# MTW's "Original Vision Network"



## Romans922 (May 10, 2012)

This seems like it will be a big story in the coming years. MTW has set up what they call the "Original Vision Network". Please read and discuss here/there about what this is all about. Anyone know anything more about this?


What is Mission to the World’s PCA Original Vision Network? « Johannes Weslianus




> As we noted on April 12, Dr. Paul Kooistra and Mission to the World are forming the PCA Original Vision Network to form a network of people in the PCA to promote what they are calling the “original vision” of the PCA as we find ourselves at a time which they consider to be a crucial “crossroads.” We have obtained more information on this project. According to a recent newsletter, you can contribute to the support of TE Larry Hoop (who is coordinating the network, pictured above on left) by contacting MTW:
> 
> Please make checks payable to and mail to (please include project # in memo line):
> Mission to the World. P.O. Box 116284. Atlanta, GA 30368-6284 (donations address)
> ...


​


----------



## jwithnell (May 10, 2012)

I saw this via other sources and was quite confused, so I'm glad you posted. If they are trying to reinstate solid, reformed doctrine and practice then such a move is welcome. With the incursion of doctrine such as New Perspectives and Federal vision, perhaps a return to roots is a good thing. Or if a reinstatement of the RPW is in mind, then great! However, I'm not sure why this is coming out of MTW. To address these issues only in foreign missions? What does this mean here in the states? Will MTW embrace fully reformed worship abroad? (I know of at least one Presbyterian mission work they rejected unless the services be made more broadly evangelical.)


----------



## Romans922 (May 10, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> I saw this via other sources and was quite confused, so I'm glad you posted. If they are trying to reinstate solid, reformed doctrine and practice then such a move is welcome. With the incursion of doctrine such as New Perspectives and Federal vision, perhaps a return to roots is a good thing. Or if a reinstatement of the RPW is in mind, then great! However, I'm not sure why this is coming out of MTW. To address these issues only in foreign missions? What does this mean here in the states? Will MTW embrace fully reformed worship abroad? (I know of at least one Presbyterian mission work they rejected unless the services be made more broadly evangelical.)



Which mission work was rejected? Any documentation on that?

Also, I agree with you if what you said is their goal, but I am hesitations about it because you see the second bullet point above (in the letter) says, 



> _a denomination committed to a *broadly Reformed theological position*, steering clear of both a formless evangelicalism with sketchy theological commitments and a narrow sectarianism that could consume our energies building a theological fortress;_​


----------



## Jack K (May 10, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> I am hesitations about it because you see the second bullet point above (in the letter) says,
> 
> 
> 
> > _a denomination committed to a *broadly Reformed theological position*, steering clear of both a formless evangelicalism with sketchy theological commitments and a narrow sectarianism that could consume our energies building a theological fortress;_​



Like it or not, though, that part of the statement seems to be a pretty accurate summary of what the PCA wanted to be at its founding. Certainly, it's the sense I got of the PCA a few years later. It was about neither (1) being loose and copying whatever you see in evangelicalism nor (2) some version of a "TR" agenda. Both of those are developments that came later. It's also fair to say that both of those later developments have resulted in a measure of internal squabbling in the PCA that may have distracted from the work of proclaiming the gospel to the unchurched.

Just guessing, but it sounds to me like that's the point of this thing.


----------



## Wayne (May 10, 2012)

Jack:

I would counter that the PCA then was no different than it is today, with groups all along the spectrum. 

See for one, "The TR Debates" : The “TR” Debates (1977) « - The Continuing Story -
The public airing of those debates only rose some years after the origin of the term or movement, which can be traced to the RTS Jackson campus circa 1972-74.

Morton Smith has stated publicly that he thought he was joining an Old School denomination. On the other end of the spectrum, Dr. Ben Haden had a different view entirely. Dr. G. Aiken Taylor was somewhere in between, though perhaps a bit closer to Haden than to Smith.

In short, we were always all over the map. [i.e., within the bounds of "faithful ..., true ..., obedient ..." (thanks for the reminder to add that proviso, Scott)]


----------



## Scott1 (May 10, 2012)

Wayne said:


> In short, we were always all over the map.



As long as that is "Faithful to Scripture, true to the reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission," it's a work in progress commended for its faithfulness by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


----------



## Romans922 (May 10, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I am hesitations about it because you see the second bullet point above (in the letter) says,
> ...



I'm going to have to disagree Jack. From 1970-73 (outside of RTS and their students), with the founding fathers, at least in wording, you never saw anything about 'broadly reformed' or 'broad' anything (at least to my knowledge). In fact, the language used was 'thoroughly reformed'. See here: The PCA’s Original Vision: Thoroughly Reformed or Broadly Reformed? « Johannes Weslianus

Now whether people disagreed with the phrase is irrelevant, more than 600 people signed the declaration of intent that states what they wanted was 'thoroughly reformed' including (interestingly enough) Paul Kooistra.


----------



## Jack K (May 10, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Jack:
> 
> I would counter that the PCA then was no different than it is today, with groups all along the spectrum.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I certainly consider you more expert than I am on these matters.


----------



## Romans922 (May 10, 2012)

Also to add to what Scott brings up, The Reaffirmations of 1973 that were unanimously agreed upon by the Steering Committee of a Continuing Presbyterian Church, the very last part of it is neat, 



> *COMMITMENT*
> We pledge our love and fellowship as brothers in Christ with all those who know Jesus Christ as Savior' and Lord but may, in this present time and situation, follow a different course of action, thus committing ourselves to continued fellowship in love with all men of good will and like conviction of the truth - all for the glory of God and the unity of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> Believing that unless two be agreed they cannot walk together, the Steering Committee, with profound sorrow and many tears, has concluded that there is a separation of those holding different idealogies within the PCUS. We commit ourselves to the rebirth and continuation of a Presbyterian Church in the United States in accord with these reaffirmations, praying our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit to be our leader and helper. We believe that acknowledgement of the separation and the inevitable rebirth cannot and should not be delayed, and therefore call for the establishment during 1973 of a Continuing Presbyterian Church, loyal to Scripture, the Reformed Faith, and committed to the spiritual mission of the Church as Christ commanded in the Great Commission.
> To God be the glory. Amen.


----------

