Category Archives: Reformed theology

What Happened to “Sinful”?

Over the last ten days there has been a lot of discussion about “Sin” in the media and out in the blogosphere. What there has not been a lot of discussion about is being “Sinful.”

In an obligatory Holy Week piece USA Today has an article on “Has the ‘notion of sin’ been lost?” This caps off a couple of weeks that have seen a governor resign for indiscretions, his replacement admit to his own arguably questionable actions, and the media spin an interview with a Vatican official about modern responsibilities into a list of the “new seven deadly sins.”

But as I read through the USA Today piece I kept thinking that “this is missing the point.” What the article talked about was the view of sin as a list of things we should or should not do. A recent survey by Ellison Research shows that if you put together a list of sins some are roundly accepted on the list (adultery by 81% of Americans, racism by 74%) and some are struggling to be recognized as wrong (only 30% think gambling is). But while it is one thing to come up with lists of specific actions, what the USA Today article dances around is the larger question of what is Sin anyway what about humans as Sinful beings.

There are hints of the larger view in the article. The Rev. Albert Mohler is quoted in part as saying “I wonder whether even some Christian churches are making the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection and victory over sin — the linchpin doctrine of Christianity.” Note that he said “sin” as a singular, a condition or concept. The article just keeps on going with the lists.

Later on the article gets closer with material from Michael Horton:

People have to see themselves as sinners — ultimately alienated from God and unable to save themselves — for Christ’s sacrifice to be essential.

and from Pope Benedict XVI

“People who trust in themselves and in their own merits are, as it were, blinded by their own ‘I,’ and their hearts harden in sin. On the other hand, those who recognize themselves as weak and sinful entrust themselves to God, and from him obtain grace and forgiveness.”

So the measure of sin is not ourselves but God. And our ultimate condition as humans is that we are sinful and unable to save ourselves. It is not about committing sins that are on a list. It is about our Sinful human nature. If sin is only about what society says I should or should not do and I can work on that myself, this weekend is just about jelly beans and chocolate. If we recognize that there is no way we can save ourselves, that we can not even come close to what God requires, that we have violated the image of God in us, and that we can not be saved by our best efforts but by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then this weekend becomes a joyous spiritual celebration. When it comes to sin and our sinful nature we don’t want “fair,” we need Grace.

So from the Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of
sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us.

Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.

Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.

Thanks be to God for the gift of His Son.

Have a meaningful Easter Weekend.

Sin Is Not Just Present, It Is Pervasive

Leave a reply

The doctrine of original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith. — Reinhold Niebuhr

I won’t say that yesterday was a “good” day for sin, but it was clearly a day that it was prominent. On the serious side a crime fighting and “squeaky clean” politician was caught in scandal. And as the Reformed community we shake our heads in disappointment but not in surprise, for “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

And while in this news event several of the traditional “deadly” or “mortal” sins were transgressed, the Vatican comes out with their list of seven new “social” sins. (Technically, as this Toronto Star article says, a Vatican official discussed modern problems with a Rome newspaper and it was the news media that distilled and spun them down to the more attention-getting “seven modern sins.”)

Update: There is a good story over on GetReligion called “Seven Sensationalist Sins.” But for us geeks, the diagram of the combinatorics of the original seven deadly sins, chose two is priceless.

Discernment of the Call to Ordained Office

Leave a reply

A question that has been in and out of my thinking for many years, and is back in it at the moment, has been the discernment process for calling individuals to ordained office. One particular manifestation of this has been the church nominating committee having a certain number of positions to fill on the session or board of deacons. Do they just keep going until they fill all the slots, or do they stop and leave positions vacant if they can find no more willing individuals who they have discerned to have the proper God-given gifts and talents for that office? In many Presbyterian churches I am aware that there is some pressure to fill the slots because each elder or deacon has a particular program area of responsibility: we need an “outreach elder” or there is no one for the “food pantry” deacon yet. I was very happy when my own church dispensed with the elders being assigned to oversee a particular ministry and simply made them the governing body with responsibility for “shepherding the flock.”

I’m writing on this now because I am having a very “hurry up and wait” day at work. You may know the type: there are an endless series of short jobs for the computer to do. Short enough that you really can’t leave and do something else but long enough waiting that you have some time that you need to fill. Well, I filled part of it with some web surfing in directions I had not ventured before and came across an interesting blog called “ Building Old School Churches.” Even if you are nowhere near being an Old School Presbyterian church there is some interesting material there. What caught my attention today was a post by Andrew Webb titled “ On Whether to Vote to Ordain.” In the post he talks about an experience he had early in his career at a presbytery meeting when a candidate was examined to be a pastor, the discomfort he felt with that candidate, and the guidelines he formulated from talking with experienced ruling and teaching elders about it. His guidelines, with his emphases, are:

1) Remember
that Presbyteries aren’t rubber stamp operations, we are gate-keepers,
and we’ll be called to account by God for every man we let into the
sheepfold. So ask yourself, “is that man a true shepherd or something
else?” No church absolutely has to get someone if that someone was
never really meant to be a pastor. Calling the wrong man will do them more harm than calling no one at all!
2) Anyone can graduate from seminary, my wife could graduate from seminary but she isn’t qualified or called to be a pastor. Not everyone who graduates is called.

3) If you are
in doubt, ask yourself, “would I be able to stomach this man being the
shepherd of my own family?” If the answer is no, don’t vote for him. Christ’s other lambs don’t deserve less than your own family!
4) Go home
and read Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 [vs. 17-36]
and treat those words as Christ’s advice to you.

I would add that we are a called covenant community and it is the responsibility of the community to be gathering around candidates, helping them discern their call and their gifts and talents throughout the candidate process, not just at the examination. And furthermore, once God has spoken through the vote of the community to affirm the call, it is our responsibility as members of the community to support, nurture, and guide that person as they live into that call, even if we voted in the minority.

I know that within my presbytery the candidates committee has done a good job mentoring and discerning calls with candidates and I have been satisfied with all that have come to presbytery, the ministry committee, or a search committee of which I have been part.

Do we do as good a job with ruling elders when we ask members of our churches to serve on session? What could we do better before and after the elders are elected and ordained to develop their gifts for the ministry? Are our sessions bodies that are seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit and discerning where God is leading the church, or a group that gets together to “get the business done” once a month? As an example, on presbytery committees that I have chaired I always insisted, no matter how late the meeting was running, that we did not just “close in prayer” but that we closed in prayer for each other and our churches and church members with a sharing of joys and concerns. In many cases I suspected that several people wanted to get out of there and get home, but as a community, holding each other in prayer is one of the most important and powerful things we can do.

So as members of the covenant community we have responsibility for who is ordained as a minister/teaching elder, ruling elder, or deacon and we should not just leave it to the nominating committee or candidates committee to do the work for us. Their work is important and most do it well. But in the end the call of God through the voice of the people comes from the larger community.

Developments in the Federal Vision Theology debate

2 Replies

Our story so far…

There is a theological perspective that has been gaining some recent popularity known as Federal Vision Theology (FV) with ties to another, longer established view called the New Perspectives on Paul. For background on all this you can go to my original post or a great web site at www.federal-vision.com.

This past June the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approved, by a wide margin, a report critical of this theology and its errors in orthodoxy relative to the PCA standard, the Westminster Confession.

There was considerable discussion about the report before ( 1, 2, 3), during, and after the GA, not just by PCA members but by those in other reformed denominations who are also wrestling with this. (It probably goes without saying that the PC(USA) has its own controversies and is probably the one reformed denomination in the US that is not looking at this.)

Being some distance from the PCA GA I wanted to look at what has happened since then on this topic.

First, I was very impressed how few “knee jerk” reactions there were. Responses and commentary were very reasoned, and for the most part respectful, and seemed to shift somewhat from a specific argument about the report’s points and process to a more general and “big picture” view of the situation. Essentially “here we are, what does it mean.”

One of these reasoned responses was a Joint Federal Vision Statement issued about July 30 and signed by eleven ministers, including all that I would consider the “usual suspects.” (movie reference – not intended to be negative) There is one page of introduction, six of doctrinal statements in the form of “We affirm… We deny…” and the final half page with the signatories. It should be noted that about half of these pastors are with churches that are in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, the CREC acronym that is found within the Statement. Most of the remainder are PCA churches. One point that I found confusing is that the intro to the statement describes CREC as a “confederation” not strictly a denomination but the web site is loaded with denomination language.

Following the issuance of this statement there has been some analysis of it and it has served as material for debate and rebuttal in the blogosphere. The most comprehensive critique of the statement has to be by the Rev. Lane Keister in his blog Green Baggins. I will not even attempt linking to individual posts since he went through the statement with separate posts analyzing and critiquing each individual section. Lots of reading there if you are so inclined. Click on his topic Federal Vision.

A second multi-part, but slightly less extensive analysis can by found on the blog Reformed Musings and there is another by the Rev. R. Scott Clark on The Heidelblog. This latter one has an interesting twist since the Rev. Clark is at a church that is part of the United Reformed Churches in North America www.urcna.info or www.covenant-urc.org/urchrchs.html whose General Synod this past summer adopted resolutions on three points of “sola fide” and nine points of the Federal Vision Theology and he discusses those in his blog as well.

While the blogs above are generally critical of the FV, the signatories of the statement are not silent and you can find the defenses and responses of Douglas Wilson on his blog Blog and Mablog and those of Jeff Meyers on his Corrigenda Denuo.

On the general topic of the FV controversy, one of my favorite blog posts since the report was adopted is by Kevin D. Johnson on July 2 in his blog Reformed Catholicism. It is a long reflection titled Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice. What strikes me about his viewpoint is first that it comes from his own experience over multiple years as a one-time FV defender and second that his concerns include the pastoral aspects of the theology and controversy. He writes:

[A]ny critique of the Federal Vision theology should at least first deal
with the pastoral context with which it was originally framed. Is
Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the
nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed
world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably
addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in
calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

Finally, I would like to note one other blog entry, but with a bit of hesitance since it is a bit polarizing and strongly worded. However, I found the information in the article “ Ligonier Ministries Responsible for Federal Vision Converts?” interesting and, as far as I know the history, accurate. This article describes how the now defrocked (for other reasons) R. C. Sproul Jr. provided a platform for major FV advocates such as Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins in the Ligonier Ministries publication Tabletalk while he was still the editor. It raises the interesting question of why the Rev. R. C. Sproul Sr. Ph.D. (a PCA pastor and professor) allowed this to happen while he, at least based on his two minute speech that I listened to during this year’s debate on the FV report, favored the PCA report. The bottom line of the article is that by promoting the FV theology the result was actually to lead people away from the Reformed faith and into either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches.

Interesting stuff. But as multiple observers are now wondering, when will enforcement of the report begin? And will FV proponent pastors and churches stick around to be heard or quickly move to the CREC. Similar dilemma to the PC(USA) controversy, different topic.

What is appropriate “scripture” for worship

Leave a reply

Let me begin this reflection with this:

From the PC(USA) Book of Order
W-1.4005

a. The minister as pastor has certain responsibilities which are not subject to the authority of the session. In a particular service of worship the pastor is responsible for

(1) the selection of Scripture lessons to be read,
(2) the preparation and preaching of the sermon or exposition of the Word

W-2.2007

The preached Word or sermon is to be based upon the written Word. It is a proclamation of Scripture in the conviction that through the Holy Spirit Jesus Christ is present to the gathered people, offering grace and calling for obedience. Preaching requires diligence and discernment in the study of Scripture, the discipline of daily prayer, cultivated sensitivity to events and issues affecting the lives of the people, and a consistent and personal obedience to Jesus Christ. The sermon should present the gospel with simplicity and clarity, in language which can be understood by the people. [remainder deleted]

I recently attended worship on the Lord’s Day at one of the more progressive churches in the PC(USA) and had a most unusual experience that is informed by the two quotes above from the Book of Order. The sermon that unfolded would send members of any other American Presbyterian denomination running for their judicial commissions and pastoral examinations. For some churches within the PC(USA), this is just another Sunday morning.

For this particular service the first scripture lesson was from the Gospel of John. The second “scripture” lesson, and the one that was favored for the preaching, was from a Gnostic Gospel. This was lifted up as a parallel, alternative and in some ways better account of a particular story than the Gospel of John presented with the strong implication that the councils that decided the canon were wrong leaving it out.

Now, I have heard many sermons, and their quality and style covers the whole spectrum. (As a COM liaison to PNC’s I have listened to hundreds of different preachers both live and on tape.) I have heard children’s books read, I have heard all manner of analogies, allegories and modern parables, and I have heard statements that I believe to be down right wrong. I have also heard Gnostic Gospels and all manner of ancient and modern literature quoted within the body of the sermon. But I am sure this is the first time I have heard a Gnostic Gospel not just quoted in the sermon, but portions read as the primary scripture lesson for the day.

I probably should also comment that there was no significant exegesis of either scripture text but they were simply used as a jumping off point for a discussion of current events and the oppression of particular groups. I can only guess if this reassures you or troubles you even more.

So, what can a pastor preach within the latitude of the Directory for Worship? While W-1.4005 does provide for latitude, or at least some “academic freedom” I think that both sections are pretty clear that preaching is to be based on the Scriptures, and these are defined by various confessions, in particular the Westminster Confession. In addition, that document goes on to say: The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” Yes, these Gnostic Gospels while apocryphal are not part of the Apocrypha, but I think this guidance would apply to them as well. In the case of the sermon I just heard the pastor may disagree with the statement that it was not divinely inspired.

Well the preaching is up to the pastor, guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Book of Order does say it is to be “based on the written Word.” While I recognize and appreciate the flexibility the Directory for Worship offers, I believe that it also provides boundaries which I see as being crossed in this case. The reading of Scripture is accorded a particular place of honor in our worship. To substitute something else in that place, however divinely inspired the preacher may consider it, seems inappropriate and contrary to two millennial of corporate guidance. Yes, you can use it in the sermon. But don’t substitute it for Scripture.

Federal Vision Controversy

2 Replies

While the PC(USA) and Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand have been occupied with controversy over ordination standards, and the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have been discussing blessing same-sex unions, over the last five years controversy has been building in the conservative branches of American Presbyterianism over a new resurgence of a covenental theology known at “Federal Vision Theology.”

I mentioned this back in August commenting on the General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church and their warnings against it and in looking back at the PCA GA and OPC GA I see that they both dealt with it as well (PCA GA Summary, OPC Report on Justification) including church court cases that were pending in the PCA. Since that time I have read some more about it and found the heights to which this controversy has risen and the number of denominations that are dealing with it.

If you are wondering about the origin of the name a footnote in the OPC Report discusses this:

[210] Perhaps it is helpful here to note that “federal” is employed in this respect to indicate “covenantal.” The word “federal” derives from the Latin “foedus” which means “covenant” (cf. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], 119-120). It has most commonly been used in this adjectival form to refer to the covenantal position of Adam and Christ as being that of federal headship.

It is impossible to properly describe the Federal Vision Theology and a related movement, the New Perspective on Paul, in this posting. However, to greatly simplify this topic it revolves around the view of the covenant community and to what extent the “visible church” represents it and whether membership in a church is sufficient for justification. In other words, if you are part of the community are you part of the covenant? With discussions about justification by faith alone and ecclesiology you can see that it is a debate with implications for reformed theology. As one good article from the PCA on-line magazine byFaith puts it:

To critics, the theological systems redefine the classic Reformation
doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, which proponents of the New
Perspective dismiss as, among other things, a Lutheran misunderstanding
of the teaching of Paul. Federal Vision proponents place a strong
emphasis on the efficacy of the Sacraments, some embracing giving the
Lord’s Supper to baptized children and a view of baptism that, critics
believe, makes it a “regenerating” ordinance. Additionally, these
systems emphasize that final salvation has more to do with continuing
membership in the covenant community than with a personal salvation
experience. Critics believe the emphasis in all of these new paradigms
has shifted from the classic evangelical question “Are you saved?” to
“Are you in the Covenant?”. Proponents of the Federal Vision assert
that they are simply reaffirming a higher view of the sacraments as
advocated by Calvin before the church was later influenced by American
revivalism.

Another good, fairly neutral, and much longer article “Within the bounds of orthodoxy? An examination of the Federal Vision controversy” was written by Joseph Minich. That and other resources are available on a dedicated web site: www.federal-vision.com. There is also an entry in Theopedia. Finally, the OPC report on the Doctrine of Justification mentioned above is also a great resource with several pages of background on both the Federal Vision Theology and the New Perspective on Paul as well discussion of where some of the concepts can be traced back to the earliest history of the Christian Church.

But, this blog is about the Politics of Presbyterianism so a quick recap of the denominational responses to this. The first major presentations associated with Federal Vision Theology were delivered at a pastors conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana in January 2002. The presenters (and their denominational affiliations) at this conference were John Barach (United Reformed Churches in North America), Steve Schlissel (independent reformed?), Steve Wilkins (PCA and senior pastor at Auburn Avenue PC), and Douglas Wilson (Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches). In addition, two other writers who have been doing related but not identical work have become associated with the pro-Federal Vision group: Anglican scholar Rev. N. T. Wright is part of a nearly 30 year old movement known as the New Perspective on Paul and the Rev. Norman Shepherd is a former OPC pastor and professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) who switched to the Christian Reformed Church when charges about his teachings were pending in the OPC in about 1981 (before the current Federal Vision controversy).

Probably the first formal response was from the Covenant Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States which issued an official caution about some of the tenets of the Federal Vision in June of that same year and a message to the four presenters declaring their points heresy and calling for repentance. (Note: The RPCUS has a great web page documenting that denomination’s involvement in the controversy and providing links to articles about it in The New Southern Presbyterian Review.) Since that time there has been significant discussion in that denomination about the theology but nothing that I see as new formal actions.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church formally responded next with the formation by the 2004 General Assembly of a Committee To Study the Doctrine of Justification. The committee reported to the 2005 GA and received an additional year to complete their study. The 91 page study was presented to the 2006 GA and in addition to a detailed discussion of the history and points of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision it listed 20 points where the Federal Vision Theology departed from orthodoxy. The GA commended the report for study with little debate as well as a list of 14 points on which candidates for ordination should be examined and the distribution of the report to the denomination including seminaries.

The response in the Presbyterian Church in America has been more extensive since Steve Wilkins and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church are part of that denomination. The earliest formal action appears to be the formation of a study committee in early 2004 by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee was critical of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision and was unanimously adopted by the presbytery in February 2005 but the 2005 General Assembly declined to send out one presbytery’s report as a denominational statement. The Louisiana Presbytery, the home presbytery of Auburn Avenue PC, responded with their own study which was adopted in July 2005 and was more favorable toward the Federal Vision advocates. At it’s 2006 GA the PCA formed a study group on the controversy.

However, the controversy has entered the PCA church courts. In January 2005 Central Carolina Presbytery communicated to Louisiana Presbytery their concerns about the orthodoxy of Rev. Wilkins’ teachings and the July 2005 study was part of the response to that. Central Carolina Presbytery decided that Louisiana had not fulfilled its oversight roll fully and filed a complaint against them with the Standing Judicial Commission in January 2006. The hearing was held in October 2006 and the SJC, in a decision issued about November 1, sided with Central Carolina saying:

It is the conclusion of the Standing Judicial Commission that Louisiana
Presbytery has not demonstrated either by formal records or informal
recollections that it has “with due diligence and great discretion”
(BCO 31-2) dealt with the allegations that TE Steven Wilkins’ views are
out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized
in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter
Catechisms, which are “standard expositions of the teachings of
Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.” (BCO 29-1, 39-3) As
a result, Presbytery has not met its responsibilities under BCO 13-9.f
and 40-4,5, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and purity
of the Church.

Thanks to the blog A Submerging Church for posting the whole SJC decision. The acronym TE in the report is “teaching elder.” The remedy is to examine Rev. Wilkins on the specific points and report back to the SJC by February 16, 2007.

So, I think this is were the controversy stands at the moment. I am surprised that it has not hit the “mainline” radar screens but then we are occupied with other things right now. Over the next few months we will see how this controversy continues to develop.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism

Category Archives: Reformed theology

What Happened to “Sinful”?

Sin Is Not Just Present, It Is Pervasive

Discernment of the Call to Ordained Office

Developments in the Federal Vision Theology debate

What is appropriate “scripture” for worship

Federal Vision Controversy