» News: PCA Federal Vision / NPP Committee Report Modified
The Presbyterian Church in America's Federal Vision / NPP study committee report appeared on the news magazine By Faith Online on about the 7th of May (printout of original). This week, the PCA posted another draft, newly formatted, to the General Assembly website (pdf). The two drafts are nearly identical, content-wise, but the committee made at least one content change that some bloggers online have noticed.
In one section, the original report reads:
Furthermore, some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects. John Barach observed that "the Bible doesn't know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant, really in the covenant, and being only externally in the covenant." Likewise, Steve Wilkins argued that "all in covenant are given all that is true of Christ." Doug Wilson has implied that all baptized covenant members are participants in Christ in the same "strong sense," writing that "the person who did not persevere was not given less of Christ."
In response to this section of the report, Douglas Wilson notes that the writing referenced by the committee for this "implication" actually affirms the opposite. Likewise, the response of Jeffrey Meyers notes this error.
The revised report reads this way:
Furthermore, some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects. John Barach observed that "the Bible doesn't know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant, really in the covenant, and being only externally the covenant." Likewise, Steve Wilkins argued that "all in covenant are given all that is true of Christ."
The sentence regarding Wilson's views has been removed in the version of the report that will be distributed to GA commisioners in the General Assembly in Memphis this June. The questions some are asking online include: what motivated the change? which report is the official one? will further changes be made prior to the GA meeting?
In an attempt to understand the factors motivating the committee to change the report, RN contacted the committee on May 17th to inquire about the content change. Committee Chair, Paul Fowler provided no explanation and noted in an email, acquired by RN, to his fellow committee members, "Any suggestions on how to respond? Since we agreed not to respond to such sites, I am not sure what to do?" In the end, Fowler responded "We simply will not get involved in the blogs."
Previously, on May 16th, Fowler responded favorably to our request for a response from the committee concerning Meyers' paper, writing, "We will respond when we have opportunity to evaluate it."
We will continue to develop this story and keep you informed if Fowler or the committee releases further clarification.
Labels: controversy, dougwilson, fowler, fv, news, npp, pcaga
21 Comments:
Here is the point: "...some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects."
Let me repeat the point: "...some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects."
This is what serious Commissioners to this summer's General Assembly--who gather at significant cost to their families and churches, so as to do the work of the Royal King in one of His courts--this is what serious Commissioners will be considering together.
Is Doug Wilson one of the FV writers who has denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects? Now we know that apparently he is not. Very good. But serious Commissioners to the PCA's General Assembly will keep their eye on their own avowed responsibilities and jurisdiction, namely:
* The doctrine and practice of our particular portion of the glorious Vineyard; in particular,
* The very sober question of what to do if it is demonstrated that there are officers in the PCA who "deny that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects," among many other issues, to wit:
* The very sober matter of considering together the nine declarations and the five motions offered by the Committee.
On the other hand, I suppose folks are free to come to General Assembly so that they can secretly laugh and point at Paul Fowler, Grover Gunn, Ligon Duncan, Sean Lucas, John White, Robert Mattes, and William Mueller ("Do you see that guy? He was on the Committee that couldn't even get a simple detail right about what Doug Wilson believes!!!), or so that they can vote the whole thing down on the basis of a mistake in an earlier draft, but I wouldn't think that would be a good use of the Lord's time.
Thanks to the anonymous owners of this blog for your straightforward reporting to this point.
Jeff Hutchinson
Pastor, Trinity PCA
Asheville, NC
Perhaps it is crass to point something else out (I happen to think this is entirely appropriate and positively helpful, but then again, what do I know?):
I am thankful for the godly men on this PCA Study Committee, men who would demonstrate the over-the-top, extra-mile, cloak-off-one's-back humility and charity necessary in order to correct themselves when they realized they had misrepresented a man who has shown, for years now, almost nothing but well-documented disdain, not only for the PCA and its jurisdiction and rulings (any google search should do), but also sister NAPARC denominations like the OPC (again, google to your heart's content), and let's throw in the EV Free for good measure.
I would like to think I could be as godly, but I have a hard enough time being charitable to normal folks, let alone folks who hold me in disdain. Anyway, I want to publicly express my thanks to these brothers, not only for their hard work, but also for their notably humility and charity in the face of disdain. Thank you, brothers.
Sorry; I don't have a blogger account. That was me again.
Jeff Hutchinson
Pastor, Trinity PCA
Asheville, NC
Just click on "other" and you can give your name and website address without having a blogger account. Thanks for participating on the site.
I refreshed the page and saw that now there were four comments instead of my three, and I immediately thought, "Uh oh; here come the attack dogs." So glad it was only a helpful comment from the editor!
(okay, let's see if this works...I'm about to click "other"...)
Jeff,
I suppose you repeated yourself because you thought this was really important:
>Here is the point: "...some FV writers have also
>denied that the covenant can be viewed from two
>different aspects."
>Let me repeat the point: "...some FV writers have
>also denied that the covenant can be viewed
>from two different aspects."
When I first read the first three paragraphs of your first post I thought I was reading a parody by some FV writer. But then I read the whole thing and realized you were serious. As a heart attack.
This is where I scratch my head and say, huh? What in the world does this statement even mean?
"...some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects."
Here's the problem with the Report's conclusions: it speaks in riddles. Who can tell me what this means? Just what in the world does it mean to deny that the covenant can be "viewed from two different aspects"? What covenant?
What "aspects"? What is the meaning of "viewed"? These are not silly questions. Nowhere in the Wesetminster Standards is this language used. Nowhere do we read about "the covenant" (whichever one that is) being "viewed" form "two aspects."
This language is so sloppy it's almost unbelievable. What is the world of Reformed scholarship coming to?
The Report that is supposed to bring clarity needs to be interpreted before anyone knows what in the world they are talking about.
And don't come back here and say, "Oh, you know perfectly well what they are talking about." I don't.
If they are talking about two covenants - one before and one after the fall - then I have no problem with that? But this is very weird language to use if THAT is what they meant.
If they are talking about the covenant of grace, then what two aspects are we referring to here? Law and grace maybe? Who knows?
Are we talking about the invisible and visible church? Then this is a weird way to put it. How is the covenant "viewed" in two different ways.
If the visible/invisible distinction is what is being referred to here, then the language is even more bizarre. *People* can be "viewed" from two different "aspects" (if we want to use this clumsy language) - God's eternal perspective. He knows a person's heart and future. He's ordained his birth and death, even his eternal destiny. That's invisible to us. So God's "view" is different than man's view and his "view" is invisible to us. Fine. What's the problem? Which FV man denies this?
But this is not the same thing as saying that "the covenant" can be "viewed from two different aspects."
To formulate idiosyncratic theological statements and demand that others conform themselves to these extra-confessional ways of talking seems to be the modus operandi of this committee.
The report is very sloppy in their use of theological language. That is reason enough to can it. If they want to talk like this, that's fine with me. They can do it in their own churches or seminaries or committee meetings. But they ought not be allowed to insist that their idiosyncrasies be the norm in the PCA.
So I still like my first reading of your comment, Jeff. To me it is outrageous and a complete waste of time for commissioners to sacrifice time and money to come to GA and argue about these trifles.
6 men have formulated their own theological formulations and are asking the entire assembly to endorse their odd, narrow way of speaking as the faithful exposition of Westminster or else.
You are chairman of your Presbytery's Candidate's Committee. A candidate is out in the hall reading your Presbytery's Standing Rules while he waits for you to call him in. You call him in, but while you were interviewing the previous candidate, he has somehow been able to scribble out on the back of an envelope, "30 Reasons Why the Standing Rules of the Missouri Presbytery Are Idiosyncratic and Sloppy Beyond Excuse."
He marches right in, slumps down in a chair without seeming to even notice that you all have stood and held out your hands to welcome him, and begins, not by thanking you for leaving your homes and churches to drive many miles to meet with him, or anything like that, but just jumps right in (without even being invited to speak just yet), pointing out, in something of a droning monotone, example after example of how the Standing Rules are sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Your Committee tries to reason with him, "This is language a lot of us have used for a lot of years now, folks in the Presbytery generally aren't confused by these Standing Rules," but he is unconvinced. You even offer to bring a motion to the next Presbytery meeting to correct one obvious mistake that he has pointed out to you, but he just shoves that back in your face, "SEE! You sloppy incompetents...."
Do you:
a) Look forward with eager anticipation to partnering with him in the ministry of the good news of Jesus Christ in the beautiful show-me State of Missouri?
b) Get thrown into a dark existential crisis, go home to your wife, and blurt out "MAYBE EVERYTHING I'VE WORKED FOR ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT AN IDIOSYNCRATIC SLOPPY LIE???"
or,
c) Put his "30 Reasons" in your Committee folder, tell him, "Thank you for coming in, we'll think about what you said;" and then get on to the other business the Lord has given you together.
If you answered c); an additional extra credit question:
When will you encourage your Committee to give further thought to his document?
How is that analogy apropos? Jeff's taken the time to write a long document explaining the problems with the committee report. He has taken no shortcuts here, and he is not a candidate speaking out of turn.
Anyway, that's beside the point, what about Jeff's particular allegation and questions about the meaning of that clause? Let's keep this focused on the substance.
Jeff,
Apples and oranges or apple and doorknobs. This debate is not even close to being about the Standing Rules of the Assembly or of any presbytery. Those kinds of documents are approved by the Assembly and Presbyteries after debate and rewriting.
What we are talking about is the idiosyncratic language of a committee of 6 that attempts to provide AUTHORITATIVE interpretation to the Westminster Standards.
Besides, if an ordinand didn't like the language of our presbytery's Standing Rules and wrote down 30 reasons for his dislike, that would not disqualify him from the ministry. Nobody takes vows before God subscribing to the language of the Standing Rules or of the "system of doctrine" taught in the Standing Rules. They don't have that kind of authority.
It this case we are being asked to subscribe to the language of a committee of 6 men who have given us a sloppy report with their own idiosyncratic language elevated to the authoritative interpretation of our Standards.
Disagreeing with their way of putting things is not even in the same category as disagreeing with Standing Rules or any other document that has gone through the process of critique and division. We are in the process of critiquing it NOW and you are suggesting that I am being insubordinate and unbrotherly by engaging in critique. Amazing.
Now, you still haven't told me by what standard am I required to subscribe to the weird language of "viewing" the covenant from "two aspects."
JJM
JJM,
If you would like to engage in a detailed, point-by-point discussion of both the Report and your objections to it, you are welcome to rejoin the discussion over at Lane Keister's greenbaggins blog.
In the meantime, have you ever heard the Bruce Springsteen song where he sings:
"But for you, my darling
My best, was never good enough"?
It is a bluesy/folksy lament, wherein you get the idea that he actually did his best, and while it certainly wasn't perfect it may have even been a pretty good "best" at that, but his beloved simply won't be satisfied. And so she has left him. And it is very sad. But the tone of the song suggests that it is actually in both of their best interests for her to have left him.
"This language is so sloppy it's almost unbelievable. What is the world of Reformed scholarship coming to?"
This, one of your milder comments, is your opinion of your denomination's work--your denomination, which fielded overtures from Presbyteries all over the country last summer, asking for a Study Committee to be appointed to look into the views which were "troubling our churches," your denomination, which entrusted its Moderator Chair to one of the longest serving and most respected churchmen among us, your denomination, which then, through its entrusted Moderator, appointed seven godly and trustworthy men, several of them noted scholars, to spend countless hours and precious time--with no pay--apart from their own families and churches, studying these matters.
I think it is fair to say that this Study Committee report is the best we could do. It is not perfect, but it is the best we could do. It accurately reflects the "current state of Reformed scholarship" among us in the PCA.
It is well satisfying to me, to all of our elders here, and, as far as I know, to all of our 550 or so members.
But I understand very well that it is anything but well satisfying to you. And so I'll leave you with that Bruce Springsteen song, and commend it to you. You are welcome to have the final word.
May the Lord bless you and your church richly.
Jeff H., why not dilaogue with Jeff M. about aspects, covenant, etc., here? You began this conversation here; why not continue it here?
Jeff H., you do this all the time. You drop into a blog and leave what you think are weighty points, but never stick around to defend your position.
Now, you made a big deal about PCA commissioners having to make a momentous decision about the fact that some PCA men actually deny that the covenant can be "viewed" from "two aspects."
You repeated yourself:
>Here is the point: "...some FV writers have also
>denied that the covenant can be viewed from two
>different aspects."
>Let me repeat the point: "...some FV writers have
>also denied that the covenant can be viewed
>from two different aspects."
I then asked you why in the world this idiosyncratic language should be forced on us since our Standards do not speak this way. Why should the General Assembly of the PCA be involved in regulating such speech? I don't have a problem if someone wants to speak this way. But why should I be forced to use this kind of language?
I'm not even forced to use the precise language and formulations of the Westminster Standards, for goodness sake! I subscribe to "the system of doctrine" but not to every phrase and way of putting things in Westminster.
Why do YOU think that we should all be forced to line up lockstep with the way this little committee has formulated things?
And don't make this out that I am disrespecting these men by not agreeing with them. I respect lots of men in the PCA that I don't agree with. But if they banded together and tried to force me to adopt their terminology or else be marginalized or forced out, then I would respectfully resist.
And, no, I don't have any interest in Lane Kiester's blog.
I'm thinking that Jeff's point is it's possible to express disappointment and disagreement with the content of the PCA committee's report while still acknowledging the men involved voluntarily gave of their time and effort in a desire to serve their denomination.
You know, like when Great-Aunt Edna labors hard to knit her nephew a sweater for Christmas, only it's too short in the length, the opening for the head's so small it can only be pulled on with difficulty, and the sleeves reach almost to the knees. Plus she apparently needs new glasses for she dropped every fifth stitch.
The nephew's under no obligation to actually wear the knitted monstrosity, but he should still civilly thank his aunt for her work, reflecting that she doubtless meant well.
It'd be more appropriate and charitable for those PCA members dismayed by the report to not imply the committee members are either dumb as dirt or actively malicious.
Darn. I can never remember which blog site ID's automatically include my name and which don't.
Anne in Fort Worth
"This, one of your milder comments, is your opinion of your denomination's work--your denomination, which fielded overtures from Presbyteries all over the country last summer, asking for a Study Committee to be appointed to look into the views which were "troubling our churches," your denomination, which entrusted its Moderator Chair to one of the longest serving and most respected churchmen among us, your denomination, which then, through its entrusted Moderator, appointed seven godly and trustworthy men, several of them noted scholars, to spend countless hours and precious time--with no pay--apart from their own families and churches, studying these matters."
Jeff, there is no loyalty oath to whatever fad happens to rip through GA next year. This is just more, "submit because we outnumber you," whining.
Not going to work. You are utterly in the wrong and those who know the truth have the responsibility to proclaim it until God vindicates them in this world or the next. Every petty bureatyrant who has pulled off anything that causes oppositin has *always* accused his oppostion of being *unamerican.* It's a sad response in the civil realm and it is even more pathetic in the church.
Mark Horne
http://hornes.org/mark/
FYI, "petty bureatyrant" was the result of thinking of past instances in American government and history. Not about the PCA. The parallel is in the fads that we later regret, and the order to submit.
"The very sober question of what to do if it is demonstrated that there are officers in the PCA who 'deny that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects,'"
This is a great point. Since the confession nowhere says that the coveannt can be viewed from two different aspects, what on earth can the committee by making this sort of alleged accusation?
Mark Horne, TE, MO pby
"... can the committee be thinking by making..."
Rev. Meyers,
I can only hope to one day be a man of your great stature, so I write these words with trembling hands.
It seems that your critiques of the report and its nine declarations are of two sorts: 1) process-oriented (e.g., the Moderator stacked the deck) and 2) epistemological (e.g., we don't know what the report actually means, so how can we agree to it?).
First, with regard to the process-oriented complaints, it’s clear that the Moderator stacked the deck, and I know you don’t believe that the members of the committee gave FV/NPP the benefit of a doubt. Granting that the process was not as fair as it could have been to those like yourself, it does not follow that we ought to throw the entire report out, or that the declarations are wrong! And as Messrs Hutchinson are quick to point out, the only relevant consideration at this point in time is whether or not GA should accept the report's nine declarations.
Second, granting that the only relevant consideration at hand is whether or not to accept the nine declarations, the bulk of your critiques against the nine declarations seem aimed at ambiguities in the language of the declarations. The cynical expert at political wrangling within me believes this appears to be a strategy, an intentional strategy to cast doubt upon the specific meaning of terms and phrases, and to use doubt and ambiguity to stretch our tent, to craft and enjoy a new-found solid ground upon which you seem determined to stand: within the confines of the Westminster Confession, but outside the bounds of established doctrine.
In general, though, I do believe your critiques about ambiguous language have some merit. After all, it would be terrible if GA were to adopt a declaration that had unforeseen or plain wrong implications. It seems impossible these days to make any sort of meaningful statement of doctrine or policy without setting off a firestorm of pedantic, hair-splitting “what-ifs”. The best exhibition of rabid hair-splitting in our society is our legal system, where ambiguity is regularly exploited to the max. But reducing ambiguity as much as possible seems both unfortunate and necessary; a necessary evil, as they say.
In your criticisms of the nine declarations, you seem to be demanding that the report, and ultimately General Assembly, use language that meets your standard of precision and clarity. I am sure the fine gentlemen who crafted the nine declarations, considering their reputations and credentials, also had every intention of using language that was precise and clear. How much precision and clarity will it take for you to be satisfied? It seems to me that the spirit of our denomination's governance is to hold ambiguity and charity in tension with one another. Please forgive my frankness, but is there any amount of charity, any amount of ambiguity, which you will stomach? I do not ask this out of spite, but as a genuine plea. Our particular portion of the glorious Vineyard (as Jeff Hutchinson put it) cannot be governed to God’s glory without at least a small helping of both.
Ethan Wingfield
President, RUF at Brown University 2005-2007
Providence, RI
Not to speak for my pastor, but I put some pretty specific responses to the ambiguity of the 9 declarations at my website here:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/responseto9.html
It's not just Meyers' standards of clarity.
Further, Meyers participated in the Missouri Presbytery's study committee and went through a process of give and take in order to come up with the language of their report.
In my own response, I demonstrate problems with every one of the 9 declarations; this isn't a matter of one guy's scrupulosity; the 9 declarations are flawed.
Ethan,
Thank your for your kind words and your balanced response.
There's a lot of verbiage in my "30 Reasons" response, I know. I'm working on a shorter response and hope to have that available soon.
My main concern with the 9 declarations is that they elevate narrow formulations and views to the level of authoritative confessional interpretation. If this report was adopted, extra-confessional, and sometimes even odd, idiosyncratic ways of formulating commonplaces in Reformed theology would attain some authoritative status as "official" interpretations of our Standards.
There are so many problems with this report that I believe it would be best to recommit it to the committee and expand the membership of the committee to include FV sympathetic men or to just drop the entire thing and continue on with the discussion.
BTW, Ethan, I have nothing close to a "great stature" in any circles that I know of, but I appreciate the compliment nonetheless!
Jeff
Post a Comment
<< Home