Eighty-five churches need to be excised because they are “federal vision”?
We’ll have to wait and see if this really reflects an agenda or if it was simply someone’s exaggeration, or simply a mistake. I wasn’t in Africa recently so I won’t commit one way or another. But it would be interesting to to figure out how many presbyteries would be involved in this if it were true.
Please do! Then these 85 churches can come into the CREC and spend time on ministry instead of placating practical baptists.
Does the PCA really have a future?
Not if the current level of “theological discourse” surrounding FV is an indication.
I hope that cooler, white-haired heads prevail and this sort of thing isn’t representative. The fact that the story came from a PCA elder in Africa and not stateside might provide hope that it isn’t.
I’d love to know what an “FV church” is, let alone how one comes up with a supposed list of them.
I can’t help but think that, if successful, these sorts of tactics will end up destroying the fellowship of churches they are purporting to protect.
Those are two different “Joel”s above, btw.
So, anyway, I know some of you are wondering about this just like I am.
How does one go about identifiying an “FV Church”? I remember when it just meant that your pastor or TE participated in the FV Con. That meant there could be no more than 4 FV churches, expanding to a few more after the Knox Seminary Colloquy.
The only way I figure someone could arrive at the number 85 would be if one person in all 85 congregations read the Wilkins/Garner book as a fat tract, got saved, and has now tainted his/her congregation.
What do we do at the very frontiers of gehenna, where the event horizon of NPP and FV meet? I think we’re actaully talking about 850 churches infected with the pox!
I feel like the whole discussion of these things has become toxic and removed from Christ. How can we be saying that this church or that has no future? Has Christ given up his authority to the argumentitiveness of men? If we really believe that I hope we are all praying fervently. When church starts to feel like politics it is disturbing. And when pride prevents men from turning the other cheek in the face of mean-spiritedness we may win a battle but we will lose the war. Our duty is to not return evil for evil. I read the comments on that post and people on both sides were completely out of line in the way they were treating each other. It is bologna to talk about the brotherhood/unity of all believers when you can talk to one another that way in the name of the faith.
Justin,
Just try and remember what’s really at stake. No one I know on the FV side is condemning anyone. They aren’t saying anyone has to leave this or that denomination. In fact, all of them like the diversity of opinion (I do) and think its a strength. That’s the difference. Don’t lump everyone into one pot as that’s unhelpful and does not shed light on reality. The reality is many of my friends and myself included are already paying dearly. Also, bear in mind this is the blogosphere. Things tend to get exagerated in this medium.
Sorry that may have come off a bit stronger than it should have. I have sympathy for you and others in similar positions. I think for the most part that you’re right, but I think that in debates of this size and scope no side is immune from wrongdoing. I don’t mean to say everyone is doing this, just that the conversation seems to have degenerated in many quarters to fruitlessness and mockery. I honestly do sympathize though, I’ve seen the suffering quite vividly. Finally I agree about exageration on the internet. I think a good rule for people to follow would be don’t say things on the internet that you wouldn’t say to the person face to face. There is something similar to road rage that occurs in comment sections of religious blogs.