RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
NT Wright?
Tim Keller's article about the composition of the PCA and its future
- Thread starter ARStager
- Start date
- Status
NT Wright?
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
It's interesting to hear you say that, Fred. I was just thinking today how FV is kind of like a Rorschach test in that various groups seem to be finding things to object to and they don't all really agree on what needs to be objected to. Here are some of the things that led me to think about this:
1. The MO Presbytery's main concerns, judged on the basis of what is happening on the floor of presbytery, seems to be the sacramental theology of "federal visionists". They really haven't seemed to view this as some kind of salvation by merit issue.
2. The Pacific NW Presbytery has apparently examined Peter Leithart and the only exception it looks like they might have even identified in his views is the idea that baptisms done outside of the church (say by fathers or in camp situations) are valid, even if PL does not view them as strictly licit.
3. Judging by the preliminary report, one big thing that the FV committee in the MS Valley Presbytery is concerned about is the "federal vision" view of the Covenant, especially of the Covenant of Works, but you have people in the MO Presbytery who are very opposed to anything that tastes of FV who are themselves against a meritorious covenant of works. Our denominational seminary teaches a gracious view of the Covenant of Works, not the "strict justice" view of the Kline approach. And this is because the seminary itself does not take a particular position on that issue, but leaves it to the professors who are teaching the course. It is thought that both positions have a pedigree in the Reformed Tradition, and there are professors on staff at Covenant who hold to both positions and yet live there in peace.
4. The NPP seems almost to be a red herring in the eyes of some presbyteries - they do not believe the NPP and the "federal vision" are necessarily related issues. N.T. Wright just happens to be a smart Anglican guy who ways some helpful things that we can learn from. A wise man can learn something even from the words of a fool, and that sort of thing. In thinking back over the way that the NPP became an issue in the PCA, it seems like basically what happened is that some articles appeared on the PCA News website that were very critical of Wright and some people who I wouldn't consider "fans of the Uberbishop" just kind of defended him against some of the accusations. By Ligon Duncan's testimony, he became concerned when some RTS students were interested in Wright and appreciative of Wright. So the order of events is: 1. Some RTS guys ("our best students" - says Duncan) became interested in Wright, 2. Prof Kelly wrote a strong critique of Wright that appeared in the PCA News (complete with sample questions to ask in presbytery), 3. Some people thought Kelly was unfair and wrote in to PCA News, 4. Prof Duncan defended Kelly and pressed the case farther, 5. The PCA News had an "umpired debate" on the issue and it went from there. This was a kind of parallel issue to the "Federal Vision" conference and has been linked mainly thematically or theoretically. The short version of this paragraph, though, is just that some Presbyteries just don't think the NPP issue and the FV issue are related.
5. That research report on the sacramental views of the New York Presbytery makes it pretty clear that they are advising men who want to be candidates in that presbytery to have a very high view of the sacraments. That's a whole presbytery which could be described as sympathetic to the federal vision's sacramentology.
Now, personally, I think if things are as you say, that this is really not the kind of unity we need. I mean, if all we can agree to do is get together and oppose something, especially if we all have different reasons, then it is difficult to really cheer for that. I think that betrays a very sectarian spirit. Let us suppose that the federal visionists are really crypto-Lutherans. Are we saying that it is a good thing that we're all getting united against Lutheran sacramental theology? I mean, that sounds like we've essentially given up on visible unity in the church and that we're committed to denominationalism. I think denominationalism is certainly a practical necessity and that Lutherans should be ministers in Lutheran churches and not Presbyterian ones, but I also think that we should be grudgingly in denominations, not gleefully in them. The Holy Spirit is guiding the whole orthodox church, in other words, and isolating ourselves from that good work can hardly be productive in the long run. Now, if the FV espouses any heresies, of course it is good to be united against it, but so far the allegations I hear make the FV guys at worse Lutherans or maybe semi-Arminians or something, and it is hard not to see that this would make them like our Methodist, Lutheran and Southern Baptist brothers, not our enemies.
I would also point out one other thing - none of the committees that has really taken a lot of time and put a lot of resources into the issue has reported yet. I'm sure that the MS Valley report is a helpful first start, but it is pretty clear from reading the cover letter to the report that it is mostly the fruit of the work of one or two people. I know that the MO Presbytery committee is huge - with subcommittees on various topics, containing seminary professors, etc. It should be a really good report that is the fruit of a lot of iron sharpening iron. Likewise, the Northwest Presbytery's work is supposed to have Q&A between the committee and PL complete with answers, rejoinders, etc. A real public kind of record of the work of the committee. And so I'm just not so clear how we can know already how the various presbytery study committees are going to rule on this. There has been some very strong language on this discussion board about the FV issue, and I only hope that if in the light of a few year's perspective some of the allegations against the FV guys turn out to be misdrawn, that we can restore trust and unity among the brothers. We've all got to be able to look each other in the eyes someday.
1. The MO Presbytery's main concerns, judged on the basis of what is happening on the floor of presbytery, seems to be the sacramental theology of "federal visionists". They really haven't seemed to view this as some kind of salvation by merit issue.
2. The Pacific NW Presbytery has apparently examined Peter Leithart and the only exception it looks like they might have even identified in his views is the idea that baptisms done outside of the church (say by fathers or in camp situations) are valid, even if PL does not view them as strictly licit.
3. Judging by the preliminary report, one big thing that the FV committee in the MS Valley Presbytery is concerned about is the "federal vision" view of the Covenant, especially of the Covenant of Works, but you have people in the MO Presbytery who are very opposed to anything that tastes of FV who are themselves against a meritorious covenant of works. Our denominational seminary teaches a gracious view of the Covenant of Works, not the "strict justice" view of the Kline approach. And this is because the seminary itself does not take a particular position on that issue, but leaves it to the professors who are teaching the course. It is thought that both positions have a pedigree in the Reformed Tradition, and there are professors on staff at Covenant who hold to both positions and yet live there in peace.
4. The NPP seems almost to be a red herring in the eyes of some presbyteries - they do not believe the NPP and the "federal vision" are necessarily related issues. N.T. Wright just happens to be a smart Anglican guy who ways some helpful things that we can learn from. A wise man can learn something even from the words of a fool, and that sort of thing. In thinking back over the way that the NPP became an issue in the PCA, it seems like basically what happened is that some articles appeared on the PCA News website that were very critical of Wright and some people who I wouldn't consider "fans of the Uberbishop" just kind of defended him against some of the accusations. By Ligon Duncan's testimony, he became concerned when some RTS students were interested in Wright and appreciative of Wright. So the order of events is: 1. Some RTS guys ("our best students" - says Duncan) became interested in Wright, 2. Prof Kelly wrote a strong critique of Wright that appeared in the PCA News (complete with sample questions to ask in presbytery), 3. Some people thought Kelly was unfair and wrote in to PCA News, 4. Prof Duncan defended Kelly and pressed the case farther, 5. The PCA News had an "umpired debate" on the issue and it went from there. This was a kind of parallel issue to the "Federal Vision" conference and has been linked mainly thematically or theoretically. The short version of this paragraph, though, is just that some Presbyteries just don't think the NPP issue and the FV issue are related.
5. That research report on the sacramental views of the New York Presbytery makes it pretty clear that they are advising men who want to be candidates in that presbytery to have a very high view of the sacraments. That's a whole presbytery which could be described as sympathetic to the federal vision's sacramentology.
Now, personally, I think if things are as you say, that this is really not the kind of unity we need. I mean, if all we can agree to do is get together and oppose something, especially if we all have different reasons, then it is difficult to really cheer for that. I think that betrays a very sectarian spirit. Let us suppose that the federal visionists are really crypto-Lutherans. Are we saying that it is a good thing that we're all getting united against Lutheran sacramental theology? I mean, that sounds like we've essentially given up on visible unity in the church and that we're committed to denominationalism. I think denominationalism is certainly a practical necessity and that Lutherans should be ministers in Lutheran churches and not Presbyterian ones, but I also think that we should be grudgingly in denominations, not gleefully in them. The Holy Spirit is guiding the whole orthodox church, in other words, and isolating ourselves from that good work can hardly be productive in the long run. Now, if the FV espouses any heresies, of course it is good to be united against it, but so far the allegations I hear make the FV guys at worse Lutherans or maybe semi-Arminians or something, and it is hard not to see that this would make them like our Methodist, Lutheran and Southern Baptist brothers, not our enemies.
I would also point out one other thing - none of the committees that has really taken a lot of time and put a lot of resources into the issue has reported yet. I'm sure that the MS Valley report is a helpful first start, but it is pretty clear from reading the cover letter to the report that it is mostly the fruit of the work of one or two people. I know that the MO Presbytery committee is huge - with subcommittees on various topics, containing seminary professors, etc. It should be a really good report that is the fruit of a lot of iron sharpening iron. Likewise, the Northwest Presbytery's work is supposed to have Q&A between the committee and PL complete with answers, rejoinders, etc. A real public kind of record of the work of the committee. And so I'm just not so clear how we can know already how the various presbytery study committees are going to rule on this. There has been some very strong language on this discussion board about the FV issue, and I only hope that if in the light of a few year's perspective some of the allegations against the FV guys turn out to be misdrawn, that we can restore trust and unity among the brothers. We've all got to be able to look each other in the eyes someday.
Absolutely. Don't you know that he is the font of all Biblical wisdom, getting us to break out of our stuffy paradigms, and to finally let the Bible speak for itself again?
Have you not had a chance to read any blogs on the internet yet? Are you so parochial and provincial that you have not been blessed by the prolific pronouncements of the Uberbishop? For shame!
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
Who are you guys mocking? Just curious who gushes like that about N.T. Wright... I probably need to get out more.
turmeric
Megerator
I was mocking N. T. Wright, I don't know about the others. I probably shouldn't do that.
This thread seems to be about how various trends are affecting the PCA, which I recently joined. I'm sorry to hear that the Northwest Presbytery didn't take their views on justification as seriously as they might. That's my main concern, that FV is another gospel. But you're saying the Northwest Presbytery's position paper isn't out yet? Hopefully...
This thread seems to be about how various trends are affecting the PCA, which I recently joined. I'm sorry to hear that the Northwest Presbytery didn't take their views on justification as seriously as they might. That's my main concern, that FV is another gospel. But you're saying the Northwest Presbytery's position paper isn't out yet? Hopefully...
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
I think what they did was to examine Leithart first, before finishing their work on FV as a whole. This is because PL is a member of the Northwest Presbytery and received a letter asking him to resign or face action from outside of his presbytery. So they wanted to work on that issue first.
Meg, you sound like you know a lot about the theological issues involved. What makes you think the Presbytery missed something about PL's views of justification? Just curious. I did an ATLA search on his publications and found mostly stuff about sacramentology. Actually, I was pretty amazed at how many articles of his are published in good journals. He might just be the most prolific scholar in the PCA. With that output, he could meet the requirements for tenure in most universities. I only hope I'm able to publish my required articles when the time comes. Hopefully I can get one or two articles out of my dissertation...
Meg, you sound like you know a lot about the theological issues involved. What makes you think the Presbytery missed something about PL's views of justification? Just curious. I did an ATLA search on his publications and found mostly stuff about sacramentology. Actually, I was pretty amazed at how many articles of his are published in good journals. He might just be the most prolific scholar in the PCA. With that output, he could meet the requirements for tenure in most universities. I only hope I'm able to publish my required articles when the time comes. Hopefully I can get one or two articles out of my dissertation...
I pray this is true. Since your line of sight in what happens in the PCA is wider than most of ours, I sincerely hope what is becoming clearer and clearer for you becomes the reality for all of us.
When I first was exposed to the FV/NPP stuff, it was through a hyper-calvinistic/gnostic/antinomian environment. The problem for me was that everything the FV people were criticizing was true of the environment I was in. (Hyper-individualism, faith in propositions alone, hyper-subjectivity in assurance, 5-points alone, operationalism, rationalism, quietism in sanctification, etc.) So I got what they were saying, and it made sense as to why the people I was around were against it. It exposed them to the light. I think they overreacted to what the errors of FV actually are by labeling it's teachings with extreme terms that would and should cause us to divide from them.
But then I noticed how Kelly and Duncan, and Sproul Jr. have come out against the FV for what it is and not for what it isn't. They too disagree with it but hesitate to label it a condemning heresy, like some wild internet heresy hunters make a living of doing. I have since, due to these godly men who have approached this issue fairly, realized that in the FV's correct diagnosis of the environment I was in, they responded with an equally wrong solution. Those who are of like mindedness with the environment I was in have not responded with the same fairness to the FV men, and I believe this is to distract everyone from their own errors that the FV so brightly has pointed out for all of us to see. I think because those who are being criticized by the FV use the same language as us, unless we are familiar with who is actually being criticized we take it as if the FV is criticizing us. I think in their focus on one extreme they have swung to another. It is my humble opinion that the FV was originally meant to combat the pockets of rationalism/gnosticism that exist in the reformed world, those who agreed with their assessement got caught up in their wrong solutions and therefore we are here today trying to sort out who is who. Deep down, I think, the heart of the issue is at its base hyper-Van Tillians who have challenged all that is wrong with Clarkians, Clarkians who respond that everyone who isn't Clarkian is not a christian, and the rest of us (classicists and non-hyper Van Tillians, and maybe even "soft" Clarkians) have somehow gotten in the middle of a fight between these two because both sides are using our orthodox terminology. Van Til's perspective as I understand is the majority reformed view today, so many are very unfamiliar with his rival Gordon Clark. I think, not dogmatically, this FV thing is at heart another fruit of the views of these two men butting heads.
I do wish the FV men were more clear and honest about their teachings. However, for people like me who were involved in groups that the FV men were criticizing, their mesage was clear as day.
As an aside, the pessimism I see about this issue is frankly startling. We obviously should have great concern for protecting our doctrines, especially justification. But when I see all the remnant and apostasy talk, I scratch my head. Since I have been a christian, I have prayed for reformation (of doctrine and life) of the church. When the FV stuff first came out with their justification errors and the huge backlash mostly on the internet, the first things I thought were, "Could this be God answering our prayers for reformation? Was not one of the two causes of the reformation the issue of clarifying the biblical doctrine of justification? Was it not that as justification became an issue, and was forced to be defined accurately, that the church began to grow in number and depth? Perhaps this is God waking us from our slumber to go proclaim the gospel with accuracy and zeal, that without this controversy we would have been left in our neat little hyper-individualistic communities/homes to simply talk about it instead? Why are we christians who have prayed so desperately for God to heal us, His Church, now grumbling so much when this could be the answer to our prayers in disguise? Have we reformed who pride ourselves in assenting to and teaching God's sovereignty, forgotten that not all that is good in God's eyes is good in ours?"
I think we reformed have also fallen into the "good = pleasant" trap that we so zealously point out in psuedo-evangelicalism, not realizing that this sin is in our hearts too and not confined to just one theological school. Sins starts in a fallen heart, not in a school. What the apostles took as bad when Christ said he had to leave, only to learn that it was actually for the good. Out of struggle comes the healing light, because without this light in the first place there would be no struggle. The Light came into the world, but the world loved the darkness instead. Without this darkness we could not fathom the contrasting light. God breaks us, tests us , etc. in order to heal us, purge us, and vindicate us and build our assurance of salvation, assurance of His faithfulness to His promises, and spreads the Light of Christ to the watching world. I am hoping this controversy is all this and more, since God does promise that ALL things, even the painful and difficult, are sovereignly ordained for our becoming more Christ-like individually and corporately as His glorious body.
This is something I have noticed also, yet why are we always being told (I am at least) that this stuff is growing and spreading quickly? If it wasn't for the internet or being around John Robbins-like disciples I would have never heard of this stuff. The internet seems to make things appear bigger than they are.
Thank you Fred for your encouraging clarity on just how little a FV following actually exists. For my personal situation this has been fresh water in a dry endless desert.
[Edited on 5-4-2005 by RAS]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Good statement.
The reason I don't label the FV as heretics is due to the college I study at. We are forcefed, at times, Paul Tillich, Wellhausen, and Bultmann. You want to talk infidels, let's talk infidels. Also, when I was seriously studying the baptism issue, the FV people were very helpful, for much the same reasons as Allen mentioned.
Also, I face the temptation of hardening myself to the other side. As long as John Robbins continues to slander men I admire (which includes anyone who doesn't hold to the narrow Clarkianism that he holds to; I also admire Clarkians for that matter, C F Henry for one), I face the real temptation to believe opposite of what he demands that I believe.
It may be true overall that FV is not rapidly spreading (I am not an expert), but I can speak to our small congregation (of 300) that approx 6 or 7 years ago, Steve Schissel was invited to give a conference at our church about the "covenants." He has had an influence on a good number of people at our church, and I thank the people (including Robbins etc.) that have taken a stand against those people.
Perhaps philosophical divsions should be more prominent in Keller's assessment also. The Clark or Van Til party spirit I have experienced is very,very divisive. And then you have the classical apologetics group too.
I tend to think a number of our theological differences would vanish if we could come to a consensus on philosophy. In other words, I think philosophy controls our theology today rather than vice versa. Our a-historical slant also needs to be corrected, but of course this a-historical slant is the result of today's philosphies.
Again, I think Keller's article is too simplistic, but I do find the main point of his article to be one I wrestle over too. We confess to be part of a church that is "one, holy, catholic, apostolic". How we maintain each of these categories in their fullness without reducing the others, and to do this as the church faces new issues or nuances of biblical revelation in history, is, I think, not that easy.
[Edited on 5-4-2005 by RAS]
I tend to think a number of our theological differences would vanish if we could come to a consensus on philosophy. In other words, I think philosophy controls our theology today rather than vice versa. Our a-historical slant also needs to be corrected, but of course this a-historical slant is the result of today's philosphies.
Again, I think Keller's article is too simplistic, but I do find the main point of his article to be one I wrestle over too. We confess to be part of a church that is "one, holy, catholic, apostolic". How we maintain each of these categories in their fullness without reducing the others, and to do this as the church faces new issues or nuances of biblical revelation in history, is, I think, not that easy.
[Edited on 5-4-2005 by RAS]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That challenged me. Your posts are balanced and helpful, are differences notwithstanding. I am very much a VanTillian and aware of the harsh rhetoric on both sides, sadly. How do I not use that rhetoric but just as firmly press the antithesis? I thank Robin and JohnV for putting up with a lot of "trigger-happy" responses on my part.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
And while you're helping Jacob...How are we to settle these things and unify? These matters aren't confessional. One way to settle disputes would be to amend the confession and legitimate presuppositionalism. But of course as soon as that is mentioned, dust gets stirred up again between "the camps". Am I correct to assume that we will not unite around a "reformed/calvinistic" philosophy?
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
I find it hard to believe that there are "camps" on the Clark/Van Til controversy in the PCA. The numbers of committed Clarkians must be in the single digits, right? It's much less like a "camp" and more like a little weekend backpacking trip. As for presuppositionalism, I thought that methodological disputes were kind of passe - the emphasis now is on outreach and not on philosophical apologetics (we'll except college-aged boys who always want to debate methodology). I'm just surprised to hear you guys promoting the idea that the Federal Vision controversy is somehow exposing a deeper rift over apologetic methodology.... that seems like a stretch. I think if you look at Robbins over the years, every single controversy that arises is pressed by him into the mold of a rehash of the Clark/Van-Til controversy; but that's a very ideologically driven approach to history. I think far more likely culprits of division are a complex of issues:
1. Worship scruples
2. Covenant Theology
3. Conversion vs. Nurture debates
4. Views of doctrinal development
5. Sacramentology
6. Ecclesiology (Nature of ministry, nature of subscription, etc.)
7. Regionalism
8. Simple organizational power struggles that affect every institution in which humans are involved
All of those seem a lot more fruitful things to investigate in the interest of denominational peace than looking at the Clark/Van-Til controversy which is an almost unbelievably unproductive controversy anyway. I mean it boils down to a bunch of definitions about truth and propositions. That's certainly not what the committees in the PCA are investigating and it certainly isn't what keeps anyone up at night...
1. Worship scruples
2. Covenant Theology
3. Conversion vs. Nurture debates
4. Views of doctrinal development
5. Sacramentology
6. Ecclesiology (Nature of ministry, nature of subscription, etc.)
7. Regionalism
8. Simple organizational power struggles that affect every institution in which humans are involved
All of those seem a lot more fruitful things to investigate in the interest of denominational peace than looking at the Clark/Van-Til controversy which is an almost unbelievably unproductive controversy anyway. I mean it boils down to a bunch of definitions about truth and propositions. That's certainly not what the committees in the PCA are investigating and it certainly isn't what keeps anyone up at night...
Chris,
You've answered your own question. These matters of apologetics are not Confessional issues, and since our unity is around the Confession, hence it is wrong and disruptive to the peace of the Church to insist on such issues.
If I am reading correctly, I think my last comment on Van Til and Clark and philosophy has been misunderstood.
I was not making a statement that there are Clark and Van Til camps fighting over every issue and they are why the PCA has division. I would have no way of knowing that. I was just making a general comment about the divisive nature I have experienced from those who do focus on whether you are Van Tillian or Clarkian. If you think this doesn't exist, it does, but I never said it was the cause of the problems in the PCA. I was only commenting on Keller's article, which is the topic of this thread, adding that I think there are philosophical issues also, not just theological. The biggest one I can think of is pragmatism. I should have been more clear on this. I apologize.
If this was directed at me, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Forgive me if I am misreading your tone, I hope I did not anger you. I think Jacob understood my post because he seems to have come from the same situation I have and can relate.
I assume "these" matters is referring to philosophical matters? If so, I never said they were confessional. I was simply trying to say that some of the matters that are confessional touch on philosophical differences. If one adopts pragmatism, a philosophical issue, it will cloud ones view of worship. Or if one embraces aspects of egalitarianism, it will effect their view of women's roles in the church. Philosophical syncretism is a problem for the church. That was my only point, and it is in the context of Keller's article. I was only stating that his diagnosis is too simplistic, and added that philosphical issues may be one more aspect behind certain divisions. I should have been more clear on this.
This was exactly my point Chris, they are not confessional, but there are some who think they are and are thus divisive, hence possibly one more issue to consider in drawing Keller´s truth/unity line. I meant nothing more than that.
I never said there were these camps in the PCA, nor was I speaking of apologetics. I was speaking of their philosphies; two different things. And in the context of my posts, I am stating this based on my experience with one side of the Clark vs. Van Til silliness, who, you are right about making every issue come down to the debates between these two. I was not saying that this is right, I was just saying that it does exist even if on a small scale. And I was not making a blanket statement of the PCA. One reason I am joining the PCA is because I do not see these camps. I was referring strictly to my experience and based on that and exposure to the debates between the two camps, I was merely suggesting that some of their ideas could be part of some divisions and should be considered as such in reference to Keller´s article. I am confused as to why Jacob understood this but others didn´t. I hope I didn´t ruffle anyone´s feathers. Again, I should have been more clear.
[Edited on 10-4-2005 by RAS]
I was not making a statement that there are Clark and Van Til camps fighting over every issue and they are why the PCA has division. I would have no way of knowing that. I was just making a general comment about the divisive nature I have experienced from those who do focus on whether you are Van Tillian or Clarkian. If you think this doesn't exist, it does, but I never said it was the cause of the problems in the PCA. I was only commenting on Keller's article, which is the topic of this thread, adding that I think there are philosophical issues also, not just theological. The biggest one I can think of is pragmatism. I should have been more clear on this. I apologize.
If this was directed at me, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Forgive me if I am misreading your tone, I hope I did not anger you. I think Jacob understood my post because he seems to have come from the same situation I have and can relate.
I assume "these" matters is referring to philosophical matters? If so, I never said they were confessional. I was simply trying to say that some of the matters that are confessional touch on philosophical differences. If one adopts pragmatism, a philosophical issue, it will cloud ones view of worship. Or if one embraces aspects of egalitarianism, it will effect their view of women's roles in the church. Philosophical syncretism is a problem for the church. That was my only point, and it is in the context of Keller's article. I was only stating that his diagnosis is too simplistic, and added that philosphical issues may be one more aspect behind certain divisions. I should have been more clear on this.
This was exactly my point Chris, they are not confessional, but there are some who think they are and are thus divisive, hence possibly one more issue to consider in drawing Keller´s truth/unity line. I meant nothing more than that.
I never said there were these camps in the PCA, nor was I speaking of apologetics. I was speaking of their philosphies; two different things. And in the context of my posts, I am stating this based on my experience with one side of the Clark vs. Van Til silliness, who, you are right about making every issue come down to the debates between these two. I was not saying that this is right, I was just saying that it does exist even if on a small scale. And I was not making a blanket statement of the PCA. One reason I am joining the PCA is because I do not see these camps. I was referring strictly to my experience and based on that and exposure to the debates between the two camps, I was merely suggesting that some of their ideas could be part of some divisions and should be considered as such in reference to Keller´s article. I am confused as to why Jacob understood this but others didn´t. I hope I didn´t ruffle anyone´s feathers. Again, I should have been more clear.
[Edited on 10-4-2005 by RAS]
Method is irrelevant, let's just focus on outreach. One's outreach does not exist in a vaccum, it is based on a certain point of view, perhaps even subconsciously.
Every time I hear this it usually from the pulpit with a little bit of some "the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways and we must not question the changes he is bringing to our church", or some variation of that idea, and is a big warning sign that "changes" does not mean "spiritual growth" but rather "we are going to introduce contemporary anti-RPW elements into our worship" all in the name of "outreach". Last church I heard this in lost most of its founding members (who were elderly), there was an infusion of youth based on activities rather than serious education, the pulpit has since been removed for casual conversation and discussion, the sermons are moralistic-therapy centered, drama skits replace some sermons, the music is performance-entertainment based, and there is now even a teen dance club on the property. All this was done in the name of "outreach", because methods are "culturally neutral". Of course, I am describing one more victim of the "Church Growth Movement".
Are you an R-e, according to Keller's analysis?
I was unaware that debating methodology was the stuff of "college-aged boys". I guess this means real men have grown past this passe stuff (too scholastic?), and left us unenlightened (non-progressive?) boys behind. I am sure you are aware that arguing for no debating on methodology is itself an argument in debating methodology, and of course is a self-defeating argument. If one wants to argue that the degree of importance of methodology is not that high, that's one thing, but if you want to argue that methodology isn't important at all and all that really matters is outreach, then that's another matter. All the material I have ever read on methodology disputes is from those older than "college-age" with Ph.d.'s. So I am wondering how age is relevant to seeking consensus on truth. I thought the call for unity in truth was for all believers.
As soon as one asks "HOW do you outreach?" it is inherently a question about method. I think the method vs. outreach false dichotomy is getting passe myself.
I guess we won't be seeing you in the apologetics forum anytime soon.
In the spirit of Christian brotherhood
,Allan
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi RAS,
I didn't mean to offend you in any way. I remember back in the day on the Van Til list that it soon became pretty clear that we were all agreeing on the essential approach of Van Til, but that this took more of the character of "counseling for unbelief" rather than some kind of certain argument as had been the claim for Bahnsen and perhaps Van Til himself. There is a certain sense in which the transcendental argument really only suggests a transcendental approach since you can't really "make" the transcendental argument once and for all.
As for the propensities of young men to be delighted by the intricacies of a method debate, I stand by that, and I'm definitely pot kettle black too. I and all of my friends would argue for hours about these kinds of things back in college. It is a valuable stage in life to go through, and it prepares well for later stages of life where practicality can be developed without pragmatism. It isn't good to be defensive about being in that stage of life when you're in it, and it isn't good to be arrogant about having passed through that stage either. But yes, there is a relationship between truth and maturity, despite my not believing so even 12 years ago.
As for your comments about worship - I was talking about apologetical method vs simply taking it to the streets; I didn't have in mind the area of worship where there is still a great deal of disagreement in the PCA. There are very few people still quixotically contending for the superiority of classical apologetics. Some form of "presuppositionalism" has already won the day, so in that particular area, it seems more productive to begin applying the presuppositional approach rather than dwelling on those endless methodological disputes.
I didn't mean to offend you in any way. I remember back in the day on the Van Til list that it soon became pretty clear that we were all agreeing on the essential approach of Van Til, but that this took more of the character of "counseling for unbelief" rather than some kind of certain argument as had been the claim for Bahnsen and perhaps Van Til himself. There is a certain sense in which the transcendental argument really only suggests a transcendental approach since you can't really "make" the transcendental argument once and for all.
As for the propensities of young men to be delighted by the intricacies of a method debate, I stand by that, and I'm definitely pot kettle black too. I and all of my friends would argue for hours about these kinds of things back in college. It is a valuable stage in life to go through, and it prepares well for later stages of life where practicality can be developed without pragmatism. It isn't good to be defensive about being in that stage of life when you're in it, and it isn't good to be arrogant about having passed through that stage either. But yes, there is a relationship between truth and maturity, despite my not believing so even 12 years ago.
As for your comments about worship - I was talking about apologetical method vs simply taking it to the streets; I didn't have in mind the area of worship where there is still a great deal of disagreement in the PCA. There are very few people still quixotically contending for the superiority of classical apologetics. Some form of "presuppositionalism" has already won the day, so in that particular area, it seems more productive to begin applying the presuppositional approach rather than dwelling on those endless methodological disputes.
I think this is pragmatism; the result determines its validity.
So once one side of the debate wins the majority, by default the debate should cease? With this argument I could say that some form of independency is the majority today, so the debate between independency and presbyterianism is now pointless.
When you use the word productive you're implying that these debates are counterproductive. I think we should acknowledge that they can be but not neccesarily are.
This betrays an arrogance to me. "Our view has won the majority, therefore we are right, lets move on to better things, so get in line"
I believe truth determines who is in the right; majority and minority categories do not have a true or false quality inherent in their definitions. The imputed righteousness of Christ was once a minority view in the Catholic church, so was the minority who made it a central issue being counterproductive?
And what do you mean by productive exactly? Productive for better ecumenical outreach? What if those in the minority also want better productivity for the church, and thats why they debate their particular method? The concept that debates are unproductive seem to me to be a platform of ecumenicists. Ecumenicists don't want any debate, they just want to accept all views as valid so long as they produce the common goal of "change", "outreach" or the like. If both sides are of one mind that they want the church to be productive, it makes more sense to me that they would seek to agree on what is the best method, and this only comes from debate. It is unfair to label a minority group as not seeking the same thing as the majority simply because they disagree on the how.
You say that contending for classical apologetics is "quixotic" (impractical; romantically idealistic), I disagree of course and it is a secondary issue; but I would say that contending for NT Wright's views to be heard in the PCA is "quixotic" and a primary issue.
I was not offended
[Edited on 5-5-2005 by RAS]
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi RAS - you're kind of taking my comments here about the apologetic methodology wars of the 1980s and 1990s and applying them way beyond the immediate universe of discourse.
I'm simply saying that there are different seasons of life and what can seem like a very important thing to get absolutely perfect in one stage of life can emerge later as not as important as other things. Apologetic methodology is very important, and it is important at some point to acquaint oneself with the issues, but at some point the ongoing discussion over apologetic methodology begins to compete with moving forward and actually doing apologetics. Of course, one must remain self-critical and examine one's methodological commitments from time to time. But it isn't pragmatism to settle an issue in one's mind, however tentatively, and then move forward with the practical outworking of that theoretical conclusion.
As for the majority / minority thing, I'm just observing the trends of the debate over apologetic methodology - it has petered out.
Now, some are new to the issues and will be interested in the debate, but they are reading all the products of a petered-out debate. That's all I'm saying.
I'm simply saying that there are different seasons of life and what can seem like a very important thing to get absolutely perfect in one stage of life can emerge later as not as important as other things. Apologetic methodology is very important, and it is important at some point to acquaint oneself with the issues, but at some point the ongoing discussion over apologetic methodology begins to compete with moving forward and actually doing apologetics. Of course, one must remain self-critical and examine one's methodological commitments from time to time. But it isn't pragmatism to settle an issue in one's mind, however tentatively, and then move forward with the practical outworking of that theoretical conclusion.
As for the majority / minority thing, I'm just observing the trends of the debate over apologetic methodology - it has petered out.
Now, some are new to the issues and will be interested in the debate, but they are reading all the products of a petered-out debate. That's all I'm saying.
I think you misunderstood my points and questions entirely. I'm not getting any real interaction or answers. And it seems you think I misunderstood yours also. So I guess we're talking past eachother.
With that, I think I may be done here with this thread unless it gets back on topic.
Thanks for the chat.
With that, I think I may be done here with this thread unless it gets back on topic.
Thanks for the chat.
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
They need to be setup, written and taught at the adult Sunday School level in local congregations and shared via the net. The resources, people etc seem to be there, even if it is a PCA sized effort. Boards like this are a place to get something workable started and then interest the denominations into making it a reality.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Keller is probably correct that the divisions within the Reformed world today are more analogous to the old side/new side controversy of the 18th century, but his analysis of the old side is misleading. It relies on the outdated conclusions of Leonard Trinterud.
Unfortunately, there is not much good secondary work on the old side. One of our grads, J T Kurth is remedying this presently at SUNY but his research won't be available for a few more years.
There may be some sociological truth to Keller's analysis. There are probably folk who fit into each of these categories, but his categories, however, are incomplete.
Darryl Hart has offered us more useful analysis (See The Lost Soul of Protestantism) by distinguishing between "Confessional" and "Non-Confessional." There are different kinds of "non-confessionalists," liberals, conservatives, and evangelicals.
Confessionalists, however, are united by a common understanding of a common confession. Most of the 18th century Old Siders were confessionalists. They are united by a common theology which results in a common piety and practice.
WSC is a confessional school. We're not mere traditionalists. Faculty have as much liberty and constraint as exists within the Reformed confessions. Does that make us "conservatives?" Well, it depends on what that means. As compared to the German liberals and the Jesus seminar, yes, we're conservative of the historic Christian faith and Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
"Historical?" Are we trying to go "backward?" Well, we want to profit by historic Reformed (and catholic-creedal) Christianity, but all that is embedded in the confessions. How do we read the confessions? As they were intended to be read, as they have been adopted by ecclesiastical bodies. How do we read the Scriptures? With the church. So we're churchly. We don't imagine that we're the first to read the Bible.
Are we "evangelical?" Not if it means, "Religious enthusiasts united only by a common sense of religious experience of the risen Christ." We're evangelicals in the sense in which the word was used in the 16th century. We're preaching Christ and him crucified and raised for our justification.
Confessionalism means there are some limits to Reformed expressions of theology, piety, and practice. Those are the limits to which we have agreed in our ordination vows and subscription to the secondary standards.
It also means, to repeat, that there is liberty within those boundaries, liberty even to press for revision of the standards using the proper ecclesiastical channels. That's the difference between freedom and license.
rsc
- Status
