» News: Pastors Draft Open Letter in Response to Other Open Letters Concerning the FV Report
A group of eight ministers and one ruling elder has written an open letter in defense of the Federal Vision /NPP Study Committee Report. The stated aim of the letter is to respond to the criticisms voiced by other open letters and responses to the report that have been released in the past month or so. Specifically, the letter aims to defend "the integrity of the process and the Committee, along with the modest recommendations which the Committee brings to the 35th General Assembly." Download the letter here (PDF). The signatories are: Bill Lyle, Chris Hutchinson, Fred Greco, Jeff Hutchinson, Ken Pierce, Lane Keister, Mark Gibson, Robert Stuart and Shawn T. Roberson.
The letter addresses five main objections to the Committee and its report: the composition of the committee, the lack of a minority report, the quality of the report's wording and scholarship, the committee's approach to the confession, and the timing of the committee report. The letter mentions an accompanying website - humbleanswers.wordpress.com that aims to answer "27 questions which one open letter found on the internet asks". The site also provides instructions for adding one's signature to the letter.
Bill Lyle is pastor of Parkview Church, Lilburn, GA
Chris Hutchinson is pastor of Grace Covenant PCA in Blacksburg, VA
Fred Greco is pastor of Christ Church PCA, Katy TX
Jeff Hutchinson is pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church, Asheville, NC
Ken Pierce is pastor of Trinity PCA, Jackson, MS
Lane Keister is a pastor in the Siouxland Presbytery ministering out of bounds in an RCA congregation and CRC congregation
Mark Gibson is pastor of Reformed Presbyterian Church, Beaumont, TX
Robert Stuart is Interim Pastor, Intown Community Church, Atlanta GA
Shawn T. Roberson is a Ruling Elder at Memorial PCA, Elizabethton, TN
64 Comments:
Report Point 1,
“the committee represents a broad range of thought within the PCA”
Response:
The diversity is noted; but the fact remains -- the committee did not represent the range of thought on the issue in question. Since the study topic was FV & NPP, the committee should have represented the broad range of views on those topics.
The usefulness of the committee was greatly impaired, because an important faction of the assembly was not represented.
Andrew Voelkel
Report Point 2:
“it has been suggested that the lack of a minority report representing the views of the Federal Vision men is evidence that the Committee’s report is unfair. In actuality, the vast majority of PCA Study committees have produced unanimous reports.”
Response:
Unanimous reports are great! -- Especially when produced by guys holding diverse views on the subject. Let’s try to produce a unanimous report while including at least one FV member on the committee.
Andrew Voelkel
Report Point 3:
“the Report is comprehensive, sober, and judicious, without being large and unwieldy”
Response:
While the PCA Committee Report clearly opposes FV/NPP, it does not provide Presbyteries with the tools needed to address the issues at the Presbytery level. We need a report which affirms positive aspects of FV/NPP while rejecting errors. The PCA needs a report containing 1) theological “Affirmations & Denials”, and 2) Suggested Examination questions.
Report Point 4:
“if the PCA cannot find the courage to speak her mind clearly regarding mattes which clearly are “fundamentals of our system of doctrine”, then the PCA will no longer be a “good faith subscription” denomination and will inevitably balkanize into strict-subscriptionist and loose-subscriptionist camps, and our good faith system will be lost.”
Response:
I agree that the PCA must clearly and “courageously” speak her mind clearly regarding these matters.
But in order to do so, we need the entire mind of the PCA represented on the Study Committee, and we need to bravely acknowledge positive contributions of the FV/NPP as we oppose errors.
In reference to the “subscription issue”, I sympathize with the “strict-subscription” position because anything else is just so “fuzzy”. It would be nice if we could agree on a list of “allowable exceptions” to the Westminster Standards.
Andrew Voelkel
---
okay that is my 2-cents worth. Please pay me at General Assembly
Why is there such a regional disparity between this letter, which is an all Southern document, and the earlier pastoral letter (5/20) which was drafted by a very diverse (even ethnically) group of men? Beyond the facts of the case, this is an interesting sociological phenomenon.
Andrew:
would you be in favor of a report that included EVERY TE and RE of the PCA?
Surely such a report would then have the 'mind' of the PCA more accurately reflected.
Sola....,
Bill Lamkin
No Bill; that would be silly.
A small committee, representative of the larger body, is sufficient.
-Andrew
Excuse me, Anonymous? All Southern? I am a minister in the Siouxlands Presbytery. It doesn't get much more Northern than that.
Lane,
To be quite plain: You guys look desperate and this letter sounds a like a panicked attempt to warn the "fathers and brothers" of the PCA because "the heretics are coming!!".
3 pages of simple assertions -- and the little bit of statistical information only proved Meyer's point more than it helped yours...
Lane,
I left a comment on the humbleanswers.wordpress.com web site. My comment was moderate with no sarcasm or caustic rhetoric. Apparently, the comments section is moderated and contrary opinions will not be allowed. Perhaps you or whoever is moderating the comments can approve my comment. This would go a long way toward convincing others that you all are really interested in an open, fair debate.
Okay Lane,
So you're from the "north." You're the one guy who drafted this doc who is not from Dixie and you're not even serving in a PCA church!
Go figure.
But Jeff, according to the introductory paragraph, it sounds as if any comment indicates the commenter wants to be added to the list of signers. (Of course I might have misread or misunderstood.) If I'm correct, the only place for representative (of the PCA) feedback will be on other sites such as this.
Ruth
Jeff,
I guess the same could be said about your web site. How many have you not approved? So I guess you will go back and post all of those you deleted so that , " This would go a long way toward convincing others that you all are really interested in an open, fair debate. "
How can the same thing be said? The ones I read on Pastor Meyers' blog that were deleted did not fit the category of "moderate with no sarcasm or caustic rhetoric." So unless there were some of those that Jeff deleted I don't see how it is the same thing at all.
I deleted posts with intemperate language. By removing them I was saving the authors of the embarrassment of having other people read them. I keep the comments section cleansed of immoderate and outrageous language so as to spare my congregation the shock of reading such things from other PCA ministers.
I don't remove comments because they disagree with me or the position I've advocated in any given post.
Hmmm. Jeff,
when I posted relevant passages from the Westminster Standards, they were deleted. So, is it safe to assume that you don't want your folks reading the "immoderate and outrageous language" of the Westminster Confession?
By Grace ALONE:
Bill Lamkin
PS - I've noticed that the signees to the letter are from a broad range (South Dakota, South Carolina, South Florida, Louisiana, Texas). this is hardly a regional response, huh.
Not that it matters, but all the states you mentioned except one are from the same region.
If your WCF references were anything like your geography, perhaps there is your answer why they weren't posted.
Bill,
You sure are selective. In fact, your pattern is to create a false or incomplete argument, be proven wrong , and then change your argument. Shift, shift, shift.
Let's make this real simple. The DRAFTERS (more relevant than "signers" who include a number of RE's from the same church) of this letter are from the following 7 states (I notice you only mention 5 so that you are able to get a pre-determined result):
(1) Georgia (south)
(2) Virginia (south)
(3) Texas (south)
(4) North Carolina (south)
(5) Mississippi (south)
(6) Tennesee (south)
(7) South Dakota (north, but drafted by a guy who pastors 2, count 'em, non-PCA churches)
Nope, move along folks nothing to see here. No "southern" pattern here.
South Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are hardly your standard issue 'southern' states in the manner of Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama.
the point is that the signees are from a BROAD spectrum.
Wow, these men are currently living in the south!
Would it matter to you that more than one is a died-in-the-wool YANKEE whom God transplanted to the south.
And Steve Wilkins is from Canada?
later - Bill Lamkin
why does it matter that a man (pca TE) pastors non-pca congregations??
His voice in the PCA is equally valid to those who are pastoring multiple PCA churches, no?
Bill Lamkin
Bill,
BTW, your "northern" South Dakota man wrote this in his blogger profile:
"I am a Southern implant into the North into a Dutch community."
You can find it here:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/12130203
Looks like an all-southern show to me.
Bill,
Stop acting like a child. Yes, it would be a good thing if there were all types of people (like the other pastoral letter had) involved in its drafting. Not just Yankees but Northwesters, Californians, New Yorkers, etc.
This, along with the Study Committee is all southerners. What's up with that? Looks darn suspicious to me. Good Old Boy Clubbish.
I'm going to have to gavel the geography discussion. Talk about the merits of the argument, or even the number of people represented or whatever, but I think the geography discussion has probably gone on long enough. Thanks.
Dear Jeff,
I am not sure my post on your blog was, "intemperate language". In fact I did spent time making sure it was temperate. So, I guess it means you are not really "interested in an open, fair debate."
WRL
Hmmm...
so southerners don't have the capacity to understand and critique the NPP/FV? They must be too illiterate to understand the inner workings of the "DaWright Code."
Is that what this is all about?
funny how men from CA, SD, PA, and points in between are agreeing with the 'humbleanswers.'
Blessings -
Bill Lamkin
If you have to officially call them "humble answers", are they?
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
Garrett,
I was thinking the same thing. "Humble Answers" is the Reformed equivalent of "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy. The difference being the latter understands the irony.
Oh no, I spot another conspiracy:
5 of the drafters of the "Humble Answers" are from the Eastern time zone.
those folks for EST always think they know better don't they?
Bill Lamkin
Bill,
Geographical Location isn't anything in and of itself, of course. However, if being in a certain geographical location historically leads one to have certain theological leanings, then it would be an issue. Not only that, but certain presbyteries do a great job of vetting out certain types of ministers, which leads to another reason why geography is a concern. That's why so and so being in South Dakota or Alaska, or China doesn't matter as much as where his theological roots are. There is no denying the fact that presbyteries outside the geographical southeast tend to be more broadly reformed in their theology. Are you willing to concede this?
Let me further extrapolate on my comment about the "humble" answers. I consider the FV situation to be an in-house disagreement. If a couple came to me for pastoral counseling and the husband said, "my wife is totally wrong, let me give you me "humble" reasons why" I'd find that very odd and telling.
Well Bill I am a southerner (5th gen). and I like the FV.
Contrary to popular opinion, those against the FV/NPP aren't all located or rooted in the Southeastern Conference (SEC) of the PCA.
As many of you know, some if it's biggest and most vocal supporters are in the SEC-PCA.
Locality has nothing to do with the credibiliy of a particular theological view. Otherwise, we'd be calling the FV/NPP the "British/Idaho/Missouri Invasion."
To discredit the report(s) based on the regionality of the author(s) is ridiculous.
Interact with the meat of the arguments - please.
By Grace Alone,
Bill Lamkin
Timmmdogg: right, there is a Southern Presbyterian trajectory (Dabney Thornwell). This is an extremely regionally-oriented struggle. A struggle in which the PCA either breaks out of its heavily southern (theological) roots or stays a regional denomination. The history of the PCA and the PCUS before that, bears this out.
We better watch out or the editor is going to come and spank us!
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
This post has been removed by the author.
Bill,
This was exactly my point... Locality is not NECESSARILY a marker of one's theological position. However, there are trends that can be observed according to locality. This IS the meat of my argument, and has been voiced as a concern by some so it is a valid point to make, especially since I was responding to your caricature of an argument based on locality with your time-zone comment. Essentially, it boils down to this, not all people in the South are anti-FV and not all people everywhere else are sympathetic or tolerant. But the point that is trying to be made is that MOST people in CERTAIN locales in the South are anti-FV, while A LOT of people outside the South are more open-minded on these issues. A lot of this has to do with the history of certain regions (really Presbyteries) and the leanings of Seminaries that feed those regions. It may not be the strongest argument of those arguing against the Report, but that doesn't take away from it being a valid one.
Finally, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
I asked this question elsewhere: "Was anyone complaining publicly about the composition or the method of creation of this committee back when it was created? If not, why not?"
Jeff Meyers responded: "There was no context to do so. The committee was appointed by the Moderator after the Assembly was over. It was simply announced. There's was no recourse. He had the authority to appoint men. We hoped he would appoint a balanced committee. He didn't. There was nothing anyone could do. A number of men wrote him and asked why sympathetic men were not included on the committee. He responded with reasons for not including them. Nuff said."
I don't understand the last bit. What sort of reasons? Were the people suggested excluded on a case-by-case basis (e.g., John Frame says he is otherwise occupied right now; so-and-so hasn't been in the PCA long enough; etc.)? Were they excluded on principle?
Also, a separate question: what happens if the report is accepted as written? Will Meyers et al. be forced to recant or be defrocked? Will they be allowed to take exception to the PCA understanding of the Westminster Standards (presumably on a presbytery-by-presbytery basis)?
The committee was appointed by the Moderator. There was no "process."
The Report has no constitutional authority, even if passed. It's purely symbolic. Symbolism is important, of course. And the Report can be used as precedent informally and surely will be. But if the Report is accepted, it will NOT have the official status of "the PCA understanding of the Westminster Standards." Will I be defrocked? Why should I be? My Presbytery has already dealt with the FV issues. We came up with our own report, which was quite balanced and equitable. What would I recant of? Arguing that the Report was in error and uncharitable? Whether the Report is adopted or not, my contention remains true. But I have no theological convictions that would need to be recanted or confessed before my presbytery. The reason I wrote my 30 Reasons and 12 Reasons was my concern for friends and seminary students as well as for the future of the PCA.
Thanks, Rev. Meyers.
If I could ask one more question of clarification: you said that several men wrote to the moderator and asked about why generally sympathetic persons (e.g., Frame) or representatives of the FV (e.g., you) weren't appointed to the committee, and you said he gave reasons why. Can you give us a sample of these reasons? Many thanks!
The letters were private and I don't believe I am at liberty to disclose their content. Sorry.
So, Jeff:
did you correspond with Dr. Acquila personally?
Bill Lamkin
No, I didn't see the need. I saw from other corespondents that he was sending essentially the same boilerplate letter out to everyone who wrote to complain about the composition of the committee. There was nothing to do by then. The committee had been appointed.
Jeff:
hypothetically - what happens - in your opinion, when the study committee report is adopted next week? how do you see that changing the landscape of the PCA (if at all)?
Will the pro-FV/NPP types stay in a Church that has said "your views are not valid here"?
seriously curious:
Bill Lamkin
Rev. Lamkin,
I think Rev. Meyers has already answered your question above. The opposite question should also be raised, however: Will the anti-FV types stay in a church that has said, "The committee's report does not represent our views. The PCA is a big tent, and these guys are speaking differently but not heretically"?
Also, what would happen if the report were sent back for further study with a new committee (this time with some sympathetic members)? Would that itself trigger the departure of any anti-FVers? (Incidentally, as an uncommitted by-stander, I think if the report came back with the same conclusion but with less whiffs of injustice, I suspect it would go down more easily.)
Thus far, the number of those who have signed the Humble Answers letter are from:
AL 4
CA 3
CO 1
FL 8
GA 9
KS 1
MD 1
MI 1
MO 2
MS 9
NC 16
PA 1
SC 6
SD 2
TN 3
TX 12
VA 3
Okay, so here’s the point on regionalism: (1) This letter was drafted exclusively by Southerners, (2) It now has 82 signers and of those, 62 or 76% are from the region defined as “The South.” A region that makes up approximately 25% of the U.S. land mass and about 30% of the population. See Wikipedia if you have any doubts on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States
This all is occurring in a denomination that prides itself as being nationally representative: The Presbyterian Church in AMERICA.
So, this is, indeed, an overwhelmingly white Southern show. I’m sure the rest of the huge, powerful, and very brown Body of Christ is holding their breath until this crisis is resolved!
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
But, Rev. Craw, what are the statistics on the makeup of the PCA itself? If a large percentage of the PCA is also Southern (i.e., it is not distributed evenly across the US), then those numbers might still indicate that it is representative.
mf:
Fair enough. If that's where they want to stay and what they want to protect then that's who they are. Doesn't to reflect well on the expansion of the Kingdom, Jew and Gentile and all of that but if they want to remain a regional and even racial-cultural enclave like ethnic Dutch and German Lutheran communities do, then they are certainly doing a fine job of driving other people away.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
About the all are southern except Lane comment,
Fred Greco is by no means from the south, he is italian and more northern than I know, it just so happens that he got a call in Texas. I know him personally and he is still very much a northerner.
Garrett,
That's an unfair response. That the PCA is made up of mostly white, Southern churches doesn't necessarily reflect a value judgment that those regions and ethnic groups are all that the PCA cares about.
Who exactly is the PCA "driving away" by this group of pastors simply reflecting where the PCA's primary membership is? Should the PCA strive for greater diversity, geographic and ethnic? Of course. However, you are ignoring the history of the denomination; a group that split from the white, Southern PCUS. In light of that, there have been great strides forward in the past 35 years. It's not been ideal, no. But to accuse the PCA (and these men) of not caring about those not like them is unfair.
These men weren't striving to be a representative sample of the PCA, just to voice their concerns. To reject their conclusions based on where they are from is foolish. We should see how their regions (and, more importantly, their seminary backgrounds) shape their understanding of the controversy, but it should not cause us to outright reject what they have to say.
Personally, I believe that there are other reasons to reject their conclusions.
Russell
To quote Hank William Jr:
"If the South woulda won, we'da had it made...."
"If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, I don't wanna go...."
"Yee ha!!!"
Russell,
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp. In Presbyterianism, geography has, and continues to shape theology, and thus, practice. This argument gets rejected because southerners get all up-in-arms thinking I'm I'm attacking them personally just because they are from the south and that's not the simple case. Its a huge gordian knot.
The PCA is a southern-backgrounded church with roots in the Hodge vs. Thornwell/Dabney divide prior to the Civil War. One of the important issues of the day was very sacramental (sound familiar?) with the southern part of the church (isn't it amazing that the Presbyterian church was one big tent back then!) wanting to exclude children from membership over discipline issues. The south (Thornwell) wanted kids off the rolls and the north (Hodge) wanted them left on. In the end the Civil War solved the problem. Note that. The Civil War, with all of its attendant issues including an agrarian slave-holding region that viewed themselves as similar in social stratification to England vs. an industrial urban and increasingly multi-ethnic region that was rapidly moving into an uncharted future. That IS the direct background of the PCA and it includes all kinds of really unpleasant stuff that I'm sure you can figure out, including churches that left the PCUS because the liberal southerners were pushing racial integration.
As an almost complete outsider, I was born in Hawaii and spent most of my life prior college in Japan, I see the heavy hand of a southern patrician attitude in the PCA intelligencia: "You all are stupid and we know better. We are protecting orthodoxy, yea, civilization, against mongrel heterodox hordes." And like the Civil War, there is a horde of small land-holders that follow the patricians no matter where they go. And so you get documents that are drafted exclusively by southerners (and the one guy trained in the deep south in MS) and they regard that fact as nothing at all. "What's your problem, you mean we have to try to represent the denomination more broadly?"
Take a look at the prior letter and notice that it was drafted by pastors from every region of the country. I think another interesting thing is the actual locations of the pastors. This letter was drafted by men from small towns (some so small they don't Mapquest!), except Atlanta. Now look at the other letter. You have drafters from New York and Los Angeles (the 2 largest cities in the USA), New Orleans, Denver, Seattle, Atlanta (Decatur) and Salt Lake City. The city is the future of the world in more ways than one. The world, as a whole, just became more urban than not, and world history, which begins in a garden, ends in a garden city. I think that's interesting.
So, is geography inportant, you betcha. see the Hank Williams comment above? I submit that atttitude rides high in the background of the PCA. Yeah, I know, people are going to howel at that one. "What do you know!?! Wah!" Well, it is just one mans opinion. One Amerasian man who went to the PCA denominational seminary, who saw a lot of the PCA from the inside, knows a lot of PCA pastors and who is sensitive to these types of things, so there you go.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
Of course, anything from NY, LA, and other large metropolitan areas is always better for the good of the rest us.
That's why every city/township strives to be like NY, LA or San Francisco.
I'm sure that Moscow, Idaho & Monroe, Louisiana are the intellectual equivalents of NYC and Los Angeles.
please get over yourself.
Sola Gratia:
Bill Lamkin
Not only is Fred Greco a northerner, so is Ken Pierce.
Ken grew up in a Dutch Reformed Church in Michigan. His wife is from PA. He is hardly a died-in-the-wool Dabney-ite (unlike the claims of Mr. Wilkins - cf his Dabney Center).
The Hutchinsons are the direct descendants of northern parent/grandparents.
a signer: Rick Phillips was taught by James Boice.
Mr. Craw - your argument holds no water.
Bill, I do not know if anyone will leave. The last major figure to leave the PCA was Joe Morcraft because he felt the PCA was never going to be reformed/theonomic enough for him. So he started his own fellowship. The report, if adopted, is only the mind of the this GA. It could be changed next year. If the purpose of this report is to get rid of people it will fail. You will need a trial for heresy for that.
In Christ,
David Gilleran
Bill,
Do you ever try to understand what people are saying? Note what you say:
"Of course, anything from NY, LA, and other large metropolitan areas is always better for the good of the rest us."
Why would you even try to mis-represent what I'm saying with such an obvious over-statement? I think you know very well what I was trying to say but in your zeal you are unwilling to even acknowledge the obvious. Making as many allies as possible (something I find valuable by the way) is a good thing and trying to gain a broad consensus on something like this (making an expansive condemnation of a group of YOUR fellow denominational ministers) is wise. This, from an outside vantage point, is not being done.
Now, in regards to your snarky NY/LA statement, I have to say it almost sounds comically arrogant, like the old Pace Picante sauce commercials: "This stuff is made in...gasp...New York City!" The whole point of bringing in the fact that the other letter had drafters from major metropolitan areas is because that's where everyone lives now. The NY and LA metropolitan areas have populations that are larger than all of the deep south combined. If that is completely unimportant to you then I don't know what is important to you. Furthermore, the Metro NY presbytery is vibrant and growing. To just dismiss them out-of-hand is just plain arrogant.
Having a theology of the city is just wise. Standing on the outskirts making silly comments isn't. So Bill, what are you doing to expand the kingdom? We’re out here sweating in the trenches in LA, how about you? Why don’t you post your church website so we can see (you are internet savvy enough to post on this blog). How about posting your blog? Not trying to be meany but the heart of the ministry of Word and Sacrament is about doing not talking, so how about it?
In regards to final comment:
"please get over yourself"
Is this how you talk to other pastors? Notice that my last posted comment wasn’t even directed at you.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
I guess Garrett has something stuck in his Craw.
Really, though I find the regional argument to be just plain silly. With notable exceptions this country hasn't been regional for decades. This isn't regional. This is Theological.
Finally, I want to add that I find Garrett's comments about the greatness of his labors compared to the minuscule efforts of those who don't have blog or web sites to be unfortunate. I get a great sense from reading around that at least some of the FV people are measuring success of the Gospel in ways that would have defined Jeremiah or Paul as utter failures.
I would have agreed with you about the regional argument being silly four years ago. Then I moved out of the South and realized how much religious/theological baggage the South has. And I love the South and hope to move back there soon.
Anonymous said:
"Really, though I find the regional argument to be just plain silly. With notable exceptions this country hasn't been regional for decades. This isn't regional. This is Theological."
Well, here's a couple of silly links to ponder:
http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/religmap.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
Also, when the apostles say, "Hey get busy, we're doing this or that" (getting beat-up, rejoicing in offerings, seeing fruit in some city) then I guess they are just commenting on their "greatness." My whole point of referring to what we do is way of asking "what are you doing for this precious Gospel you’re supposedly defending?" Yes, we blog it as well. Kind of like how the apostles boast about what the Lord is doing for them and through them. Yep, I'm boasting in the Lord.
This is another problem that this whole issue has hi-lighted. In Reformedom we have become so pietistic (perhaps just possessing the shell thereof) that we can't say "Look what God is doing through us." But we have tell everyone how miserable we are as sinners and we hide behind our rational theological constructs. I think it can often be a smokescreen for sloth. So, like Paul, we like tell the world what God is doing through us. And we rejoice in the grand privilege of serving our King, serving others, and seeing his kingdom expanded. Yep, we like to say and do and we aren’t ashamed of it.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
The critics have made substantive arguments against the report (Meyer's 30 and 12 reasons; Garver's very lengthy review), yet this letter does not address any of the criticisms in a substantive manner. In fact, it utilizes many of the standard logical "dodges" employed to shift the argument. For example, on the topic of the composition of the committee this letter equivocates by switching from the critics definition of balance being varying views on NPP/FV (as they rightly point out that Robert's Rules' strongly recommend) to a definition of balance being people from different states/regions.
I was hoping it might have been a substantive response. If this is the best the supporters of the report can muster, and if it is typical of the clarity and depth of our thinking on the theological topics within the PCA, we are in very deep trouble as a denomination.
Rev. Lamkin, I'm still interested in your thoughts on my questions above (just above batch's statistics).
Mr Craw:
I happen to be sweating it out in LA too (Lower Alabama - aka Florida Panhandle).
Here, we labor for the souls of the men and the word of God. But, I'm not about to get into a bragging match about who does more for the Kingdom. I will celebrate that Christ is preached!
Again, I will stress that the regional argument is silly and the LARGE cities are no better than small ones. In the south, we have Atlanta, Nashville, Jacksonville, Austin, Memphis, Charlotte, etc....
And, these aren't little hick towns.
Just because God calls someone to a particular region doesn't mean that particular region (or man) is superior to another.
By Grace Alone:
Bill Lamkin
This is the second gavel for the regional discussion. Please move on to some other topic besides the region of the country of the various participants in the various open letters. Future posts about geography in this discussion will be deleted. Thanks for your cooperation.
(I wrote this before I saw the second gavel -- delete if you must, but I thought some of this bigotry had to be answered -- CAH)
I have to say that this has been one of the most revealing discussions in quite a while. It proves what I have long contended, that this is more a disagreement over what our piety ought to look like than anything else.
Rev. Garret Craw specifically embraces the piety of boasting about what the Lord is doing through one's own ministry. Is that what Paul is doing in II Cor. 11-12? I Cor. 4? He also specifically embraces the idea that ministering in cities is more important than ministering in small communities. Thanks for being so explicit about this. (What if we are in a small town with a big college -- can we be important to the Kingdom? Please? Can anything good come from Nazareth?)
He also embraces the unbelievable spin initially begun by Leithart that this debate is about ecumenism and race. The geographic bigotry in all this is sad. The latest group of signatures has men from South Africa, France, Austria and Albania as well as from across the USA. Region was not even on our mind when we wrote this – diversity of theological camp was.
And FWIW, since he knows so much more about us than we do, he must already know that I grew up in metropolitan DC with a year in California, went to seminary in Massachussets and did my darndest to stay in New England after graduation. The only thing "southern" about my congregation is that we are located south of the Mason-Dixon line. We don't even think that southern slavery as it was was a good thing.
This is all desperate political spin to try to make the Report look like some Southern TR conspiracy so that the urban cutting edge types will emotionally back away and not study the theology involved, and if they don't have time to do the work themselves, to trust those who have. That’s just sad. It was to counter such false and cynical spin that this letter was written, as well as to provide information on our thinking to those who had sincere doubts but did not have time to do further research.
But as for revealing different kinds of piety, this has been useful. I would hope that those who embrace the triumphalistic, self-important (dare I say, health and wealth?) piety of Rev. Craw would find a welcome in the CREC, which I think is explicit about the propriety of this kind of piety.
Granted, we have plenty of it in the PCA as well, but at least some of us are trying to fight it, remembering to keep our mind on things above and that here we don't have an enduring city.
And that we don't care as much what others think about us or our productivity for the Kingdom, since we don't have a fear of a Final Judgment according to works. Just a little food for thought.
From the slothful boondocks,
Chris Hutchinson
<< Home