Again, it is my opinion that a characterization that P&PT is advocating the opposite is reading into the document something that is not there.
On your third point, as I’ve made clear, I simply take P&PT as written, and not as an agenda statement for any particular side. Frankly though, I’ve been tempted to think “guilty conscience” when I see conservative commentators and bloggers jumping so quickly to assume that P&PT is aimed at them. Now I said I was tempted, I didn’t say I gave in to that temptation!
Lastly, I fully accept your statement that you had no intention of impugning anyone’s motives in your original post, and thank you for making that very clear here. As your brother in Christ, I accept your statement as truthful (”love believes all things”) and therefore will henceforth rebuke anyone who continues to insinuate otherwise. You did say, though, that you were open to constructive criticism on your original post, so may I offer some? I would submit that, whatever your actual intentions, you did use language in that post that seemed rather absolutist about the identity and motives of the framers of P&PT. Some examples:
There is no “seems to be” or “might be” language in that statement. It’s clear as day: P&PT is an endeavor to silence critics of a particular position.
Sounds like you had proof-positive that “FV men” were behind P&PT. But in your later response to Phil Ryken you admitted you had no knowledge of either the identity or motives of the document’s framers and pleaded that you had only said that it “seemed to be” by “FV men.” Unfortunately, there is no “seems to be” in the statement quoted above.
As I’ve already stated, that is your perception of what we signatories are “declaring.” It is not what I am declaring, and it is not the declaration of any of the signatories whom I know (and I know quite a few).
Can you see now how those of us who supported P&PT might have taken offense at your post? Though you later protested in your response to Pastor Ryken’s post that you had qualified your conclusions with the language of “seems to be,” I only found that qualifier twice in your lengthy post, and neither time was it used to qualify your chief accusations. Perhaps Carl Trueman’s satirical post several days later about conspiracy theories among bloggers hits close to home.
I do not want to end my comments, however, on a note of criticism. It is easy to point out fault on both sides in this whole debate. It is therefore obvious that the sentiment of P&PT, however flawed anyone may think it’s construction, is still one we need to remind one another–and ourselves–of constantly. Again, I am so pleased that you took the time to come here and “face the music.” I am very aware of the demands on a busy pastor who is also a published author and nationally-sought-after speaker, and I am very aware that you did not need to do this. That you did speaks volumes about you as a Christian and a leader.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Rick Phillips wrote, “I have re-read it and still don’t see where I slandered anyone’s motives.”
How about this lovely zinger, Pastor Phillips? “…these factional attempts to smear those who take recourse to the proper channels of church authority can have no other purpose than to silence the FV opponents.”
Pastor Phillips! Please! That statement clearly accuses the drafters (and the signers?) of PPT of factionalizing, smearing brothers, and trying to silence FV opponents! I’d say that is pretty uncharitable, and I think as a minister of the Gospel, you should confess it! Right?
This kind of thing troubles me very deeply. Pastor Phillips, if that is what charity looks like, then we have a big problem. My, oh my.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Mark,
I have a question for you.
What do you mean by this statement: “No final, authoritative ruling has been made in any of the conservative Presbyterian denominations on any of the matters listed. Therefore, it is premature and unfair for anyone to rule them as out-of-bounds for continued discussion.”?
The WCF itself rules out a decent number of views related to the matters listed in the PPT.
This is the main point at which I find the PPT the most unhelpful (and I am not impugning the motives behind it, just how I see the result). It gives the impression (whether intended or not) that it is impossible to say certain positions on these matters are already ruled out. The church courts (at least in the PCA/OPC) do not have to make rulings on many of the views related to those listed in the PPT since the WCF already has settled many issues (for the PCA/OPC anyway), and the church courts have already ruled on others.
For example:
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.
Many views in relation to the pre-lapsarian covenant have already been decided by the WCF.
whether we regard sacraments truly to offer Christ and whether, when effectual, they confer grace instrumentally or are only occasions for the imparting or promise of grace.
It would not be in accord with the WCF to say that the sacraments confer grace instrumentally apart from faith on the part of the one receiving the sacrament. I doubt the drafters of the PPT intended to say that it is an acceptable option to state the sacraments confer grace instrumentally apart from faith, but you could get the impression that that is an acceptable option.
How we interpret and enact biblical teaching on worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper.
This could be taken to allow for paedocommunion, but obviously the PCA and OPC have already ruled that option out.
The reason I bring all of these things up is because it doesn’t seem right to say that “No final, authoritative ruling has been made in any of the conservative Presbyterian denominations on any of the matters listed.” when in fact many of the possible options in these matters have already been decided.
I will grant that on almost all of these issues there is a good deal of diversity that has not in fact been ruled out. I do believe it is important, though, that we acknowledge that certain limits to the diversity of options are already in place.
I understand that the PPT was not written to decide the acceptable diversity on these issues, but rather to call for charitable discourse, but it easily can give the impression that there currently exists more acceptable diversity than is actually the case. This seems to be the primary concern of those who don’t like what they see with the PPT.
I dunno… what do you think?
Ben
May 24th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
The WCF requires a prelapsarian covenant, but it really says very little beyond the fact that such a covenant exists. The ins and outs of many of the questions are left unanswered.
Given the fact that Larger Catechism Q#39 includes “advance our nature” in the list of Christ’s accomplishments as man, we would seem to have at least some confessional legitimacy in maturation theories. The fact that these have been stamped out raises many questions.
I also wonder if critics have considered that fact that PPT is a trans-confessional document? This being the case certain confesions would be more or less compatible, but all parties can agree to the attitudes which the document addresses.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I think Mark just mispoke here. The PPT document, as I understand it, calls for the charitable acceptance of theological latitude where views have traditionally been considered within the bounds of the reformed tradition. Regardless of what a particular confession or denomination says, this would extend to issues like covenant of works, active righteousness, and paedobaptism. It’s why people like John Murray could be ordained in the OPC and John Lightfoot a divine. Charitable acceptance doesn’t mean such views are automatically ordainable, but it does at least mean they’re treated with respect rather than as anathema, including fair an open dialog free of blogo-banter.
At any rate, I think we forget how much acceptable diversity there has been within the tradition.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:57 am
What Justin said.
May 25th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
At the risk of sounding a bit too gripy, I’d like to add one other observation.
I find it a little bothersome that one view which is outside the reformed tradition (as far as I know) is the refusal to baptize infants, yet many of the presbyterians who have voiced opinions against PPT are nevertheless very open/charitable/cooperative with baptists who share similar reformed-ish positions on things other than baptism, treating baptism as though it’s essentially a peripheral, or at least negotiable, issue.
Now personally, I’m perfectly fine doing likewise with baptists, and am grateful they are being included. I think it’s a tough issue. But it seems pretty inconsistent to me to say that view is acceptable and not some other positions, say, paedocommunion.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:39 am
Mark,
Thank you for this post.
As a signer of Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together, I would like to address one point raised by Pastor Phillips:
“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.”
As you point out, P&PT does not commit its signers to anything other than a mode of discourse. Yet, I (perhaps naively) find it odd that anyone would look at the examples of diversity in P&PT and say anything other than: “of course, these are examples of doctrinal diversity that have existed, and continue to exist, within Biblically Reformed denominations.”
Although I subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith without exceptions, I signed P&PT precisely because it was a call to charity in discourse that is so badly needed in our circles. In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we have always allowed for exceptions to the Confession that local Presbyteries and the GA deem to be acceptable. Therefore, while I embrace “the Covenant of Works” and disagree with John Murray’s re-formulation of this doctrine - I don’t want to pretend that John Murray wasn’t a Reformed Theologian simply because we disagree, nor do I want to exclude future John Murrays from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
The items of doctrine listed in P&PT are not innovative reformulations of doctrine that have been developed within the past decade. All of the items listed simply reflect historical diversity that has existed, and been (largely) accepted, within Biblically Reformed Christianity.
To use a concrete illustration: I would be quite happy to have B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and John Murray as Ordained Officers in my local church. It is accurate to say that some of the positions held by these men are being vigorously debated within conservative Reformed circles. I suspect that this will be true until the Return of Christ. Yet, it is also true to say that their views have been acceptable to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and to many other Reformed Churches as well.
It may be helpful to remember that it is those who now want to narrow the limits of acceptable orthodoxy who are in fact the ones arguing for change. The vigorous advocacy for such change can be healthy for the Church. After all, part of our Reformed heritage is a conviction that both Confessions and Church Courts can err. Yet, as we zealously strive for the purity of Christ’s Church we must do so not merely with tolerance for our brothers and sisters who disagree with us - but with love.
David
June 14th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
i leave the blog world for three weeks and miss this?! i have been out on the road with danielson and haven’t had the time to keep up. i have to read it again more carefully but rick, your response to this thread is an encouragement to me. this is exactly the kind of thing i was trying to get at in my previous posts. i have found in my life, my marriage especially, that disputes are most truly dealt with when, like peter and paul, they are worked out face to face, or at least, with one another. it is only when our differences are worked out this way that we can avoid demonizing, or lack of charity. i have never maintained that both positions are right or even compatible in the pca. i honestly don’t know enough about our standards or our hertage to say yet. in the end some folks may have to part ways. i’m fine with that. i am also fine with doing what we do under submission to the holy spirit, bearing the fruit of that submission. hoping to see more of that fruit in my own life and in the lives of our church leaders as we seek to live and proclaim the gospel.