Tim Keller's article about the composition of the PCA and its future

[ARStager]

http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf

I just thought I'd post this and see if it generated any discussion. I'm not sure where this thread belongs, so move it if need be.

 

[turmeric]

Interesting...

 

[wsw201]

Heard this stuff before. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. Keller would be classified as a R-e. So he tends to disparage what he calls the R-h's and R-c's by making up strawmen.

For what it's worth, he would have more credibility if he didn't quote Neibuhr. He would have done better by quoting Bultmann

 

[turmeric]

Was he quoting Niehbur as theologian or as cultural observer? I didn't like his throwing my church in the same basket as Willow Creek, but I forgive him!(Sigh!)

 

[Poimen]

Okay my original post was rather stupid so I'll put something mildly intellectual in it's place:

some seminaries like Greenville and Westminster in California are deliberately trying to produce R-h´s and R-c´s

Though I am not a member of the PCA I am a graduate of WSC. With the word 'deliberate' he makes it sound like a conspiracy, but everyone knows that WSC (and GPTS) is confessional/historical. That's why I went here in the first place! And just for the record, Westminster is definitely not R-c and I am going to assume that Greenville isn't either.

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by poimen]

 

[dkicklig]

Originally posted by turmeric
Was he quoting Niehbur as theologian or as cultural observer? I didn't like his throwing my church in the same basket as Willow Creek, but I forgive him!(Sigh!)

Actually it was Intown Atlanta. Definitly R-e to use Keller's classification. If you want to see the multiplication of R-e churches come to Atlanta.

 

[Myshkin]

I don't find myself fitting completely in any of the three categories, except for maybe a mix between the R-c and R-h, but definitely not the R-e. I imagine I am not alone in this.

It seems to me that the groups in the PCA are more a mix of old school, new school, old side, new side, Continental, Dutch, Puritan, British, Princeton, Neo, Southern, Westminster. Throw that all together and I see many more combinations than the simplistic three that Keller refers to.

Does anyone have a more honest and accurate description of the groups in the PCA?

 

[smallbeans]

You might be interested in the audio lectures he gave about this topic - just search for "Keller" on the covenant seminary audio resources page - www.covenantseminary.edu

 

[Myshkin]

unfortunately my computer can't play audio files.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[twogunfighter]

Unfortunately, I think that his observance of the PCA culture is relatively accurate. I am not a RE (ruling Elder) but I have seen quite a number of PCA churches as a result of all my moves and it is difficult to find one that is not R-e. That is part of why we are trying to plant the one that we are in the North KC area. And we have found that church planting money is not nearly as forthcoming if you are not planting a R-e church.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by ARStager
http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf

I just thought I'd post this and see if it generated any discussion. I'm not sure where this thread belongs, so move it if need be.

Wondering if this one will generate discussion also; it is Tim Keller's view of the composition of the PCA since the beginning.

http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_o...te/full_paper.taf?topic_ID=29&topic_paper_ID=

 

[wsw201]

RAS,

Just got finished reading the Keller article. Its amazing how history keeps repeating itself. He talks about these un-written "truth-unity" lines that have been drawn. All I know is that when you vow to subscribe to the Standards, you should keep it. But then again maybe the chapter on Oaths and Vows in the Standards is a "non-essential".

 

[smallbeans]

But I guess Keller would say that there are various ways of susbscription. The "unwritten" aspect of all this is the nature of subscription. The WCF does not itself contain a section on what it means to subscribe to it. It seems like the general approach in the PCA is "system subscription" where you subscribe to the system of doctrine of the confession. That allows us to walk the truth/unity line rather well - people are held accountable to a standard, and they are held accountable in a way that allows us to apply wisdom in what is most important and what is less important.

But most of our squabbles, it seems, are about the externals - what to do in worship, how to reach the lost and when to reach them, etc.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by smallbeans
But I guess Keller would say that there are various ways of susbscription. The "unwritten" aspect of all this is the nature of subscription. The WCF does not itself contain a section on what it means to subscribe to it. It seems like the general approach in the PCA is "system subscription" where you subscribe to the system of doctrine of the confession. That allows us to walk the truth/unity line rather well - people are held accountable to a standard, and they are held accountable in a way that allows us to apply wisdom in what is most important and what is less important.

But most of our squabbles, it seems, are about the externals - what to do in worship, how to reach the lost and when to reach them, etc.

It is true that the Standards do not contain a chapter on subscription but then again, it is the Church that requires subscription and sets its own standards and the vows one takes as an officer should be taken in only one way....truthfully and in a plain clear manner. The subscription vows are rather plain and unambiguous. For someone to say that there are various ways to subscribe would be to me more than a little disingenuous. It sounds like a word game.

The problem with "system subscription" is that it allows one to take apart the "System of Doctrine" in the Standards so there is no longer a system but a disjointed collection of propositions.

 

[RamistThomist]

What is R-e?

 

[RamistThomist]

Never mind, I find out.

 

[Myshkin]

What I gathered from this article is that the truth-unity line was assumed for issues within the reformed world (i.e. infra vs. supra, millenial views, etc.). I don't gather from it that this truth-unity line was assumed for essential issues. That being said, I do disagree with some of the issues that he says are acceptable within the reformed world (i.e. contemporary worship) In his desire to show that the PCA did not want to be too narrow (which I think is good), he seems to swing the other way and becomes too broad (which is bad). I agree with his desire, but I disagree with his application. I think his argument is a non sequitur (is that the right word?)

I would appreciate it if he was more clear on what is deemed essential to the faith, what is essential to reformed distinctives, what is "bene esse" in the reformed world, and what is adiaphorous. I think his general point is that there is too much disagreement as to what fits in each category. Some want debateable reformed distinctives to be the essence of the faith, others want non-debateable issues to become acceptable. I disagree with both extremes. The debate then switches to where do we belong between these two extremes? I think Keller is swaying (wrongly) left of center.

If the line were drawn too narrow, the late great James Boice would not have been allowed in the PCA; I guess because his historical premillenialism was too liberal for those who are "truly reformed".
As the line is being drawn too wide today, we're now being told that style is neutral and strictly cultural so we should allow for worldly forms of worship.

I wish there were more lay-level courses for historical theology. History is either repeated by those who ignore it or those who are ignorant of it. Error would have less acceptance today if we lay people were more historically and philosophically astute disciples of Christ, thereby being more discerning as to who we call for ordination. Unfortunately, in my expereince most lay people are too ignorant of most things and just allow the elders to do all the work, because their the ones who are supposed to be educated. We need a more educated laity, theologically and experimentally.

Ok, done with my

 

[wsw201]

I wish there were more lay-level courses for historical theology. History is either repeated by those who ignore it or those who are ignorant of it. Error would have less acceptance today if we lay people were more historically and philosophically astute disciples of Christ, thereby being more discerning as to who we call for ordination. Unfortunately, in my expereince most lay people are too ignorant of most things and just allow the elders to do all the work, because their the ones who are supposed to be educated. We need a more educated laity, theologically and experimentally.

and

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It seems to me his categories really don't work. I would rather label the tension between two groups. Those who are Reformed and the who are Calvinists. There is more to being Reformed than being a 5-point Calvinist.

 

[smallbeans]

But there are various ways of being reformed and various ways of being a five point calvinist. Read the "Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain." The English representatives at the Synod of Dort had a certain view of things that was not identical to the other reformed folks from around the world who formulated the response of the synod. If you look at a recent book, like "The Work of Christ" by Letham, he understands the "limited" in "Limited atonement" to relate to Christ's intention for his work (I'm thinking back 8 years ago when I read this). This is a viewpoint I happen to agree with and there is a pedigree to it in the Reformed tradition, but it isn't the only one. And that's just the narrow question about the atonement. There are many other issues that come up with the five points themselves.

I think there is obviously some sociological analysis to be done - maybe Keller's piece is dated or inaccurate; I happen to think that he is on to something. But there are obvious divisions in the PCA - some are doctrinal, but I can't think of one that is "purely" doctrinal. How many members of the PPLN, for instance, were at the Twin Lakes Conference held recently? That's one diagnostic question I will leave you with.

I would also point to the survey done recently on sacramental views in the New York City presbytery. Just go to the church website here:

http://www.trinitychurch.cc/

and on the right side of the page is an ad to click and download the minister's thesis which includes a survey of pastors in NYC on the subject of baptism. It is nice in that it brings some actual numbers to this discussion, albeit about one presbytery only. But man, look at the divergence of views on baptism. Can you imagine if other issues were included?

 

[twogunfighter]

PS

I like your characterization.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by smallbeans
But there are various ways of being reformed and various ways of being a five point calvinist. Read the "Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain." The English representatives at the Synod of Dort had a certain view of things that was not identical to the other reformed folks from around the world who formulated the response of the synod. If you look at a recent book, like "The Work of Christ" by Letham, he understands the "limited" in "Limited atonement" to relate to Christ's intention for his work (I'm thinking back 8 years ago when I read this). This is a viewpoint I happen to agree with and there is a pedigree to it in the Reformed tradition, but it isn't the only one. And that's just the narrow question about the atonement. There are many other issues that come up with the five points themselves.

By Reformed I mean adhering to the plain and intended meaning of the Reformed Confessions, whether Westminster and 3FU. In doctrine and practice there were pretty much in agreement on all the major issues, even the regulative principle. That would exclude any who hold to an unlimited atonement since that is a clear violation of the Confessions.

I think there is obviously some sociological analysis to be done - maybe Keller's piece is dated or inaccurate; I happen to think that he is on to something. But there are obvious divisions in the PCA - some are doctrinal, but I can't think of one that is "purely" doctrinal. How many members of the PPLN, for instance, were at the Twin Lakes Conference held recently? That's one diagnostic question I will leave you with.

I guess I should clarify my observations. The Reformed are those I stated above who understand and embrace the teachings of the Confessions (or perhaps the strict subscriptionists). By Calvinist, I mean those who hold to the TULIP formula. These will agree on the 5 points obviously, but still wish to cling to the modern non-reformed evangelical innovations in practice and worship (i.e most likely reject the RPW). I would clarify these as the polarizing positions. Obviously there may be some in the middle but most would fall on one side or the other. I think this polarization is beginning in the OPC too and seems to be affecting other Reformed denominations as well like some of the Dutch denominations.

[Edited on 5-3-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[smallbeans]

I hear what you're saying, but again, I don't think any group in the PCA or OPC holds to an unlimited atonement. The issue is what one identifies as being limited about the atonement - what aspect is limited, in other words.

I just feel like the issue is not between regulativists and calvinists. Where would you fit a church like First Presbyterian in Jackson that celebrates holidays and yet is led by a pastor who loves the Scottish church and is leading the case against the Federal Vision? Then you have a church in the Missouri Presbytery like "The Kirk of the Hills" which very much has a First Pres, Jackson feel to it, and yet its pastor, also leading the charge against the Federal Vision, rejects the idea of a meritorious covenant of works?

I think, sociologically, you have to find some way into the division - some kind of a heuristic device that will serve to lead you to an identification of where the fractures are. I've listened to lectures by Tim Keller, Ligon Duncan, Morton Smith, Joey Pipa, Wilson Benton, Bryan Chapell, and many others, and the issues distinguishing their points of view are too complicated to boil down to regulativists versus calvinists. Especially since neither the OPC nor the PCA was founded by guys who were really gung-ho RPW-ists. Right?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

You may be right. I'm just making an observation from my own experience.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by smallbeans
How many members of the PPLN, for instance, were at the Twin Lakes Conference held recently? That's one diagnostic question I will leave you with.

Please explain what this means.

 

[smallbeans]

Oh, check out the two organizations. You can compare them by looking at their websites:

http://www.pastoral-leadership.org/

and

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/sermons/twinlakes2004.1.htm

That should explain the differences pretty well. The one difference is that the PPLN isn't very private - they have a lot of material online you can download to hear what they talk about en famille. I haven't seen any recordings or anything from the Twin Lakes conferences.

 

[fredtgreco]

There are differences. But one thing that is becoming clearer and clearer is that the Federal Vision theology may very well do what endless conferences, GA voting blocks, overtures and denomination agencies have failed to do: unite the PCA. Outside of a small vocal blpgsphere, the FV and fans of the Uberbishop have little to no following. The FV has managed to find something that the Ligon Duncans, Joey Pipas, Wilson Bentons, Tim Kellers and Bryan Chappells of the PCA agree on. I thank God for that.

 

[wsw201]

The groups within the PCA and OPC are coming down on the issue of what the roll of the Standards are in the Church and who gets to decide what is and is not essential. Unfortuantely this is nothing new. Any cursory review of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, US, or Australia shows that there always seems to be basically two categories and they surround the Standards and then ultimately the Bible.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
There are differences. But one thing that is becoming clearer and clearer is that the Federal Vision theology may very well do what endless conferences, GA voting blocks, overtures and denomination agencies have failed to do: unite the PCA. Outside of a small vocal blpgsphere, the FV and fans of the Uberbishop have little to no following. The FV has managed to find something that the Ligon Duncans, Joey Pipas, Wilson Bentons, Tim Kellers and Bryan Chappells of the PCA agree on. I thank God for that.

This has always been my hope as well; that something good would come out of the FV and maybe us Reformed and you Presbyterians might be closer as well.



BTW, who is the Uberbishop?