11.29.07
Unprecedented? Maybe. Unimagined? Hardly.
Mark Horne wrote (here): “For whatever reason, SJC has moved into unprecedented and unimagined ’space’ in which they have no restraints.”
I hate to tell you, Mark, but anybody with two brain cells to click together could see the danger in establishing a standing commission of such a thing as a General Assembly.
A body such as the SJC, because it exists to speak for and on behalf of the General Assembly of the PCA, without any possible means of appeal (unless a full third of the members object to the decision that was made), by definition has very few restraints. This is such a small group of men with so much unmitigated power that it is inherently dangerous.
There are lots of things about the PCA that i think are weird, quirky, and ridiculous. However, since i came into the PCA, the existence of the SJC has been the most troubling thing about it in my mind.
But the simple fact is, this is how the PCA has set it up. The powers that be in the PCA have entrenched this commission and rebuffed all attempts to mitigate its power or revert it to a judicial committee. This is how the members of the PCA wanted it, so that’s what they have.
So, two sayings come to mind when i’m thinking of this situation: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”
11.26.07
Exhortation at the Baptism of William Marshall Austin, IV
We come here today to baptize a child of the Church into official membership of the Church. Of course, when we do this, we are being very different from the people and the culture around us. Whether it be other Christians or the non-Christians around us, what our culture and the people in it treasure is personal, individual actions and accountability. This is, of course, a long tradition in America. It is, after all, how America was colonized and how, to quote the title of a very entertaining and compelling movie, “How the West Was Won.”
With that kind of idea in mind, there are many of our brothers and sisters in Christ who say that it is improper to admit infants and young children into the Church through baptism, because they can’t make their own decisions, they can’t think about their actions, and, in essence, they haven’t yet reached the point of being like adults in the way they do what they do. That’s why many of our fellow Christians wait until children are older, beginning their teen years, or on into their adolescent years before allowing children to make a profession of faith and be baptized.
Yet, as well-intentioned as we know they are, we can’t help but see how this turns around the order that Christ himself established in his holy Kingdom. In Matthew 18:1-4, when the disciples came and asked him, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus called a child to himself, sat him down in the middle of them, and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
In imposing our cultural individualism and expectations on Scripture, many Christians have come to a system where they look at adults and say, “No need to change; remain adults, remain rational, and remain personally decisive in all that you do. You are just right to come to Christ.” And then turn to small children and say, “You aren’t yet qualified; you need to become more like these mature and sophisticated adults in order to come to Christ. Unless you do, you remain unqualified to be part of Christ’s Kingdom.”
Now it is plain to see, for anyone who is at all familiar with the teachings of the Gospels, that this turns Jesus’ teaching about how we come to him on its head. Rather than telling adults to become like children, as Jesus did, we’re telling children to become like adults, like good Americans who revel in their ability to pick themselves up by the boot-straps.
Of course, we can be fairly certain that those Christians who, for well-meaning purposes, follow such a teaching are not trying to make Christianity into a self-help religion, but we can see clearly that that is just what happens when that kind of thinking is followed out to its logical conclusion. It turns God into a manager, Christ into a salesman, and each man and woman (adults of course) into a consumer, who chooses, based on the latest consumer reports and success records, whether to take Christ up on what he is trying to sell. This is just the American mindset applied to Christianity.
Yet, when we come here today with a little child, we have in our midst, one like Jesus pointed to and said, “This is the kind of person who can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” This little child is an example to each one of us of how the Christian life is to be lived: loving, trusting, and submissive. And so it is important for each one of us here to remember, as we see this child beginning the Christian life we have long been on, that we not only need to begin the Christian life as little children, but we must always remain children—children of God, continually and perpetually trusting in our God and submitting to him as our loving and caring Father.
So, as we come here to this baptism today, we see that the baptism of an infant into the Church and Kingdom of Christ, is not something abnormal or unnatural; it is, really, the most natural and normal thing we can do, because no matter who does it, anyone who comes to Christ and enters into the Church through these baptismal waters must come as this child comes: as a helpless sinner who knows nothing but his own need and the provision given to him in love by his gracious Father.
Of course, this is just the beginning, and as Will grows and matures as a man, he must, at every turn, be taught what God’s Word says, and he must learn new obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and how the Gospel applies to the new sins that crop up in his life. But his life should be no different than any other Christian’s, because that is precisely how we all must live as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. No matter how old and mature we get, we still remain dull in our understanding and half-hearted in our obedience. That’s because no one needs to teach us how to sin or disobey; that comes naturally to all of us, because we are all born sinners in Adam. What we must learn by the Spirit’s power at work in our lives is the new obedience to which Christ calls each one of us. Will must learn and grow even as we all must; but it is our duty and privilege each day to point him to the Savior and Lord who claims him and us alike, holding Christ alone up as the only answer for his faults and failures, and reminding him of the promise and Covenant God has made with him in the Lord Jesus Christ.
11.20.07
My Mama Would Be Proud
11.19.07
Some Daddy Pictures
I’ve been intending on posting some of these for a while now, and today seems like as good a time as any.
Here to the left, we have our two little babies all dressed up to celebrate the Eve of All Saints. LilliAna was a princess (courtesy of her daddy sewing a costume for her). It took about twelve hours all total for me to sew that thing. That was probably a good bit longer than an experienced taylor may have taken, but i finally got it done. LilliAna just loved it to death.
I didn’t make the pea costume that Will wore; that one my mother-in-law had bought for LilliAna when she was an infant. It was neat, though, how it all worked out to have a couple of themed costumes for our little kiddies.
And, of course, here to the right is LilliAna being a ham in her favoritest Halloween costume.
It’s the funniest thing about her, because you don’t have to do anything out of the ordinary to get her to strike a pose. She just does it all on her own.
She was really looking forward to going Trick or Treat-ing. We only went to a few places (people in our church and some nearby neighbors), but she still got more candy than she needed!
This to the left again is the new little man who lives at our house. This was a bit over a week ago, so he’s a bit bigger now, but he still looks the same.
This is also the picture that went out on the birth announcements. If you didn’t get one, don’t feel bad. We’re just poor and couldn’t afford that many. Plus, you have seen more pictures of this one than most of the people who did get them.
On the up side, he seems to like me more than he has been. He doesn’t cry incessantly when i hold him now (now he just cries 75% of the time i hold him).
And this one to the right is of our LilliAna who is almost completely obsessed with make-up. She always wants to get into it and put it on herself.
In this case, she snuck into Angela’s make-up and put on eye shadow (on her cheeks and lips), and mascara (she actually did a good job of getting it on her eyelashes, with some on her nose and cheeks as well).
This was actually the first time she did it, and she’s done it several times since then, for which she’s been thoroughly spanked.
Abstinence Education Works
Of course, while i don’t agree with using tax-payer funding to teach some supposedly “neutral” morality to children of the state, and while it is constitutionally illegal for the Federal government to engange in something it does not have specific constitutional warrant to do (which hasn’t stopped it from exponentially piling up such illegal activities over the last century), it is still within the perview of the several States to choose to make use of such funding for those programs.
Well, my current residence is in the Commonwealth of Viriginia, and there is new evidence that the abstinence education that has been at work here for the last several years is paying off in preventing pre-marital pregnancies and increasing the number of young men and women who wait until they are married in order to engage in God’s gift of sex. And this right on the heels of our illustrious governor cutting funding for abstinence education.
Talk about an idiot politician. For purely political and idealogical reasons, he cuts funding for the thing that is proven to work, and he pledges to fund what is prove not to work.
11.18.07
“Building the Church” Apart from the Word
“[T]hey who wish to build the Church by rejecting the doctrine of the word, build a hog’s sty, and not the Church of God.”
–John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 54:13
11.16.07
The RPW and “Davidic Dance”
David Bayly, over at the Bayly Blog has posted about the RPW and what he perceives as an inconsistency in application. To be honest, i wasn’t sure whether he was against or for the Regulative Principle by what he said (i lean toward “against,” but given what he says about dance, i’m not sure). But, still, his point is well-taken that the RPW is difficult to apply in particular situations, and the primary reason is that people have very different notions about what it consists of and what it applies to.
Of course, David’s (Bayly; not our Father, the Holy King) comments were with respect to a recent meeting of his presbytery (i can tell you from experience that PCA presbyteries aren’t always pleasant places to be) where a young man was examined (apparently for licensure, as he called him a “candidate”—but here again, in the PCA, those terms are fluid), and this young man expressed a willingness to include some sort of drama in worship that several (more than a few, apparently) found troubling. Now, David said that the barrage of questions that followed proved to him that people don’t know how to apply the RPW to worship, and that really, it just comes down to a matter of taste. I don’t necessarily believe that’s the case, though.
David said: “The sheer number and variety of presbyters’ questions revealed the true status of the RPW in the Reformed world today–even in the midst of a fairly united presbytery no two people appeared to apply the principle the same way. Some find drums contrary to Scripture; others, dance; still others, video; finally there are those who object to images of Christ.” David went on to say, “The presbyter who cavils at drums but not images of Christ doesn’t know idolatry from a hole in the ground–more than likely because he has made his own pleasures and tastes the test of faithful worship rather than the Word of God.”
Yes, well, the reason some people find drums contrary to Scripture is because of certain Puritan influences in American Presbyterianism holding historically that all instruments in worship are contrary to worship regulated by Scripture alone. (In this regard, John Girardeau, in his book Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church [reprinted by Puritan Reprints]—for whom i have great respect as a pastor, but not so much as a theologian of a certain strain of Southern Presbyterian thought in the 19th century, and for whom i have even less respect for his views of the RPW—claims that instruments in worship, even in the Old Covenant Temple were always associated with idolatry, and that the psalms advocating use of instruments are a matter of personal worship and not public.) This is the traditional Puritan position on instruments in worship. But i must say that a person who objects to drums and mentions nothing at all of images of Christ (!) isn’t necessarily unconcerned over idolatry; rather, if he would object to the lesser, he would, of course, object to the greater and most likely believe it goes without saying. This really isn’t an application, as David suggests, of “an Englishman’s every pleasure”; rather, it is a matter of where one places “the line.” And contrary to what some RPW advocates insist, that line has been placed in various different places by various different strains of the Reformed Church throughout its history, with the Puritans having the most extreme and strict application, and the Continental Reformed having the less strict application of it. (You can read all about this important distinction in R.J. Gore’s book, Covenantal Worship. Read a CE&P blurb by Charles Dunahoo here.) So, the point is not that we don’t need the RPW (although, in my opinion, we could do without the Puritan form of it), what we need is to understand what is and isn’t circumstance and what is and isn’t an element.
This is key, because we all believe in regulated worship. The question is how do we apply that regulation. In all forms of the Regulative Principle of Worship, elements of worship are those things we have specific warrant to include in our worship (e.g., prayer in its various kinds, reading of Scripture, preaching of the Word, sacraments, singing various types of songs, sharing a holy kiss or other type of greeting, corporate confession of sin, confession of faith, &c.). Circumstances, on the other hand, are those things that surround the elements (e.g., the time of worship, the clothes one wears in worship, the place one worships and its decoration, the way in which the elements are arranged and put to use in the service of worship—though, in this regard, there is a certain logic and flow, but nothing commanded). The truth is that the greatest part of the problem in defining the RPW is agreeing on what constitutes circumstance and what constitutes elements. The old English and Scots Puritans claimed that the clothes the minister wore were elements, and Girardeau, of course, claimed that the way in which you sang the music was an element. This, however, just goes to show that the RPW needs balanced definition—not one that would leave us with stark plainness in our liturgy and houses of worship (this is where the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone), nor with Ministers of Word and Sacrament dressed like used car salesmen, but with sensible, traditional, and biblical liturgy, decor, and dress.
David’s defense, though, as half-hearted as it was, of “Davidic dance” seems strange to me, though. It is one thing to have purely spontaneous expressions of praise through the course of one’s life, especially in times when God has done something wonderful and glorious in some particular circumstance. However, the overarching guard on what we do in worship, even over the circumstances that are not specifically dealt with in the RPW, is the rule of doing all things in worship “decently and in order.” I don’t know who would think that twenty people spontaneously dancing during corporate worship could be properly defined as decent and orderly. That seems to preclude Davidic dance in corporate worship, even if it is perfectly acceptable in personal worship (which is precisely where we see it to begin with!).
David’s point, though, that Uzzah’s death (for touching the ark against God’s specific commandment) and David’s dancing (which apparently pleased God at the time) doesn’t seem so ironic to me. For one thing, it’s not, as David claimed, the same trip (unless we are in the habit of taking a three-month break in our trips). For another, David became joyful and was given indication that he could and should take the Ark of the Covenant on to Jerusalem because of the blessing of a Gentilewhile the Ark stayed in his house (in other words, David was worried that his attempt to take the Ark to Jerusalem was going to be futile in light of Uzzah’s death, but seeing that even a Gentile could be blessed by its presence, he proceeded to bring that focal point of God’s blessing to the people of God’s own Covenant). And, too, David’s original trip to Jerusalem with the Ark made use of the same means of transportation that the Philistines used to send the Ark back to the Jews after its presence among them brought God’s judgment to them; when David resumed his effort to bring the Ark to Jerusalem, he did so properly, as God had commanded. The point is that we must do what God has commanded us to do and refrain from what he has commanded us not to do. We fall under his judgment and chastisement if we are disobedient. We are free to do anything God has not commanded us to do in any area of our lives that he hasn’t told us is wrong (so long as they don’t become idols to us), but we must worship him publicly and corporately the way he has specifically told us.
Short of presbyteries or entire denominations laying out what is and what is not an element and a circumstance, the confusion will remain. Barring that, we must give leeway to the fathers and brothers to work these things out as their consciences apply the principle. However, i don’t have a bit of a problem telling young seminarians or old baby busters (who think or minister to people who think that being perpetual adolescents with worship that matches the culture around us is the way to live their lives) that some of the crazy things that pass for “worship” in some contexts aren’t permissible. Let the presbyteries do what God intended for them to do.
Update: In response to a commenter giving a very mild approbation to the RPW, David Bayly posted a rather lengthy quote from Girardeau’s work (that i referenced). This is just proof that even critics of the critics need critics, and my dear brother David is as ill-informed about RPW issues as those rabid Calvinists who seek to revive Puritan worship in all its stark plainness. Basically, David is committing the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Either you are for the RPW, which means you’re for Girardeau and his ilk as advocates, or your’re against it, which, i suppose means you’re for drama, puppet shows, and horror houses to scare people into the Kingdom during worship. I overstate that last premise, because it is the other side of the one David is apparently making. The point is that there aren’t just two RPW positions. That’s what R.J. Gore’s book is all about. There is, indeed, a spectrum of people holding to some form of the RPW, with Puritans on the far extreme right, and Anglo-Presbyterians and/or “Contemporary Worship” advocates being on the far left (just before you fall off into the “Normative Principle”). David is clearly to the left of me (how far, i’m still not sure), but we’re both, no doubt, much closer to one another than to Girardeau.
11.14.07
File Under “S,” for “Serves You Right”
In London, KY, a woman who “worships” in a snake-handling “church” (please note the well-placed speech marks) died from a snake-bite she received during a “worship service.”
Now, just let that sink in. There are still people in this world (i seriously doubt that they exist at all outside of the United States) who handle snakes in their so-called churches. I think that the historical connection in this regard is, once again, to one of my absolute banes, namely “revivalism.” I just this week posted a quote by John Williamson Nevin in our bulletin about the need to have set liturgy in worship, because, without that objective, set form of worship with historical roots and connections, worship becomes all about subjective fulfillment, and though it might begin as something spectacular (in the etymological sense of the word, i.e., being a “spectacle”), it soon devolves into dead and empty ritual. The ironic thing about this snake-handling is that those people who call themselves Christians and who worship this way would likely look down their noses at your average Broad Evangelical worship service with all the crazy things they do, but they are just as (if not moreso) guilty of the same kind of ridiculous me-centered practices in their worship services.
Now, in many cases, when people in those worship services do get bitten, they don’t seek medical attention, because part of the point is that God will heal and protect you (as per Mark 16). This lady, though, got almost immediate medical treatment, and she was to be med-evaced to Lexington to the University of Kentucky medical center there. Apparently, though, the nurse who was asking the family questions about the circumstances of the “accident” asked them questions beyond those necessary for treatment and did so in some sort of demeaning fashion. When her breathing got shallow (she was bitten in the cheek and her tongue, face, and neck swelled), and her blood pressure dropped, the family apparently asked the doctor to insert a breathing tube, but the doctor told them that her airway wasn’t obstructed and that her problem was elsewhere. The family is blaming those and other issues on the staff of the hospital, and so they are suing the doctor, the nurse, and the hospital for the death of their wife and mother.
Well, just call me a “meanie,” but i say that if you handle snakes, you’re bound to get bitten eventually. It’s like the African pastor who said he was going to walk on water, and so he walked out into the ocean, going deeper and deeper under the water, and he never came back up (alive, at least). When people do all these laughably nonsensical things in their supposed worship, they invite not only the ridicule of people from all spectrums (Christians and non-Christians alike), but they also invite the natural consequences that go along with their activities. Worthst of all of it, they invite God’s own wrath against their idolatry. The fact is that these things aren’t acts of worship at all (at least not worship of Jehovah); they are, to be sure, acts of worship that point to and reflect the glory of the person engaging in them—open and unabashed self worship, which is the worst kind of idolatry that there is. God doesn’t take kindly to any kind of idolatry, but as Lucifer found out, the one who puts himself out as an object of worship is dealt with most swiftly and most severly.
All i can say is that this serves this poor lady right. I feel for her and her family, and i sincerely hope that God mercifully accepted her into his presence. However, anyone with any kind of sense would have seen this one coming. It is only God’s mercy that this doesn’t happen more than it does (and to acts that are just as idolatrous and nonsensical in the worship that we see so often in Evangelical churches).
What’s what old saying? God takes care of children and idiots. I think you know which applies here.
11.10.07
Burning Down the House to Evict a Rat?
I am a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church in America, in which the controversy over the Federal Vision is currently raging. Now, i don’t usually comment on things like this, and as i’ve said before, i am not myself a Federal Visionist (so technically, i really don’t have a dog in this fight). Yet, it is difficult to do anything these days without this kind of thing coming up. When i was examined for membership in Westminster Presbytery, i was asked how i viewed the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. From the reading that i’ve done, i know that they are often confused and equated, but that they are distinct, so i pointed that fact out. But beyond that, i told my presbytery that i believe that both movements or conversations (or whatever you want to call them) are asking important questions that need to be answered. Whether you agree with their answers (some of them i do; many of them i don’t), the questions they’re asking need to be taken up by the Church from the Scriptures themselves to give the Reformed Church a solid answer.
Of course, what i’m talking about is the recent decision by the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA General Assembly that Louisiana Presbytery (PCA) did not do its proper duty to examine Steve Wilkins and determine whether there were a “strong presumption of guilt” of being out of the bounds of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is an absolutely important decision for the SJC and for the PCA, but there are lots of things that i have a problem with on how this has proceeded. Again, my problems have nothing to do with whether i’m really in agreement with Federal Visionists. My desire is to see the Church speak with the authority Christ has endued it. That’s the way that the Church is supposed to work. My problem is that this whole procedure is un-Presbyterian and un-biblical. Most of all, my problem is that this is a controversy of religion that hasn’t itself been dealt with.
Now, i know, everyone seems to think that this is nothing new, that it’s just some old heresy resurrected, or that whether this is new or not, the Confession sufficiently deals with the issue that the Church has already spoken to the issue. That’s really the only argument that can be put forward to justify the lack of action by the PCA (or, for that matter, any other Reformed Church, because all other Reformed Churches who have made statements about the FV or NPP have all done so in light of existing doctrinal standards, most of which are at least 400 years old; no other Reformed Church has come to the controversy and made any definitive decision the way that the Synod of Dordt did: based upon the Scriptures alone).
Procedurally, the SJC has no standing to take LAP to task for finding Steve Wilkins within the bounds of the standards, except that they were presupposing his guilt to begin with. In other words, from the reasoning of the SJC, LAP was wrong to have found that Steve Wilkins was within the bounds of the Confession, because the SJC had already (informally and unofficially) decided that he is not within the bounds of the Confession. Is this proper procedure? Isn’t there supposed to be a finding of fact before acting on the fact? And all this without Steve Wilkins having the ability to face accusers, have representation, and present counter-evidence to a court of the Church. This has all been said before by many, many people, so i suppose it doesn’t need to be harped upon. The fact of the matter is, though, that this issue of living up to basic procedural standards has yet to be dealt with. If anyone argues that the decision of the study committee at the Memphis General Assembly this past summer constitutes a finding of fact, even that argument falls flat, because Wilkins, nor anyone else implicated or mentioned in the report, were not on trial, with charges presented, with the ability to face accusers, and with representation to present arguments in defense of themselves, and there were no members of that committee who could or would represent the FV side of the issue and allow those deliberating to have even counter arguments.
Of course, the main problem i have with the study committee set up at the 2006 General Assembly and the findings that it presented to the 2007 General Assembly, beyond the fact that they had a committee that did not represent the full spectrum of the PCA (divided and full of disparate factions as it is), especially the factions who are disagreed in the current controversy, is that it did not seek to determine the standing of the issues in controversy in light of God’s Word. Let me give an example of what i’m talking about.
I have stated before that i am a very fond of the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith. In fact, i believe it is a better confession than the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is more appropos, less scholastic, more plain in its language, and more fitted to ministerial application on a regional and local level. However, Bullinger, in the 2HCF, says this about the use of traditional and extra-biblical authorities to determine sound doctrine:
The Apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations. Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that the interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.
Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils.
Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the Judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men which are drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the assemblies of priests which were set up against the law of God; and diligently admonished us that we should not listen to the fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.
Likewise we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to succeeding bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them; and by their disagreement show that they are not Apostolic at all. For as the apostles did not contradict themselves in doctrine, so the apostolic men did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. On the contrary, it would be wicked to assert that the apostles by a living voice delivered anything contrary to their writings.
Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (I Cor. 4:17). And, again, “For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand.” (II Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he testifies that he and his disciples – that is, apostolic men – walked in the same way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (II Cor. 12:18). Moreover, the Jews in former times had the traditions of their elders; but these traditions were severely rejected by the Lord, indicating that the keeping of them hinders God’s law, and that God is worshipped in vain by such traditions (Matt. 15:1 ff.; Mark 7:1 ff).
Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, Chapter 2.
In other words, no matter how well-respected, historical, or accepted a standard is, it cannot and should not take the place of God’s Word in being the only source of truth. The only views that may properly be seen as sound and orthodox are those that come from the Scriptures themselves. And since God doesn’t contradict himself, even as he has revealed his will through the writings of the holy apostles as the foundation of the Church, if we find anywhere that any statement of the Church, any tradition of the Church, or any interpretation of an important historical Church leader, they are to be rejected. So, in the trying of religious matters, Bullinger and all the Protestants for whom he speaks admits of no other authority in trying them than God himself speaking in the Holy Scriptures.
Now, of course, this was written in response to the prevailing traditions of the Church by the Roman Church in Bullinger’s day. However, does not the same principle apply, no matter what the Church tradition, when the traditional writings and received interpretations become the basis for what the Church believes and does equal with or rather than the Scriptures? Some have said, “But the Confession is a faithful summary of Scripture.” Yes, in most places it is. However, don’t you think that the Roman authorities could have and would have said the same thing about the Greek and Latin Fathers? That they are faithful interpreters of Scripture (and are from a time closer to their writing, after all), and hence, i’m sure they would have said that they were right to follow the tradition of the Church Fathers in matters of religion. But Bullinger deals with this very issue: yes, the interpreters of the Church are good to consult, and they have their place, but they are only to be received insofar as they can be shown (and they must be shown, not assumed from the start) to agree with Scripture. More importantly, though, if all we consider is the confessional standards of the Churches to answer these controversies, their age becomes a prohibitive factor, because the Church must answer the controversies that arise in each generation, and they must, in each generation, return to the Scriptures for themselves.
So, we do not automatically assume that such-and-such a source or religious authority (even Church councils, like the Westminster Assembly) is in agreement with Scripture on this or that matter of doctrinal controversy simply because they are high-sounding and well-respected, but in Bullinger’s own words, those authorities themselves “command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with [the Scriptures], and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.” This is the Protestant principle: in order to be safe-guarded from any kind of ungodly devotion to tradition, in controversies over religion, we must always return to the Scriptures themselves, mediated by nothing, not simply to the writings of well-respected doctors of the Church or even the statements of councils. The Westminster Confession itself affirms this very thing: “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF 1:10).
Now, lest i be accused of just taking the FV “side” in this thing, let me say this:
If i were to be part of some PCA council (a special, extended council of the Church, representing all presbyteries, not simply a meeting of some committee that doesn’t represent the Church broadly, and not simply the General Assembly where no real debate [or willingness to engage in it] is possible), there are lots of aspects of what i have read in Wilkins that i would find troublesome and problematic from the point of view of Scripture and i’d have to vote against their being seen as sound doctrine.
For instance, in listening to his lecture at the original Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, he mis-defines the origional Half-way Covenant, and so he misapplies its lessons to the current situation in the Reformed/Presbyterian Churches. He doesn’t seem to distinguish well between the ontological and epistemological ways of understanding the issues of Covenant, Union with Christ, Regeneration, and even Justification (i.e., if extreme “TR” Presbyterians are always ontological in their formulation, seeing things from God’s own perspective, from the perspective of the decrees; then Steve Wilkins and other FV folks go to the other extreme and see things only from the epistemological, from the human perspective, and the perspective of “the history of the Covenant”—both are true, but neither can be seen to the exclusion of the other without distortion of the truth. His understanding that someone can fall away from real, true union with Christ is astoundingly unbiblical and un-Reformed. I could mention more, but i won’t go on.
My point simply is that, just in the case of Wilkins, i have things i have problems with, and there are things that, i believe, should be dealt with; so do i think that, in an effort to resolve the issues, the Church should do nothing that is either unbiblical or un-Confessional—not even anyting that smacks of any kind of unfairness. To use a metaphor, if we burn down the house to get rid of a rat, we’ll soon see that it may have been better to put up with the rat for a little while longer than to violate the heart and soul of who we are to try and solve the relatively minor problem. If someone really believes that what he has expressed is so out of accord with Scripture (and this is the standard we need to return to in our accusations), he should go through the proper proceedures. Charge Wilkins himself before his presbytery; have his presbytery try him for those charges, and let the appeals process proceed as it should. Or, let’s have a Church council to try these matters by Scripture itself (not a stacked committee, but a full Reformed Council, inviting divines and doctors from all Reformed denominations, including even men from the CREC, much like Westminster itself or Dordt operated).
I am in favor of giving a good bit of latitude to presbyteries for working these things out best to fit the local and regional needs and emphases. This really is another one of the problems i have with this whole issue and the PCA as a whole. The Presbyterian Church in America has become as authoritarian and centralized as the PCUS ever was (can you honestly say that such a thing as the SJC represents balanced, republican, presbyterial government?), which was, ostensibly, one of the main reasons that the churches that withdrew from the PCUS and formed the PCA did what they did. Worse still, though, what is not centralized is no longer presbyterial, but has become congregational. In reality, the PCA has gutted almost all authority of presbyteries to do anything of any consequence. And that’s one of the things that makes me so confused about the PCA’s current actions. If Louisiana Presbytery has acted in a way that is in any way weak or ineffective in overseeing the ministry of its geographical region of the PCA, it is only the logical result of years of the PCA’s gutting presbyterial authority, exalting the power of congregations to call all the shots over what takes place locally, and the agencies of the GA usurping of the authority that properly only belongs to the presbyteries themselves.
I could go on and on about what is wrong with the PCA and how it’s affecting this injustice that the SJC is perpetuating, but i’ll stop. My only option is to continue to pray that the Lord would intervene in some way to alleviate this injustice and to quell my own conscience. I just don’t know what to do as a member of a PCA presbytery. What kind of recourse do i have? Sadly, the PCA GA has become as bloated and out of control as the Federal branch of our government.
11.08.07
Beowulf
The movie, no doubt, takes great liberties with the actual epic poem recounting the life of Beowulf (and i doubt that i has nearly the amount of explicitly Christian rhetoric and content that the original has), however, i’m sure that it’s going to be a very good movie.
I am intrigued by the CG animation that amplifies and fills in detail for the live action actors, who themselves were digitized. They have some great actors, and it will be neat to see them all CG’d up for this movie.
If you haven’t seen it already, you should check out the Beowulf movie website. It has some very interesting video and wallpaper downloads (like the one at left). There are several versions of trailers and TV ads for the movie you can watch in flash player streaming right on the website. They show Grendel as a garish, deformed person, and Grendel’s mother (played by Angelina Joleigh) as something quite different.
Even from the trailers, though, one theme that seems to come across is the temptation that is presented to Beowulf to be the greatest king in the entire world. Grendel’s mother tempts him and tells him that she can make him that great king. Of course, this is when he came to Grendel’s lair to slay Grendel’s Mother. I can’t help but see the parallel to what we see in Matthew 3, when Christ, who came into Satan’s kingdom to slay him, was tempted by him to be given all kingdoms of the earth if Jesus would just bow down and worship him.
Of course, all movies are like that. You can see all kinds of biblical themes and parallels in them (almost no matter what movie you watch), precisely because of the truth of the Gospel and God’s truths revealed both in nature and in the Scriptures. Men inherently know the truth of these things—they even know things that they don’t know they know—and when they make movies, they come through, sometimes distorted, but always with the truth somewhere in there to which their consciences testify.
I’ll be looking forward to seeing the movie whenever it comes to town. Who wants to go with?
