# Deciding Where to Serve



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 31, 2008)

On the HB


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 31, 2008)

Very interesting...


"...Take the test case of the OPC. It is strong on theology, polity, and missions and but attends to attract more bookish ministers..."


"The RCUS probably has a little more fundamentalism than the OPC and less broad evangelical influence. The URCs have relatively little evangelical influence and probably less fundamentalist influence than the OPC or the RCUS."



This is a neat list of summaries of these groups, but I have to ask.... would these groups agree with your short evaluations of them? Would the OPC guys say, "Yep, we are bookish" for example?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 31, 2008)

Having been both an insider and an outsider looking in, I would say "They should!"


----------



## Craig (Mar 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This is a neat list of summaries of these groups, but I have to ask.... would these groups agree with your short evaluations of them? Would the OPC guys say, "Yep, we are bookish" for example?



On the OPC side...yeah...pretty much!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 31, 2008)

I have been in the ministry now for not quite 3 years. I "started" my library a little over 10 years ago, when I started seminary.

I am positive that I have, conservatively estimated, 2X the average minister's library around here.

Not that necessarily makes me any better a minister. But "bookish" would definitely fit.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 31, 2008)

Thank you for the essay, Dr. Clark, I enjoyed reading it. However, I don't think the following characterization of Redeemer was entirely fair:

"Recently Tim Keller suggested a sort of pluralistic approach to church planting that implies a sort of diffidence to the Reformed theology, piety, and practice than renders them mere preferences rather than matters of principle."

Obviously as a member of Redeemer I'm biased, but to be fair, Redeemer has never "planted" a non-PCA church. They do partner with other churches, and do give financial aid to other Reformed churches, but to say it implies diffidence or that these are simply "preferences" is a bit much. Here's Tim Keller on the subject:

"We do, however, support churches that are Reformed but charismatic (e.g. like C.J. Mahaney’s churches or other similar churches) and other non-Presbyterian churches that we train and we feel are on the same page with us about gospel theology. There are plenty of Baptist, charismatic, churches etc etc that are similar to us in soteriology–are moving toward us. But we put far, far more money into Presbyterian church plants. That keeps us from on the one hand, being sectarian and thinking God only blesses Presbyterian government, but it means on the other hand we give pride of place to our own tradition, which we love. We’ve always identified as ‘Presbyterian’ in our name, as one example."


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 31, 2008)

Hi Mason,

I understand from your comments and Tim's that Redeemer spends money and human resources helping to establish non-Reformed works. C J Mahaney's group is not Reformed. I'm glad CJ and the guys like predestination but that doesn't make them Reformed.

Is this understanding incorrect?

Behind my comments is my conviction that one of the things that makes one Reformed is *not* hearing voices/words from God without the mediation of Word and sacrament. In that respect, the charismatic movement is antithetical to Reformed theology, piety, and practice.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 31, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi Mason,
> 
> I understand from your comments and Tim's that Redeemer spends money and human resources helping to establish non-Reformed works. C J Mahaney's group is not Reformed. I'm glad CJ and the guys like predestination but that doesn't make them Reformed.
> 
> ...




Amen Sir!!! (But I must say you left out the ARP in your original post)


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 31, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi Mason,
> 
> I understand from your comments and Tim's that Redeemer spends money and human resources helping to establish non-Reformed works. C J Mahaney's group is not Reformed. I'm glad CJ and the guys like predestination but that doesn't make them Reformed.
> 
> ...



Admittedly, I don't know all the details of Mahaney's group's beliefs (other than they are 5-pointers and pretty solid overall), so you may very well be right. My point is that Redeemer may support some churches outside the PCA, but they don't view Reformed beliefs or the confession as preferences, and adhere to those principles tightly. In fact, in many ways Redeemer is one of the more conservative PCA churches.

I can understand the problem some people have with Redeemer supporting these groups. But remember, in Manhattan you're much more likely to run into a Jewish synagogue, Catholic, Unitarian, or liberal Episcopal church than anything approaching a reformed congregation. Redeemer doesn't compromise its standards, but it is willing to financially aid other solid, Reformed churches. I agree with this practice, but understand completely why you and some others may not. At the same time, I still wouldn't consider that practice "pluralism" in the sense that the church doesn't waiver on its principles; it simply supports others with whom it has some theological differences in order the further the Kingdom.

Once again, I really appreciate your article. It really helped clarify for me some of the theological and cultural differences between the PCA, OPC, URC, and RPCNA. Thank you for your insight!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 31, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> but it is willing to financially aid other solid, Reformed churches



I think Dr. Clark would be less likely to object were you to say:

"but it is willing to financially aid other solid, *broadly* Reformed churches"


----------

