# CREC church in my area



## moral necessity

Good thing I investigated a little. I've been looking for a church closer to home, since we moved to Virginia 2 years ago. A friend mentioned a reformed church close to me that one of his friends goes to. So, I looked up their website. The CREC link threw up a red flag. I noticed also that they are a mission church of one in Lynchburg, VA, so I went to their site. The pastor's blog there lists book recommendations of Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and N.T. Wright...another red flag. The pastor is also a graduate of Doug Wilson's personal seminary, and their church is a mission church of Doug Wilson's personal church...big red flags.

So, the pastor of this local CREC church emails me, inviting me to come (apparently, he was notified of my interest). I responded respectfully with my general concerns. He assured me they were not an FV church, and that he had some questions about it as well. I responded again with the information about their parent church's book recommendations and the direct links of them to FV...

...No reply came back...perhaps I touched on a nerve...

I am thankful to God for the blessing of the Puritan Board, and for the community here that pools together to create a wonderful resource here for us all. My family was better equipped to be protected from harmful dangers because of it.

Blessings to you all...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Charles,

Well done. I've had a lot of contact over the years with people who come into contact with the CREC, who are unaware of what the CREC is: the home of the Federal Vision theology. I had an email once, a few of years ago, from a fellow who said (paraphrasing), "I just moved up here because of the Christian school and now I hear about this federal vision thing. What's that?" Oops!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Miss Marple

It is my understanding that CREC is a denomination that is known for promoting infant/child communion. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. But several members of our old chapel work left to join the CREC because they wanted to practice paedocommunion.


----------



## moral necessity

Miss Marple said:


> It is my understanding that CREC is a denomination that is known for promoting infant/child communion. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. But several members of our old chapel work left to join the CREC because they wanted to practice paedocommunion.



Dr. Clark's link above mentions it as a part of FV theology. It's my understanding that the CREC is friendly to FV, but that it's circle gathers those who differ as well. I think the same might be true with paedocommunion, welcoming those who practice it as well as those who differ. That may just be semantics, however, as to how they word their official statements. In practice, it might be different...idk.

Blessings!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The CREC is not merely friendly to the FV. It is the home if the FV. It's where FVists from the URCNA and PCA go when they leave. They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: the ecclesiastical sponsor.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

moral necessity said:


> That may just be semantics, however, as to how they word their official statements. In practice, it might be different...idk.



It is true that they claim.... But I have a better term for it. Obfuscation. As has been mentioned many times in the past, the Federal Vision is not monolithic in its stances. There is a lot of cross over in areas. The one thing most of them have is a terrible view of the Covenant though. They are mostly monocovenantalists. A lot of them practice paedocommunion. A lot of them have have troubles when the doctrine of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us arises. The reason for this is because they deny the Covenant of Works in their monocovenantalism. They don't know what Christ fulfilled and what is imputed to us if anything.


----------



## Mushroom

Glad you avoided that pitfall, Charlie. I know a few people who have been a part of that group, and Mindy knows some that still are. I got the same response when I inquired some years ago, that they 'weren't FV, but do agree with it on some things'. I don't quite understand why they say that.

There's a small group from our Church that meets in Strasburg. Maybe that would be a good way to get to know us. A member family lives on Rt 11 on the south end of Maurertown, the big old house with the German and US flags out front, and they attend that group sometimes. Let me know if you're interested and I can hook you up with the guy who leads it, a Ruling Elder not currently serving, a very dear brother, an excellent guitarist, and last but not least a brewer of some of the best beer in the region.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

R. Scott Clark said:


> They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: the ecclesiastical sponsor.



Excellent turn of phrase.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is an uncharitable and a poor turn of phrase. Iran murders its own citizens and ensures Hezbollah and other terrorist groups murder thousands more. 

To compare the CREC to Iran is to empower them to a degree they don't deserve.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is an uncharitable and a poor turn of phrase. Iran murders its own citizens and ensures Hezbollah and other terrorist groups murder thousands more.
> 
> To compare the CREC to Iran is to empower them to a degree they don't deserve.



Now that isn't fair Ben. He was not paralleling the issues you are bringing up. He was paralleling the ecclesiastical sponsorship. And he specifically said so.

BTW, some people might say that the CREC is sponsoring spiritual death by endorsing and housing the Federal Vision.


----------



## moral necessity

R. Scott Clark said:


> The CREC is not merely friendly to the FV. It is the home if the FV. It's where FVists from the URCNA and PCA go when they leave. They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: the ecclesiastical sponsor.



Thanks for this, Dr. Clark. I suspected this was the case, even though they advertise it a little differently. 

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is an uncharitable and a poor turn of phrase. Iran murders its own citizens and ensures Hezbollah and other terrorist groups murder thousands more.
> 
> To compare the CREC to Iran is to empower them to a degree they don't deserve.



I agree that it is excessive rhetoric. I think a more apt comparison might to Calvary Chapel and its franchises. They deny any denominational essentials but there is a predictability to the congregations akin to the taste of a Big Mac no matter what McDonalds you enter.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

How much do the critics of my rhetoric actually know about the CREC? 

How much time have they spent doing triage in its wake? 

Have they been threatened with lawsuits for speaking out?


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> akin to the taste of a Big Mac no matter what McDonalds you enter.



But you have to admit that a Big Mac is good from time to time, unlike the FV .


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I'm interested in the reaction to my analogy. I'm working on a related question right now so I would appreciate some constructive feedback here. 

Please say _exactly_ why the analogy with Iran is over the top and offensive. I see it as a provocative but quite accurate _analogy_. The FV doctrine is an evil ideology. It's as destructive of the church as terrorism is of the civil/social realm. Iran doesn't necessarily officially, openly practice terrorism but they facilitate terrorism across the middle east. The CREC doesn't officially embrace the FV but it facilitates the spread of the FV error. The analogy works at several points of contact. Yet, some are offended. I suspect the our different reactions to the analogy are due to different evaluations of the nature of the CREC and possibly of the FV doctrine but perhaps there's something inherently flawed in the analogy and if there is, it would help me to see what it is. 

Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife

R. Scott Clark said:


> The analogy works at several points of contact



Dear Dr. Clark, I hope you don't mind my point of view here as only a lay-person (I understand you to be soliciting the reactions of lay readers as well?): I think perhaps it is in part because we see such analogies (analogies with Hitler and the terrorists) commonly employed to escalate the emotional/moral tone of discussions? My husband was remarking the other day -- perhaps from something he read that remarked on it -- that most online disagreements develop to the point of usage of analogies to the Nazis or to the terrorists. And the analogies are often employed based on one or two more limited points of contact, and one party's own vivid apprehension of evil in the matter in hand (which may certainly be justified). But there are a large number of factors that contribute to our societally very strong reaction against terrorists and Nazis.

I once read a man liken Fanny Crosby and other hymnwriters of her day to the false prophets of Baal. This was not because he held to the regulative principle -- he held to a sort of classical and philosophical idea of beauty in worship and he found her hymns as offensive on this system of what is acceptable to God in the church, as apostates leaping on altars and cutting themselves and crying out to idols. I readily grant that he found them equally offensive, but didn't think this point of comparison full enough to warrant the analogy, even on his own scale of values. That is only an example of what I mean to say about the fuller number of factors that enter into our strong response to a particular group of evil people, like the prophets of Baal -- hence a negative reaction where that full and undivided 'weight' gets thrown into analogies which seem to have fewer points of comparison than of dissimilarity (I don't think your analogy was on the same level as this example!). Again, please forgive if I've spoken out of turn and if that is not helpful feedback from a lay perspective. I'm certainly very grateful for our ministers who do perceive the evil and destructive nature of some ideologies and seek to protect us from them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I guess I didn't find it all that troublesome an analogy; even if not formally FV, the CREC is a base of operation/safe haven for the advocates who've had to flee the sound churches opposing it. They provide cover for the enemies to the truth. If the provocative nature of the analogy itself becomes the issue, perhaps it is just more productive to make the points of fact without recourse to finding what is analogous to Iran?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo

NaphtaliPress said:


> I guess I didn't find it all that troublesome an analogy; even if not formally FV, the CREC is a base of operation/safe haven for the advocates who've had to flee the sound churches opposing it. They provide cover for the enemies to the truth. If the provocative nature of the analogy itself becomes the issue, perhaps it is just more productive to make the points of fact without recourse to finding what is analogous to Iran?



Similar idea here. The only problem I see with the analogy is it invites the distraction we see here: we now are tempted to argue international politics.

But, checking our temptations, as someone who lives pretty close to the "mother of all" CREC churches, I see the analogy as being pretty on point. There is a remarkable amount of damage to God's saints radiating from that body.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Again, it's not that the analogy isn't apt in certain ways but it invites distraction as Heidi noted. I learned from someone a long time ago that when you default to the "Nazi" argument you've already lost some and they can't hear your argument any longer. The word terrorist has the same chilling effect to conversation with many you might want to otherwise convince. It depends, in the end, on who you're trying to convince by an argument. If you keep having to argue with people on the propriety of the analogy then it probably indicates that you might want to think about an analogy that communicates the same organic relationship between the CREC and the error without having people get tripped up by the word "terrorist".

As an example, I was interacting with a brother on the issue of intinction in the PCA and someone brought up the "history" of the practice. I pointed out that there are plenty of practices that have a long history but we recognize them as idolotrous but I made a poor comparison because I immediately jumped to the example that, for instance, sacrificing babies on altars has a long history in religious practice but, immediately, a brother who agreed with me otherwise pointed out that the rhetorical excess did more harm than good.


----------



## Miss Marple

I have no certainty about this analogy or that, but I had to chuckle to think what responses there would be on PB to statements and actions by Luther, Knox, and Calvin! Even Scripture itself uses quite extreme analogy - "dung" etc.

I suppose it is wrong sometimes and right others, but I think considering church patriarchs and the Bible itself would be helpful.


----------



## malum in se

a mere housewife said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy works at several points of contact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Clark, I hope you don't mind my point of view here as only a lay-person (I understand you to be soliciting the reactions of lay readers as well?): I think perhaps it is in part because we see such analogies (analogies with Hitler and the terrorists) commonly employed to escalate the emotional/moral tone of discussions? My husband was remarking the other day -- perhaps from something he read that remarked on it -- that most online disagreements develop to the point of usage of analogies to the Nazis or to the terrorists. And the analogies are often employed based on one or two more limited points of contact, and one party's own vivid apprehension of evil in the matter in hand (which may certainly be justified). But there are a large number of factors that contribute to our societally very strong reaction against terrorists and Nazis.
Click to expand...



Is the FV Godwins law of the puritan board?


----------



## a mere housewife

malum in se said:


> Is the FV Godwins law of the puritan board?



Ooooh, I didn't realise it was a matter of mathematical precision. (Probably involving the use of calculus and imaginary numbers


----------



## Unoriginalname

malum in se said:


> Is the FV Godwins law of the puritan board?



According to the officials rules of Godwin's law, Godwin's law does not apply if the topic was initially about [email protected] So likewise it is not a case of Godwin's law if the OP was on the fv.


----------



## BibleCyst

R. Scott Clark said:


> They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: the ecclesiastical sponsor.



Another perspective from a lay person. Brother, I believe this analogy is inapproprieate. It is not necessarily a false comparison. However, it comes across as inflammatory. I'm not accusing you of purposely being inflammatory. It just doesn't come across as speaking the truth in love. We have brothers in the CREC.


----------



## Edward

Inflammatory rhetoric can be useful, and is sometimes necessary. Sometimes you have to hit folks with a rhetorical 2x4 to get their attention before you can present your logical arguments. Dr. Clark caught our attention here, and is now able to engage on the evidence. 

While we shouldn't go out of our way to offend folks (a statement which some here might find strange coming from me), we also shouldn't pull our punches out of fear of offending the sensitive.


----------



## Beoga

R. Scott Clark said:


> How much do the critics of my rhetoric actually know about the CREC?
> 
> How much time have they spent doing triage in its wake?
> 
> Have they been threatened with lawsuits for speaking out?



Your rhetoric vs. Doug Wilson's rhetoric in a formal debate regarding this issue would be informative and entertaining. But alas we probably shouldn't deal with terrorists.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

a mere housewife said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy works at several points of contact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Dr. Clark, I hope you don't mind my point of view here as only a lay-person (I understand you to be soliciting the reactions of lay readers as well?): I think perhaps it is in part because we see such analogies (analogies with Hitler and the terrorists) commonly employed to escalate the emotional/moral tone of discussions? My husband was remarking the other day -- perhaps from something he read that remarked on it -- that most online disagreements develop to the point of usage of analogies to the Nazis or to the terrorists. And the analogies are often employed based on one or two more limited points of contact, and one party's own vivid apprehension of evil in the matter in hand (which may certainly be justified). But there are a large number of factors that contribute to our societally very strong reaction against terrorists and Nazis.
> 
> I once read a man liken Fanny Crosby and other hymnwriters of her day to the false prophets of Baal. This was not because he held to the regulative principle -- he held to a sort of classical and philosophical idea of beauty in worship and he found her hymns as offensive on this system of what is acceptable to God in the church, as apostates leaping on altars and cutting themselves and crying out to idols. I readily grant that he found them equally offensive, but didn't think this point of comparison full enough to warrant the analogy, even on his own scale of values. That is only an example of what I mean to say about the fuller number of factors that enter into our strong response to a particular group of evil people, like the prophets of Baal -- hence a negative reaction where that full and undivided 'weight' gets thrown into analogies which seem to have fewer points of comparison than of dissimilarity (I don't think your analogy was on the same level as this example!). Again, please forgive if I've spoken out of turn and if that is not helpful feedback from a lay perspective. I'm certainly very grateful for our ministers who do perceive the evil and destructive nature of some ideologies and seek to protect us from them.
Click to expand...


Hi Heidi,

I quite appreciate this. I could reply right away yesterday but this is exactly the sort of thoughtful interaction for which I hoped! This seems like a strong argument. I agree that the quick move to the Nazi analogy reveals a weak argument especially when the person being described as a NAZI isn't trying to take over the world or kill 50 million people.

Otoh, where there are genuine points of contact, might not the Nazi analogy actually be fair and even instructive. E.g., If one was making arguments about racial superiority, say, a plagiarized, racist book arguing for the benefits of the "peculiar institution" of American slavery (unlike most forms of slavery practiced in the ancient world and the slavery generally in view in Scripture) then might there be a case to make such an analogy? Of course, this is all purely hypothetical. No two American authors with connections to the CREC would actually ever publish such a thing, but if they did, might not one make such an argument?

In the same way, if a confederation of churches actively supports and exports (to E. Europe) a gross error that has done damage to persons and to congregations and that has been rejected by the entire confessional Reformed world, why isn't a colorful, provocative analogy useful? In this case, the analogy with Iran brought into sharp focus the nature of the error (it does great damage) and the nature of the entity propagating the error. The entity is able to spread harm by proxy while not officially owning the action and the consequences.

Doesn't the validity of the analogy come down, at least in part, to what one thinks of the FV? If one thinks the FV doctrine is wrong but not terribly dangerous, then one is more likely to be scandalized by the analogy. If one thinks that the FV doctrine is a soul-killing, church-wrecking error (as I do) then one is more likely to be attracted to the analogy.

The scale of the problem also answers the use of strong analogies re Fanny Crosby hymns. I'm quite opposed to singing uninspired songs in public worship. Calvin and the Reformed called such things "will worship" but the inappropriateness of a Nazi analogy seems obvious.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

BibleCyst said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: the ecclesiastical sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another perspective from a lay person. Brother, I believe this analogy is inapproprieate. It is not necessarily a false comparison. However, it comes across as inflammatory. I'm not accusing you of purposely being inflammatory. It just doesn't come across as speaking the truth in love. We have brothers in the CREC.
Click to expand...


Hi Richard,

When you say "speak the truth in love" I think I know what you mean but let me push you a bit. When our Lord said "twice the son of hell" or "vipers" or "white-washed tombstones" or when Paul called out Peter for denying the gospel (which is relevant here) or named heretics in his letters, how do you account for such rhetoric (never mind the OT prophets) in your definition of speaking the truth in love.

I'm sure that there are brothers in the CREC but I'm also sure that, as an organization, it is the source of great error and confusion and harm. I'm also sure that there are true believers in the Roman communion but that doesn't stop our confessions from describing Rome as a "false church" and the pope as Antichrist. 

Does these sorts of arguments change things for you?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Miss Marple said:


> I have no certainty about this analogy or that, but I had to chuckle to think what responses there would be on PB to statements and actions by Luther, Knox, and Calvin! Even Scripture itself uses quite extreme analogy - "dung" etc.
> 
> I suppose it is wrong sometimes and right others, but I think considering church patriarchs and the Bible itself would be helpful.



Indeed. This is part of what I'm thinking about right now. Some would argue, "that was then, this is now." How would you reply to such an argument?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ps. When I logged on this AM I saw a message on my screen, under notifications, I read it, was edified but could not figure out how to reply and now it's gone and I don't know what sort of message it was or where it is. So, if I didn't reply to your message it wasn't for lack of trying. Sorry.


----------



## a mere housewife

R. Scott Clark said:


> Doesn't the validity of the analogy come down, at least in part, to what one thinks of the FV? If one thinks the FV doctrine is wrong but not terribly dangerous, then one is more likely to be scandalized by the analogy. If one thinks that the FV doctrine is a soul-killing, church-wrecking error (as I do) then one is more likely to be attracted to the analogy.



Dr. Clark, I think this is true. Yet, if one is seeking to convince people who are not really aware of the evil involved, I would agree with Rich that a very strong analogy (which will necessarily be perceived as overblown by those who are not yet convinced) could stand in the way (perhaps more especially with us laypersons) of helping us to follow the reasoning and see either the exact points one is seeking to illustrate, or the real evil. If what you are seeking to convey is your own level of outrage, they can certainly be employed to that end: if you are speaking to a roomful of those equally outraged, I think they are probably somewhat dangerous (for I always find it somewhat dangerous to speak very strongly with a group people none of whom are disposed to check the rising temperature of the discussion). But they are not in themselves convincing to others of the level of evil involved; and the person who is not convinced of that, rather than seeing the points of contact for which the analogy may be useful, is probably more immediately hung up on all the ways in which the CREC and Iran are not alike.

Another point is that I think one can perhaps get away with more of these colorful and strong, and often very telling, analogies in obvious good humor. My husband had me laughing last night making some further and very telling points of contact with your CREC/Iran analogy. In this case I think what will communicate are the actual points of contact, rather than the burning sense of moral outrage: the usage of 'ultimate evil' is only a sort of prop, which works good humoredly to convey that you do think these people are really bad: but no one is all that hung up on having to compare them too closely and fully, with all the felt horror which unmasked and hideous forms of evil do inspire in us, to the terrorists. 

Thank you for such a kind response. Again please take my words as those of a very mere housewife.


----------



## Miss Marple

"How would you reply to such an argument? "

I am not sure. 

Inspired men wrote things that I don't think I probably should. Is there a principle there, that extreme language and extreme analogy is allowed? That is one argument to be made. Then again there is Scripture that warns us about the misuse of our tongue (which I assume would include our keyboards).

My best guess is that we have to decide based on the Scripture that tells us there is a time to speak and a time to keep silent; or, answer a fool according to his folly and not according to his folly. In other words we have to assess each situation based on God's Word, the culture, the people involved, our authority, what we think the repercussions would be, our motivation, etc. Difficult to do.

I'd certainly say that ordained men in positions of authority get to be far more caustic than I do, if they think the situation warrants it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Heidi, I do not wish to put you on the spot in a way that you may not be capable of performing. May you provide a better analogy that would be easier on the ears of those who do not fully understand the situation. I am not sure I can. 

As I noted before, Dr. Clark did make a significant clear statement that he was pointing to a specific part of this analogy. Dr. Clark said, "_They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: *the ecclesiastical sponsor*."

_His initial post didn't seem to have the moral outrage. It just made a statement. In his clarification his thoughts became more apparent.


R. Scott Clark said:


> *The CREC is not merely friendly to the FV. It is the home if the FV*. It's where FVists from the URCNA and PCA go when they leave. They are to the FV what Iran is to terrorism: _*the ecclesiastical sponsor*_.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Dr. Clark, I think this is true. Yet, if one is seeking to convince people who are not really aware of the evil involved, I would agree with Rich that a very strong analogy (which will necessarily be perceived as overblown by those who are not yet convinced) could stand in the way (perhaps more especially with us laypersons) of helping us to follow the reasoning and see either the exact points one is seeking to illustrate, or the real evil.



I see this but here's my problem. I've been opposing the FV since before it was known (and self-described) as the FV (c. 1999 and long before that when it was just "the Shepherdite theology" (after Norman Shepherd). 

On this premise, that there are those who don't know what the FV is or why it's bad, one could never use colorful language or analogies and thus discourse is flattened out to the soft and bland. Of course, the best writers have never been bound to such a rule. This gets right to the heart of my present concern about rhetoric and education. The pressure mounts to appeal to the lowest common denominator intellectually and rhetorically for fear of offending the (in both cases) uninformed.



> If what you are seeking to convey is your own level of outrage, they can certainly be employed to that end: if you are speaking to a roomful of those equally outraged, I think they are probably somewhat dangerous (for I always find it somewhat dangerous to speak very strongly with a group people none of whom are disposed to check the rising temperature of the discussion). But they are not in themselves convincing to others of the level of evil involved; and the person who is not convinced of that, rather than seeing the points of contact for which the analogy may be useful, is probably more immediately hung up on all the ways in which the CREC and Iran are not alike.



Don't apt analogies teach _and_ move the emotions simultaneously? Rush (Limbaugh) often says that he refuses to assume the worst about his audience. That seems right, even though there are surely people listening who don't get it, he expects them to catch up and he doesn't worry about those who won't take the time to relieve themselves of their ignorance. Can't we do something like that? What if an ignorant (I'm not using this prejudicially but strictly) sees a provocative analogy and says, "Hey, this must be important. I need to find out more about the FV thing."? I fear that there's nothing I can do for someone who won't exert himself to click on a link (e.g., Resources on the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul).



> Another point is that I think one can perhaps get away with more of these colorful and strong, and often very telling, analogies in obvious good humor. My husband had me laughing last night making some further and very telling points of contact with your CREC/Iran analogy. In this case I think what will communicate are the actual points of contact, rather than the burning sense of moral outrage: the usage of 'ultimate evil' is only a sort of prop, which works good humoredly to convey that you do think these people are really bad: but no one is all that hung up on having to compare them too closely and fully, with all the felt horror which unmasked and hideous forms of evil do inspire in us, to the terrorists.



I'm in favor of humorous, analogies but what if outrage is appropriate?




> Thank you for such a kind response. Again please take my words as those of a very mere housewife.



No, sincerely, thank you. I'm always looking for helpful, thoughtful dialogue partners.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Miss Marple said:


> "How would you reply to such an argument? "
> 
> I am not sure.
> 
> Inspired men wrote things that I don't think I probably should. Is there a principle there, that extreme language and extreme analogy is allowed? That is one argument to be made. Then again there is Scripture that warns us about the misuse of our tongue (which I assume would include our keyboards).
> 
> My best guess is that we have to decide based on the Scripture that tells us there is a time to speak and a time to keep silent; or, answer a fool according to his folly and not according to his folly. In other words we have to assess each situation based on God's Word, the culture, the people involved, our authority, what we think the repercussions would be, our motivation, etc. Difficult to do.
> 
> I'd certainly say that ordained men in positions of authority get to be far more caustic than I do, if they think the situation warrants it.



MR,

Thanks for this. Surely it's true that we're not inspired but this seems to be the first age, of which I'm aware, when we're restricted from making use of all the rhetorical tools in the box. The early church was not so bound. The medievals were not so bound. The Renaissance was so bound nor was the Reformation (or post-Reformation) nor the 19th-century Presbyterians. 

What have we learned over the last 50 years that we didn't know in the centuries previous?

Do you think it's fair to say ask whether the rules need to be questioned?


----------



## Miss Marple

Yes, I do think that is fair. Are we being subject to a spirit of this age, wherein we are afraid to voice strong and serious opinions? Or, was the church of the past generally in error for being too brusque/harsh with their speech?


----------



## a mere housewife

Randy, I don't honestly know enough about the CREC situation to make the most informed analogy. I thought of a host organism for a virus? The host is both contaged and contagious -- sick and infected and in need of treatment, and at the same time enabling the reproduction and spread of the disease to other organisms. From there perhaps one could go on to speak of how the disease can be a deadly one, and have an opportunity to speak about the various ways in which this false doctrine is able to destroy.

Dr. Clark, I agree with Miss Marple that some situations will bear more than others, and each must be assessed separately. The Biblical writers spoke of false prophets in terms of predators, which would have conjured up much more of a strong reaction in their own day than it does in ours. I suppose I simply think that because of certain factors involved in our immediate response to these particular evils, and because of the way they are too commonly cited to bolster any sort of argument, analogies with terrorists or the Nazis are likely to come off as sounding overblown, and will often tend to clutter rather than effectively communicate the points of contact, even where they (and the moral outrage they inspire) really may be quite appropriate?


----------



## a mere housewife

I should probably add that I think the virus analogy at least preserves the nature of the bond we have with our brothers and sisters in Christ in the CREC who are either unaware as yet of FV teachings or deluded by them. And I think this is the sort of vital aspect of our health in the body of Christ that tends to be too easily and readily destroyed by even 'the good guys' in controversy. It can be very difficult for a lay-person when that happens, to sort through all the rhetoric on both sides. And as things escalate, arguments tend to become less precise: any stick becomes good enough for beating one another with. And as we polarise everything about the controversy into 'them=bad guys, us=good guys' (which is one tendency of 'ultimate evil' analogies), it seems like we lose sight of any of the legitimate concessions that might be made to charity; and perhaps more significantly it seems we tend to cease to examine ourselves for our own errors. It has been a special help to me to read some clear and even handed critiques of the FV -- not mitigating the dangers, but not excessive in tone -- from Rev. Winzer on the board, and from some things put out by Mid-America. It has helped that there is a willingness to examine errors on our own side as well. 

I don't feel competent to say much more than I have on this, but the internet probably has a fair amount of blame to bear by way of ruining the conditions for rhetoric. Since anyone of us can get up and spout wild analogies, and since all the rest of us can get up and twist them any which way they become most sensationalistic (a thing which some organisations seem to specialise in) -- it is hard for the small fry like myself to sort out the voices which have a right to speak strongly as those who are engaging in serious conflict with a very legitimate sense of what is at stake, from those that are merely indulging various aspects of our common humanity; in that climate, the voices I personally tend to trust more are the ones which speak with more caution and restraint.

Thank you again for your very kind interaction.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The Reformers did speak harshly sometimes but so did the humanists and the medieval theologians. It has been argued to me that rhetoric changed after the 30 Years War in order to avoid such conflict but I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think rhetoric really began to be softened later than that, perhaps during the Victorian era and after that. I'm still working on it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

a mere housewife said:


> Randy, I don't honestly know enough about the CREC situation to make the most informed analogy. I thought of a host organism for a virus? The host is both contaged and contagious -- sick and infected and in need of treatment, and at the same time enabling the reproduction and spread of the disease to other organisms. From there perhaps one could go on to speak of how the disease can be a deadly one, and have an opportunity to speak about the various ways in which this false doctrine is able to destroy.
> 
> Dr. Clark, I agree with Miss Marple that some situations will bear more than others, and each must be assessed separately. The Biblical writers spoke of false prophets in terms of predators, which would have conjured up much more of a strong reaction in their own day than it does in ours. I suppose I simply think that because of certain factors involved in our immediate response to these particular evils, and because of the way they are too commonly cited to bolster any sort of argument, analogies with terrorists or the Nazis are likely to come off as sounding overblown, and will often tend to clutter rather than effectively communicate the points of contact, even where they (and the moral outrage they inspire) really may be quite appropriate?



I agree entirely, if we're thinking about the laity but when the prophets spoke about predators, they weren't thinking about the laity were they? 

If we distinguish between laity and officers, those who should know better, is it appropriate to use strong language and analogies? 

When I made the analogy between Iran and the CREC, I wasn't thinking of the laity. I was thinking of the officers and those who've been instructed, rebuked, and warned extensively.


----------



## a mere housewife

That certainly does make a difference. And that seems a perfect example of one of those factors where someone like myself can very easily get hung up on a strong analogy, thinking of some way/various ways in which the two things are dissimilar, and not understanding that the analogy was not intended to convey similarities in *those* areas. 

I will not argue with the apostles' usage of strong concepts in defending the flock . As a woman, not a protector of the sheep, and woman who generally has more difficulty making strong statements anyway, I certainly don't wish to hold everyone to my own level of discourse. It's probably no surprise that I don't know the answer to some of your questions. I do think there were occasions when the fathers and reformers and puritans fell into errors in controversy that it seems controversy is always liable to (my husband read to me of a church council that sounded like pure chaos, with a lot of people shouting, if I remember correctly, something like 'God save the Empress'! as a way of drowning out the opposition). I can't help but think one of the greatest tragedies in history is that brothers in Christ went the length of actually killing each other in Scotland over their essentially ecclesiastical (since all politics were so) differences. I wonder if *some* reaction against these things is not wholly misplaced, and is part of ongoing reformation and learning the lessons of history? I'm very interested in this subject myself but also hesitant to offer too many of my own thoughts as they are merely my own: I can offer feedback from a lay perspective but not a very informed opinion, I'm afraid. So with that I will truly bow out; again with thanks for your zeal to defend us, and kindness in speaking with me, and prayers that God will bless your efforts to defend His sheep.


----------



## michaelspotts

R. Scott Clark said:


> Doesn't the validity of the analogy come down, at least in part, to what one thinks of the FV? If one thinks the FV doctrine is wrong but not terribly dangerous, then one is more likely to be scandalized by the analogy. If one thinks that the FV doctrine is a soul-killing, church-wrecking error (as I do) then one is more likely to be attracted to the analogy.



That is my view. Those who are more enflamed by the comparison to Iran, which kills bodies, than by the FV in the CREC, which kills souls, must not view the FV/CREC partnership as the incredible evil that it is. < /lay-person >


----------



## R. Scott Clark

a mere housewife said:


> That certainly does make a difference. And that seems a perfect example of one of those factors where someone like myself can very easily get hung up on a strong analogy, thinking of some way/various ways in which the two things are dissimilar, and not understanding that the analogy was not intended to convey similarities in *those* areas.
> 
> I will not argue with the apostles' usage of strong concepts in defending the flock . As a woman, not a protector of the sheep, and woman who generally has more difficulty making strong statements anyway, I certainly don't wish to hold everyone to my own level of discourse. It's probably no surprise that I don't know the answer to some of your questions. I do think there were occasions when the fathers and reformers and puritans fell into errors in controversy that it seems controversy is always liable to (my husband read to me of a church council that sounded like pure chaos, with a lot of people shouting, if I remember correctly, something like 'God save the Empress'! as a way of drowning out the opposition). I can't help but think one of the greatest tragedies in history is that brothers in Christ went the length of actually killing each other in Scotland over their essentially ecclesiastical (since all politics were so) differences. I wonder if *some* reaction against these things is not wholly misplaced, and is part of ongoing reformation and learning the lessons of history? I'm very interested in this subject myself but also hesitant to offer too many of my own thoughts as they are merely my own: I can offer feedback from a lay perspective but not a very informed opinion, I'm afraid. So with that I will truly bow out; again with thanks for your zeal to defend us, and kindness in speaking with me, and prayers that God will bless your efforts to defend His sheep.



I'm grateful for your responses. This has been more helpful than you might know. As Mrs Clark can tell you, I'm not always as perceptive as I should be regarding how words sound and what affect they might create in others.

Gratefully yours.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hey Michael!


----------



## jwright82

May not a “better”, maybe or maybe not, comparison be between the CREC and the PC (USA)? They both harbor officially theological errors, albeit different ones, but there is certainly good churches here and there. I mean I agree with Lane Keister that once we get the FV movement out of our churches we can relate more to them like we do to Lutherans. 
The Federal Vision - Reformed Forum


----------



## R. Scott Clark

jwright82 said:


> May not a “better”, maybe or maybe not, comparison be between the CREC and the PC (USA)? They both harbor officially theological errors, albeit different ones, but there is certainly good churches here and there. I mean I agree with Lane Keister that once we get the FV movement out of our churches we can relate more to them like we do to Lutherans.
> The Federal Vision - Reformed Forum



Perhaps but perhaps not. The PCUSA is deeply corrupt in virtually every way an ecclesiastical body can be but are the actively seeking to export their errors to others? Are they aggressively planting churches in E. Europe (and elsewhere)? Are they seeking to promote their distinctive theology among NAPARC congregations? 

The confessional Lutherans, for all our disagreements with them, confess the gospel. I agree that the Lutheran view of perseverance is not utterly unlike the FV but the Lutherans distinguish law from gospel and the confessional Lutherans, in my experience, preach the good news on the Lord's Day. I understand Lane's point. We've talked about it. 

Getting the FV out of our NAPARC churches has turned out to be a much bigger job than many anticipated in 2007 when the various NAPARC groups began speaking officially against it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A Mere Housewife, You are the most precious thing. You are the Woman of the Spirit.


----------



## jwright82

R. Scott Clark said:


> Perhaps but perhaps not. The PCUSA is deeply corrupt in virtually every way an ecclesiastical body can be but are the actively seeking to export their errors to others? Are they aggressively planting churches in E. Europe (and elsewhere)? Are they seeking to promote their distinctive theology among NAPARC congregations?
> 
> The confessional Lutherans, for all our disagreements with them, confess the gospel. I agree that the Lutheran view of perseverance is not utterly unlike the FV but the Lutherans distinguish law from gospel and the confessional Lutherans, in my experience, preach the good news on the Lord's Day. I understand Lane's point. We've talked about it.
> 
> Getting the FV out of our NAPARC churches has turned out to be a much bigger job than many anticipated in 2007 when the various NAPARC groups began speaking officially against it.



I didn't relize that this was the case. I agree with you on Lutherans though. What are the ways that the CREC is trying to "promote their theology among NAPARC churches"?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> What are the ways that the CREC is trying to "promote their theology among NAPARC churches"?



The best thing I can do is to encourage you to talk to orthodox, confessional pastors in the Pacific NW to hear about their experience.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> What are the ways that the CREC is trying to "promote their theology among NAPARC churches"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing I can do is to encourage you to talk to orthodox, confessional pastors in the Pacific NW to hear about their experience.
Click to expand...


Dr. Clark, is there still an appeal process to be handled with the Leithart situation. If so then I am willing to remain quiet on the situation. If not then maybe we can discuss the case and how he blatantly contradicts the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> What are the ways that the CREC is trying to "promote their theology among NAPARC churches"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing I can do is to encourage you to talk to orthodox, confessional pastors in the Pacific NW to hear about their experience.
Click to expand...


Or speak to those who attended GA...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Dr. Clark, is there still an appeal process to be handled with the Leithart situation. If so then I am willing to remain quiet on the situation. If not then maybe we can discuss the case and how he blatantly contradicts the Westminster Standards.



I'm under the impression there's an appeal to the SJC but my PCA brothers can correct me.


----------



## jwright82

R. Scott Clark said:


> What are the ways that the CREC is trying to "promote their theology among NAPARC churches"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing I can do is to encourage you to talk to orthodox, confessional pastors in the Pacific NW to hear about their experience.
Click to expand...


Thanks, will do. Could you recomend anyone? I live very far from there.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

email me at clark [at] wscal [dot] edu


----------

