Responses to PCA GA Vote on FV/NPP Report
First off, sorry for all the acronyms in the post title. Perhaps it is fitting, though, to use “insider” acronyms concerning an issue that, at the end of the day, really only involves a tiny corner patch in the midst of the vast acreage of God’s vineyard. If most or all of those acronyms mean nothing to you, pass on this post and go on about the business of the Kingdom.
I wrestled through all of yesterday evening and through several wakeful moments during the past night over whether to post a reaction to the vote yesterday receiving the recommendations of the ad interim study committee on the issues of Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul. I went through various emotions ranging from anger to sadness to resignation. After reading the responses of some wiser and cooler heads than mine, I thought it wiser to direct you to their comments. In summary, they advise us to keep perspective, remember Who is sovereign in the affairs of men. and show love and grace to those with whom we find ourselves in disagreement.
Before passing you on to their comments, let me say a few things of my own. First, a reminder that I am not an outright supporter of either FV of NPP. However, I do think both have significant contributions to make and fear that those valuable babies might be drained with the “our interpretation of the standards only” bathwater. Second, it is very difficult to hold on to confidence in church councils and assemblies when one is exposed (rather directly in my case) to the hideous behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that go on. Third, I want to publicly commend Rev. Craig Higgins for his passionate speech during debate over a sub-motion to postpone the report. Rev. Higgins urged (following Francis Schaeffer) that we seek to preserve not only orthodoxy of doctrine but also orthodoxy of community. His remarks were particularly poignant as they immediately followed the repugnant grandstanding of a much more famous delegate.
Now, the “cooler, wiser heads”"
Share on Facebook
June 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Surely I’m the least cool of the cool heads…. But thanks a bunch for the kind words. One of the harder things to endure, I suppose, is what happens next - the constant refrain that the FV guys need to listen to this alleged unified voice of the reformed church.
I think it would be extremely interesting to pass out a sheet of paper to each delegate today and ask them to write a paragraph summary of what the Federal Vision teaches. I think the results would prove that there is a lot of uncertainty about exactly *what* was condemned.
Anyway, on with life. I have a dissertation to write and it deals with Reformed people 350 years ago. And oddly enough, they were talking about the same things back then!
June 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I watched the webcast of the general assembly deliberations today.
I followed the dialog on the websites you mentioned, along with others such as Green Baggins and others. Now, I will preface my comment with the statement that I’ve been in full agreement with the Committee’s Report, the writings of Guy Waters and the teaching of Ligon Duncan. Thus, my opinion will be in light of agreement, rather than concern or opposition
That being said, my real comment is with regard to a parallel illustration. Should I oppose a particular principle or rule within my local church, there is an authority system set up to which I am responsible to willingly submit. To the teaching elders and the ruling elders, ie, church government.
So, I think (IMHO) if the men in the PCA want to hold out a model of headship, they should submit to the assembly.
(justmy2centsworth)
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Mark, “repugnant grandstanding?” Isn’t that a bit harsh for one of the most well-respected Reformed theologians in the entire world? He was standing up for his convictions. Many of us bless him, you know, for what he said. I think you should listen to what Joel Garver said about him:
http://www.kyriosity.com/2007/06/id-like-to-say-something-nice-about.htm
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Pastor Lane,
Agreed: We ought to give honor where honor is due. But like the rest of us, the theologian is simul justus *et peccator.* Being one of the most well-respected Reformed theologians in the entire world doesn’t render one incapable of a bit of repugnant grandstanding. Nor does it put one beyond criticism. (This should not surprise us. Even Peter, an apostle, needed taking down a notch or two in Antioch.) Whether the words “repugnant grandstanding” are harsh depends, at least in part, on how true they are, not on the theologian’s reputation.
Consider another case: The Rev. J.I. Packer, too, is one of the most well-respected Reformed theologians in the entire world, but that hasn’t kept some of his Reformed brethren from criticizing his involvement in Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
The point here isn’t to take sides. I wasn’t at General Assembly. I haven’t heard what’s been called “repugnant grandstanding.” Maybe the speaker was right, or maybe he was wrong. The critics may be right, or they may be wrong. But, again, all that depends on the details of the present case, not on reputation.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I was at GA, and did hear a bit of grandstanding, but for the most part the debate was calm and respectful. For those of you who heard my comments (and thanks for your kind words, Mark), I did disagree with RC when he referred to those more sympathetic to the FV as “the accused.” While I welcome a renewed focus on the Reformed sacramental heritage, I think some of FV guys have said some things that were at least quite badly phrased–statements that have not helped preserve charity and unity in the church. But still, in a couple of cases, men have been examined by their presbyteries and been found well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy. They are not accused.
But RC is one of the fathers of the PCA. And while I differ from him on several issues (not least his rejection of Van Til & Frame in apologetics), he deserves our honor, and I sought to give him that in my remarks. He was one of the many people who helped orient my thinking 25 years ago.
I was sorry to see this report pass–even though I think its declarations are largely non-controversial–largely because I think it felt unfinished. In the past, PCA study committees have engaged in serious exegetical reflection, and that is lacking in this report. I was reminded–and I hope our denomination is not taking this route–of Bavinck’s line (no, I don’t remember where) about how dead orthodoxy sets in when a church no longer confesses its beliefs but merely believes its confessions. This report, in the opinion of this commissioner, felt too much like the latter.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
yo, what happened to your blog? THis thing looks like it’s deteriorating.
Craig: it frightens me when the primary goal of a Westminster Confessional institution–whether a denomination or a seminary–seeks to evaluate a biblical interpretation or theology on the basis of a confession. I know of no more counter-confessional thing than that.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
JD: If that’s a reference to the appearance of the blog, I’m guessing it has to do with server problems recently experienced by my host. Looks like I’ll have to re-upload some images and do some other repairs.
If your are referring to my lack of posting, chalk that up to a wonderful 10 days away in the Adirondacks and Maine coast combined with a current lack of interest. It gets wearying writing in an atmosphere where people keep telling you your blog will “get you into trouble” or “hurt your wife’s academic career.” I’m just currently tired of the whole theological blogging thing. I may do something entirely different with this blog (although I’ve threatened that before without much change!). We’ll see. Thanks for caring.
Everyone else above: thanks for the interaction. I concur with Paul B.’s “defense” of my comment, but also welcome Craig Higgin’s very nice tempering of it with some good perspective.
The Foolish Sage
June 28th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I sympathize. Nothing has made me loathe theology more than these shenanigans. So now in my recently resurrected blog, I only blog about whatever I feel like. No theme, no expectations, no let downs.