Report is out

Here it is.

Seems pretty careful from what I can tell. A couple of extracts with comments:

Key in the present discussion is the definition of doctrines that have been crucial to our identity as a biblical and confessional church. In the PCA, we use theological terms such as “regeneration,” “election,” “justification,” and “perseverance” to define these doctrines in a particular and agreed upon fashion through ecclesiastical action. The committee affirms with the PCA that the Confession’s usage of these and related terms is faithful to the teachings of Scripture. While we are aware that the biblical usage of some of these words may have varying nuances in different contexts, our task is to study the theological claims that the NPP and FV proponents make about such terms. Then, our purpose is to determine whether the theological claims they make serve to undermine the system of doctrine taught in the Scripture and Confession. It is certainly possible to say more than our Confession does about biblical truth, but this should not necessitate a denial of the vitals of our faith.

Working to the next to last sentence, it worried me that the committee was claiming that anything anyone might misunderstand could be considered “undermining.” But the last sentence is quite clear and I’m glad they acknowledged the bar. But it gets better:

The committee also affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ.

No anathema. No Galatian heretic. The blogosphere has really really lowered my expectations. In fact, it has made me think worse of men than I should have. I almost teared up reading this.

I’m not saying this ends all disagreement. The committee (admirably softly) wants to “suggest” that men are outside the system of doctrine of the Westminster standards who I believe are well within it. But it was still like a lead weight lifted off my chest, or a python unwrapped from my lungs, or whatever image works for you, to read the above affirmation of brotherhood in Christ. I am extremely grateful for it.

9 thoughts on “Report is out

  1. garver

    Yeah. I thought the declarations at the end were all things I could wholeheartedly agree with. But I’ve never been sure if I’m “FV” or “NPP” or any other part of the alphabet soup.

    Reply
  2. Pingback: The Boar’s Head Tavern » It’s here…

  3. joel hunter

    I dunno. The GA’s charge asks the committee to go see if these figures/works “are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion.” In the “Justification” section, for example, the report says of both Wright and the FV: “Yep.” Given that assessment, “Declarations” 3, 4 and 9 then do appear to anathematize Wright’s views on covenant, election, justification and perseverance.

    Now this is just a layman’s opinion and I’m sure I haven’t read Wright as carefully as everyone else who reads your blog, not to mention the committee members, but I thought I spotted two glaring faults in the committee’s analysis. I should say that their presentation of Wright’s views was even-handed and that they are right to believe that they “worked hard to be fair.” It appears they only allowed themselves one speculative, wild hair moment:
    Following Wright’s logic, though unstated – to be baptized into the Messiah and, hence, into the Messiah’s body of people means that the baptized one is justified and elect as well.
    Even so, I think Wright would recognize his own thinking in the committee’s precis, with the following exceptions.

    In section I.D., the committee seemed bound to an assumption that Wright’s analysis of “imputed righteousness” is more a result of his theological grid than of exegesis. But in the relevant sections of WSPRS, my impression was that his exegesis was foundational to his findings on the subject of imputation. Do I misremember?

    The second curiosity was in the section on perseverance (III.B). The committee criticizes Wright’s emphasis upon justification in eschatological judgment. They ask rhetorically, “The question is then raised, when does this justification occur?” But they do not acknowledge Wright’s affirmations (in several works, if memory serves) of the reality of our present justification.

    I wonder if it isn’t Wright’s desire to bring the Scriptures’ own frequent mention of believers’ glorification and eschatological reign to our attention that catches readers off-balance. His frequent motif of heaven interlocking with earth and their final union at the end of all things, together with his insistence that we best glimpse that great reality by gazing intently at what is going on with Jesus in the gospels, is playing havoc with our common sensical notions of logical and temporal sequence. The more I think about it, the more pre-Scholastic it strikes me, especially as he attempts to formulate what this looks like from a “kingdom of heaven” perspective, i.e., God’s dimension.

    Well, high entropy prevails in my thinking at the moment, but such are my initial reactions to the report. I hope to soon share your gratitude that peace is breaking out, Mark and Joel, but I’ll have to await further patient analyses by you and the many knowledgeable types and the multiple perspectives taken before I can understand how the welcome affirmation of brotherhood correlates to brothers who “deny,” “contradict,” “forsake,” “undermine,” “damage,” “do major harm,” and “strike at the vitals of religion.” The affirmation starts to sound a little empty after the evaluative language of the findings. I hope that my initial reaction is wrong.

    Reply
  4. Kevin

    That’s really neat how how easily Horne can turn “declarations” into “suggestions.” Somehow holding views “contrary to the Westminster Standards” really isn’t a problem and is acceptable to FVers, despite their ordination vows. I guess excommunication and defrocking are also “suggestions.”

    Reply
  5. mark Post author

    Kevin, I’m pretty sure I read them “suggest” (their word) that some are outside. I was just using their word, unless I misread something.

    I wasn’t denying that their are declarations–see Joel above for that.

    And, my presbytery has both received me and also examined me in relation to FV issues and delared me within the bounds of the doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (we had a special FV committee and everything). So there is no question about my holding views “contrary to teh standards,” as far as my ministerial standing and legitimate Presbyterian polity is concerned. As I mentioned above, the committee believes things which I believe to be mistaken.

    So, truthfully, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

    Reply
  6. Dave

    Mark,

    As one who isn’t in the PCA, we left CRPC shortly after you did, I would ask a question based on various internet blogs (credibility is an issue thus my question).

    Is it true that your Presbytery is considered “FV” friendly (however you define FV) by those on both sides of this issue?

    Reply
  7. mark Post author

    FV-friendly? Missouri Presbytery and North Texas Presbytery and Pacific Northwest Presbytery?

    And the presbyteries of every pastor who happens to not be on the SouthernPresby/Klinean bandwagon all accross the country?

    I think the real significant issue is whether or not a Presbyter is allowed to speak for himself in his own defense before his brothers.

    Remember, the objective is the removal of eighty-five churches. You can’t blame that high a number on one supposedly FV-friendly presbytery.

    Reply
  8. mark Post author

    I don’t know that anything is being sneaked, but the report is obviously crafted in part as a revision of the last major GA’s dealing with our Confession and Catechism (creation then subscription).

    In other ways as well. The word “merit” is made a litmus test (which doesn’t affect me personally because I use the word) without any explanation nor any definition (Have I missed something?). It is in the confession so we must all use the word. No question about what the word means (because people could want to avoid the word for some reason and yet affirm and teach the substance). Perhaps we need to petition the GA to insert the word, “merit” in the Shorter Catechism because it obviously cannot be adequate for teaching children the Gospel when it is lacking such an important word….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *