Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you give a brief summary?
if they had posted this 7 months ago. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure out what should be said
Mark Dalby clarifies that Covenant had no official role in the conference, tells us that as a result of what happened at the conference they will not have any faculty speaking at the next one, and gently also calls out those who have been jumping to conclusions about their role in the conference; I might add, rightfully so.Can you give a brief summary? (Not able to watch a 5 min video quite yet).
I'm glad they posted it; I think it's helpful.Covenant Seminary is an innocent victim and we should quit sinning against them. Other than that, it seemed to me to be carefully worded orthodoxy.
I'd have a bit more sympathy if they had posted this 7 months ago. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure out what should be said.
Maybe other folks will be more open to them playing the victim card at this point.
Edited to add:
And no one from the Seminary will be speaking at the conference in 2019.
And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.
No, simply the need to condemn nor defend an agency of the denomination. It makes whatever is coming out of Covenant, good or bad, a nonissue for the members in the PCA. The PCA did not learn from Princeton. Regardless of what you think of Kuyper he was spot on this issue.u mean like the FV problem they fixed?
And in June men may support this overture to fix the problem once and for all.
Highly unlikely. This is probably designed to head that off. And that effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere - only one Presbytery has sent it up at this point. The only question is whether the committees will substitute something watered down, or whether they'll send it to defeat.
On the other hand, four presbyteries think money needs to be spent on a study as to whether domestic abuse should be condemned. I would expect a feminist statement to come out of that effort, even if some of the proponents are well intentioned . And there are also three or four presbyteries supporting the efforts to put women into leadership.
Thanks for this information. Personally, I've done all I can do to from the position I am currently in, by asking my Elders to work from the narrow court upward, but to no avail. I'm pretty much toast. I must now rely on my Ebenezer.Highly unlikely. This is probably designed to head that off. And that effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere - only one Presbytery has sent it up at this point. The only question is whether the committees will substitute something watered down, or whether they'll send it to defeat.
On the other hand, four presbyteries think money needs to be spent on a study as to whether domestic abuse should be condemned. I would expect a feminist statement to come out of that effort, even if some of the proponents are well intentioned . And there are also three or four presbyteries supporting the efforts to put women into leadership.
If you want an interesting comparison look at what the study committees of the various NAPARC denominations are focused on and you see a vivid picture of their respective views of the nature of the church.Condemning domestic abuse requires a study?
How so?If you want an interesting comparison look at what the study committees of the various NAPARC denominations are focused on and you see a vivid picture of their respective views of the nature of the church.
There are faithful men who see the issues in the PCA as small things, compared to what they dealt with 50 years ago.
I suppose this is a bit of a rabbit trail, but for instance, OPC is studying whether to update language in the WCF, RPCNA is studying to clarify matters of divorce and offerings as a regulative principle of worship. These things seem to be more practical and with tangible results. There is absolutely nothing tangible about the PCA Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation study. Kind of like the US Senate hearings that only cause tempers to flare and have no helpful outcome.How so?
I think that's probably true.I didn’t watch the whole thing yet but he was talking about slanderous attacks.... but most of the outspoken are the concerned.... the true militant.... we see outside sources at work and/or working their way in
Sure, of course..... I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I hope all concerns are legit and delt with accordingly and appropriately..... with no secret or personal agendas at play....I think that's probably true.
But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself. Though the former is much easier.
It's easier to gossip or slander an organization than a person. It's also easy to start spreading stuff you hear without fact checking. Concerns should be dealt with in the proper and biblical way. Right? I'm glad someone wrote up something about CTS to take to GA. If there are concerns, that's the proper way to do it.
But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself.
But the whole point was who we are bringing those concerns to (first). If I believe my brother sins against me, I probably shouldn't go blogging about it before I have a sit down with the man himself. Though the former is much easier.
Need to give this more thought; chewing on it.Matthew 18 is talking about sins that are of a private and personal nature, not the public conduct of seminaries or ecclesiastical bodies. I have noticed that clericalists like to erroneously appeal to Matthew 18 so that their public conduct cannot be publicly scrutinised. No, if they do something in public that scandalises the gospel and brings true religion into disrepute, then they may expect the rest of us to call them out on it.
Matthew 18 is talking about sins that are of a private and personal nature, not the public conduct of seminaries or ecclesiastical bodies. I have noticed that clericalists like to erroneously appeal to Matthew 18 so that their public conduct cannot be publicly scrutinised. No, if they do something in public that scandalises the gospel and brings true religion into disrepute, then they may expect the rest of us to call them out on it.
Need to give this more thought; chewing on it.
A very off-putting video.
The guy stays silent on the conference for months prior and refuses to condemn it, and then condemns his critics afterward.
They send a speaker there from the seminary to participate in the conference. Often participation implies endorsement. Participation by a seminary faculty often means legitimacy for the conference.
I am glad the speaker sent from Covenant defended traditional sexual ethics. But sometimes participation in a conference means endorsement, unless the institution is clear about the purpose for their participation. But we see that Dr. Dalbey refused to criticize it at all beforehand.
Dr Dalby spends more time on the video lecturing and rebuking those that had qualms, instead of condemning homosexuality.
The guy comes off as a jerk in the video and I sure wouldn't want to send anyone to his seminary.
And didn't Rejoice take place at a PCA church? And isn't Covenant Seminary the official seminary of the PCA? If so...why no loud condemnations of this church by Covenant Seminary beforehand, or even now?...the only thing we get is annoying nagging rebukes about those of us troubled by Covenant's silence.
For months and months prior to the conference, Covenant’s president, "Mark Dalby, said publicly that the criticisms of Revoice were baseless because Revoice hadn’t been held yet."
That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. What the conference was about, what the speakers believed, and the topics to be covered and the opinions held were largely known beforehand.
Does Dr Dalby lack enough discernment to know the general tenor of what this conference would be about? Surely he is not that dumb.
The video states that Covenant will no longer send speakers to the next Revoice Conference. Is this an admission that their participation was unwise at the last one? If this an admission of guilt? And if so, why the lecturing of us for saying the same thing? If they had not sent a speaker this year, they would not have gotten much of the criticism that they received.
All that time leading up to the conference...and yet Covenant refused to condemn the conference....yet here this guy now in the video...criticizing people who were troubled by his silence.
Here is a good summary of discussions as the Revoice Conference neared: https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/18...ys-pca-general-assembly-statement-on-revoice/
"Dr. Dalbey lamented over the conference being judged before it was held and the content was known. This defense reminds me of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous statement that the Affordable Care Act had to be passed in order to know what was in it. Revoice has published extensive descriptions of many of their presentations; the main speakers’ views are extensively published and known internationally; and the pastor of the host church gave a lengthy explanation and defense of the conference.
It takes very little discernment to get a clear impression of what the thrust of the Revoice devoicing will be.
[Dalbey's words]
"...I am deeply troubled with the attacks and judgments that have been made against Covenant Seminary around the Revoice conference. Much of what is being said is untrue about us, unfair toward us, and very unloving toward us."
As I said to the CTS staff member who told me I was not demonstrating the love of Christ in my warnings and tone regarding the Revoice conference, it is necessary work for pastors to be watchmen (read Ezekiel 33). To refuse to sound the alarm when wolves are attempting to attack the sheep is to be both negligent and unloving. To remain silent or ambivalent, or to say “let’s just wait and see,” is to give a more honored place to collegiality than love for the sheep and faithfulness to God."
Did I miss it somewhere? Was there ever any clear denunciation of this Revoice Conference by Covenant Seminary? If only Dr. Dalbey had rebuked Revoice even half as much as he does his critics in the video above.
I have officially lost respect. I don't trust this guy. I like my preachers to speak plainly, and this guy does not speak plainly.
Dr Dalby further says the following and NEEDS TO REPENT FROM IT: "The temptation toward homosexual sin is not sin. Attraction to the same sex must be mortified by the means of grace and the support of the people of God, so it does not as James say, “conceive and give birth to sin.”
Again, he says that same-sex attraction is not sin and that it must be mortified so as not to lead to sin. Dr Dalby is unfit to teach on this topic.
Every unnatural desire is sin. An unnatural tempation is a sin. People are pushing to excuse a same-sex attraction as not being sinful, but we'd never say the same thing about having an attraction to children. Nobody says a pedophiliac-attraction or a beastiality-attraction is not sin. It is a sign of a disordered desire, a result of a sinful disposition. But the homosexual lobby is pretty strong and so many churches are trying to throw as many scraps to them as they can and to meet them halfway.
"Revoice attempts to remove homosexual desires from the realm of sin and Dr. Dalbey is careful to allow this. This is the space the gay Christian movement is seeking to claim and it will lead many to live as effeminate men and butch women, renouncing their God-given sex. Dr. Dalbey continues:
We affirm brothers and sisters who are walking in this way, whose struggle is same-sex temptation. As well as those whose temptation is heterosexual, and nonsexual temptations, including the stirring up of discord in the Body of Christ."
Notice that clever manuever. Same-sex attraction is only as bad as stirring up discord. And then he accues many of doing this same thing in his pedantic little video. An unnatural desire is thus equated with making a beef about Covenant's participation in a pro-homo conference.
He then says, "What people choose to call themselves who struggle with same sex attraction I think is a matter of significant wisdom in figuring out, but not necessarily something for condemnation if their commitment is no behavior, no lust, and mortifying the desire to not be tempted."
But aren't words important? Should we really be okay with people calling themselves gay Christians? The sloppy language being used opens up an opportunity for people to preserve a homosexual identity. Another phrase being used that Dr Dalbey did not object to was that some people consisted of beign a "sexual minority" - which puts homosexuals into the same category as a civil rights issue.
Again, Dr Dalby is unfit for leadership on this issue and needs to repent.
His position is to bend over backwards so as not to offend the homosexuals and to throw conservative Christians troubled by his wishy-washyness under the bus.
https://warhornmedia.com/2018/06/13...logical-seminarys-committee-of-commissioners/
https://warhornmedia.com/2019/01/15/covenant-theological-seminary-and-the-decline-of-the-pca/
More troubling news from faculty associated with Covenant:
https://world.wng.org/2019/02/strained_voices
http://tennesseestar.com/2017/08/30...nference-featuring-leftist-teachings-on-race/
I would urge all faithful believers to avoid Covenant and to pressure them to walk back their progress towards the Cultural Left.
I thought I had posted something on this here on PB regarding this same controversy