Category Archives: Federal Vision

Final PCA SJC Decision In Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past Thursday the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their final decision in the case of TE James Bordwine, et al. vs. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  By a vote of 17 concur, 2 dissent, and 3 absent (with no disqualified, recused or abstaining) the Proposed Decision was affirmed by the full SJC.

This case is regarding the process and conclusions of the investigation and examination of TE Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  (For more details you can check out the enumeration of the facts in the decision or my brief summary when the Proposed Decision came out last December.)  The Commission found:

II. Statement of the Issue

Did PNW err in its handling of the Reports from the PNW Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder?

III. Judgment

Yes.  The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision.

Then the Reasoning and Opinion Section begins with:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Leithart that are in conflict with our standards.

The section goes on to briefly point out that since a formal disciplinary judicial process had not been carried out in this case the relief requested by the Complainants of declaring his views out of accord could not properly be made.  On the other hand, without the judicial process the Presbytery can not declare that the views are not out of accord.  But there is a strong presumption of guilt, the test for initiating judicial proceedings.

The Decision sets forth a two step process:  1) To counsel TE Leithart concerning his views and to encourage him to either “recant and make reparations for those views,” or “to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.” 2) Failing one of the outcomes of step 1 to then begin the judicial process.

Having now set out the basic findings of the Decision, I wanted to comment on the significant difference between the Final Decision and last December’s Proposed Decision.  The Final Decision is seven pages long, the Proposed Decision is twenty.  The difference is almost exclusively in the Reasoning and Opinion section.  In the Proposed Decision the SJC wrote an extensive analysis of the documents from the PNW investigation showing where TE Leithart’s views were problematic.  There is none of this in the Final Decision.  In the Final Decision the SJC shortened up their reasoning a bit to simply state that a strong presumption of guilt exists and then leave it to the judicial process, if there will be one, to decently and in order make the decision if the views are out of accord.

The second way that the Final Decision differs from the Proposed Decision is the inclusion of “Step 1.”  In the Proposed Decision the order was to “institute process.”  In the Final Decision the preceding step of non-judicial counsel was added to try to achieve a restorative outcome without the divisiveness the judicial process can bring.

I would also note that the cover letter indicates that the two dissenters to the opinion have not indicated an intent to file a Minority Report so this Decision is final and no decision between a majority and minority report will need to be made by the General Assembly.  (I would also add that there might be a minority opinion floating around out there but not a minority report, and second in my reading of the BCO to send a Minority Report to the GA requires at least one-third of the voting members of the SJC to dissent and the two dissenting votes is far short of that so a minority report would not be appropriate.)

There has been some significant response to the Final Decision including The Aquila Report, R. Scott Clark, and A Profitable Word. But once again I thank TE Jason Stellman at Creed Code Cult for his views on the matter since he is the closest to it, being one of the Complainants.  In addition, I am deeply appreciative of his making the decisions available.  And once again, I leave you with his words about this situation:

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.

Steps In Ecclesiastical Discipline In Two PCA Presbyteries

4 Replies

Regular readers know that in spite of my great regard and agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith I prefer the formulation of the Marks of the True Church in the Scots Confession and some other Reformed confessions.  The WCF [25:4] says “Churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The Scots Confession puts it thus:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. [Chapter 18]

Many people have problems with the idea of invoking “ecclesiastical discipline” since it may conjure up images of heretic trials and draconian punishment.  Regarding this let me make two points.

  1. It is important to remember that “discipline” relates to the word “disciple,” as the root of the words suggests.  One online resources tells us that “discipline” derives from the meaning “instruction given to the disciple.” True discipline is instructional.
  2. Related to that the intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to be restorative and not punitive.  As the Confession says “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.”  We are not out to “get” someone but to restore them to right relationship with God and the Community.

Finally, I would also emphasize that discipline involves a process and in the Presbyterian sense it encompasses the Covenant Community and may impact on our “reformed and always being reformed” as the community tries to discern how God is calling us to be faithful to Scripture.

With that preface I wanted to summarize two recent events in Presbyterian Church of America presbyteries.  In both cases these are on-going issues and the recent news only represents the latest steps.

The first began as a bit of a “sleeper,” or at least was overshadowed by a higher profile case going on at the same time, but in the last two weeks it has really taken on a life of its own in one little corner of the blogosphere.  Let me say at the onset that much of the reporting on the web comes from one side of this controversy but in reading a lot of the articles the timeline and facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.

This case began in the Spring of 2008 and involves the examination of a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Siouxlands specifically regarding views which are currently referred to as Federal Vision theology.  For a good detailed summary of this case I refer you to a piece last September that TE Brian Carpenter wrote for the Aquila Report.  In the interest of full disclosure I need to let you know that Mr. Carpenter is a complainant in one part of this case, now under investigation in another part, and also has a personal blog – The Happy T.R.   That will become important in a moment.

UPDATE: Wes White has now posted an all-in-one-place summary/timeline on this issue in Siouxlands.  Thanks.

Here is a summary so what follows will make more sense:  In April 2008 TE Wes White and TE Brian Carpenter asked the Presbytery of Siouxlands for an investigation of a member of the Presbytery and whether he was teaching federal vision theology contrary to the Standards of the PCA.  The Presbytery denied the request, White and Carpenter filed a complaint at the next Presbytery meeting and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the General Assembly.  A panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) sustained the complaint and the Presbytery was ordered to conduct an investigation.  The investigating committee was created, worked over the Summer of 2009, and by a 4-2 vote brought a report to the September Presbytery meeting that there was a “strong presumption of guilt.”  On the floor of Presbytery one of the dissenting members of the committee, TE Joshua Moon, moved a substitute motion to not accept the report and recommendations and the substitute motion prevailed.  He then made the motion that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that the views of the member who was investigated were outside the bounds of the Standards and that motion prevailed by a narrow 20-17-1 vote.  New complaints were filed with the Presbytery.  The first summary ends at that point but TE Carpenter writes on his personal blog that at a called meeting at the end of October the new complaint was sustained and a new investigating committee formed.  In addition, a church session sent an overture asking for an investigation of a second TE, that individual answered the charges on the floor of Presbytery, the Presbytery voted to accept that examination as fulfilling the examination and find no “strong presumption of guilt,” and TE Carpenter filed a complaint in that case that the investigation was not extensive enough to fulfill the requirements of the Book of Church Order. A January item from the Aquila Report informs us that one session in the Presbytery found the new overture and other writings and statements of TE Carpenter  to have misrepresented another TE to a strong degree and they overtured the Presbytery to “find a strong presumption of guilt that Mr. Carpenter has publicly sinned…by violating the ninth commandment.”  These writings include his pieces on The Aquila Report and The Happy TR.  That brings us to the stated meeting of January 22…

The Aquila Report brings us one summary of that presbytery meeting, written by the other original complainant TE Wes White.  In the original case the second investigating committee brought a unanimous recommendation that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt that the member’s teachings were outside the bounds of the Standards.  The Presbytery chose to postpone action on the report until September and formed a committee to “instruct and advise that member.”  On the one hand see above abo
ut discipline being restorative, on the other hand confer TE White’s personal blog for his analysis of the make-up of the committee and conclusion that it lacks balance.

The Presbytery also denied the complaint from TE Carpenter that the October examination was not sufficient.  The Presbytery did accept the overture regarding TE Carpenter’s actions and has set up an investigating committee to make a recommendation whether he had broken the ninth commandment by misrepresenting another member.  Part of this accusation has to do with his writing about the previous Presbytery meeting on his blog and the Aquila Report.  In line with the concept of ecclesiastical discipline it is interesting to note that in a completely unrelated item of business “a teaching elder who had previously been indefinitely suspended for a public sin was restored to office and the Presbytery expressed thanksgiving to God for the exemplary repentance God had worked in his heart.”

Still with me?  So here is where this story took on a life of its own on the blogosphere.  Following the meeting TE White and TE Carpenter weighed in on the meeting on their blogs.  In fact, Mr. Carpenter expressed his frustration a number of times in the first few days following the meeting and then felt the conviction of the Spirit, repented of his more sarcastic writing and took down most of his initial postings.  (Yes, I am aware that there are cached copies but to honor Mr. Carpenter’s wishes I won’t link those, you will have to find them yourselves.)  I do wish that at least the original post were available because in spite of the sarcasm I believe it clearly conveys both the passion that TE Carpenter has for the issue as well as the frustration he feels in trying to get the Presbytery to adequately deal with it.  From my saved copy let me simply quote part of the two paragraphs related to the new investigating committee that will be examining his behavior:

Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this… I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn’t do anything wrong. I did some things that some don’t like. I did some things that some don’t think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent.

I have some good hope that the committee appointed to investigate me can conduct a fair and competent investigation…  The PCA has a fine constitution and I have the right and ability to make use of the provisions afforded by it.

The summary by TE White, while maybe not as passionate, is strong, seems to lay out the facts with supporting quotations, and shows a similar level of frustration.

Others are weighing in online with less detailed posts about the meeting and the controversy.  This includes TE Lane Keister on Green Baggins, Jordan Harris at Sacramental Piety, and Steven Carr at Beholding the Beauty, all from Siouxlands Presbytery.  From elsewhere R. Scott Clark on the Heidelblog, Kevin Carrol at Reformed and Loving it, David Sarafolean at Joshua Judges Ruth, and Mark Horne.  I would also note that Wes White has continued to post so keep watching his blog Johannes Weslianus for news updates and detailed critiques from his perspective.  Brian Carpenter, in addition to his mea culpa and self-editing, has left a few things up at The Happy TR but is taking a step back from blogging for a while.

This particular case is interesting in a general sense because any Presbyterian blogger should be wrestling with the question of whether their work is contributing to or hindering the purity and peace of the whole body.  The lines are not always clearly drawn and each of us needs to decide where we draw the line and then be accountable to the rest of the body for our decisions and to be open to correction.

It is also worth pointing out that intertwined with the developments in this Presbytery are responses to the recent SJC proposed decision in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery case in the form of a Supplemental Brief by TE Robert S. Rayburn.  I will not go into any detail on this in part because Lane Keister has been analyzing and critiquing it at Green Baggins (as of today he is up to Part 6).  This case will be reviewed by the full SJC next month.

While it is tempting to announce “And now for something completely different…”, I turn to another presbytery’s action that may be different in content, but still represents a step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline.

About two weeks ago the Presbytery of South Florida ruled on a complaint filed by six members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church who had been banned from the church grounds.  According to an article on the Sun Sentinel web site the Presbytery sustained the members’ complaint, ruled that the members had not been granted due process, and ordered the ban lifted.  (For the record, this article seems to be the only source for this news, the newspaper based some of it on “a document” they obtained, and the Presbytery did not comment for the story although a member of the Coral Ridge Session did speak on the record.  I would also note that their terminology is a bit off.  For example, they say “denominational officials” made the decision which is technically correct, since the presbytery is made up of ordained officers of the church, but to a reader not familiar with Presbyterian polity it would probably sound like one or two high-ranking national figures rather than the membership of the next-higher regional governin
g body.)

According to the document the Presbytery decided that the church “acted impulsively, improperly, prematurely, and without warrant.”  The representative of the Session expressed disappointment with the decision but said the session would comply and reopen the case at the March Session meeting.  Possible outcomes could be reconciliation or an ecclesiastical trial.  The representative of the break-away group indicated that the Presbytery decision does not directly impact their new worshiping community.

It should be pointed out that there are traditions and legacies in play here, as I have described before.  It is good to read that Coral Ridge does not consider itself an island unto itself but part of the Presbyterian connectional system.

As I said at the beginning both of these actions are just part of more extensive processes.  There will be more to come, possibly a lot more.

Standing Judicial Commission, Presbyterian Church in America, Decision In The Pacific Northwest Presbytery Case

Leave a reply

With thanks to the “usual suspects” – De Regnis Duobus, Green Baggins, and Tchula Presbyterian Church – we are alerted to the news that yesterday the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their decision in the case of Bordwine, et al. v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.

The brief background on the case is that the 35th General Assembly (2007) approved a report on the Federal Vision Theology stating that it was not in accord with the Westminster Standards (the Standards).  Since then, presbyteries have been examining members who have declared exceptions to the Westminster Standards and this case results from one of these examinations, the exam of TE Peter Leithart by Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW).  While the Presbytery decided that Pastor Leithart’s views were not out of accord with the Standards some of the dissenting members of the Presbytery filed a complaint first with the Presbytery, and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the SJC.  In brief, the SJC agreed with the complainants.

First, it is important to note that this is a “Proposed Decision” which under the SJC Manual 19.5 is not binding on the parties but if a party objects within 14 days they may request a rehearing on the case before the full Commission.  The final decision will be issued in March, 2010.

In their decision, the SJC reviews the history of the case and the work of the “study committee” the Presbytery put together to investigate the differences that TE Leithart voluntarily offered to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery following the GA approval of the report.  The SJC notes:

The PNW Study Committee was charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 General Assembly’s receptions of the Ad Interim Committee’s Report on the theology of the Federal Vision.  In spite of being entitled a “study  Committee,” [sic] what was essentially formed was a committee with an assignment to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.

It is helpful to note at this point that a “BCO 31-2 investigation” is the response of a session or presbytery when there is a report regarding one of its members “affecting their Christian character.”  That section goes on to say that if that investigation “should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved” then a judicial case is in order.  I bring this up here because the fundamental question answered by the SJC is whether the Presbytery failed to properly find a “strong presumption of guilt.”

The SJC decision then goes on to say:

The work product of this Committee, including the Committee Report, the Minority Report, and Leithart’ [sic] Response, constituted an excellent BCO 31-2 investigative report. The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Standards.  This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian.  He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside of the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart’s views place him outside of the Standards as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.

Regarding the specifications of error by the Presbytery, there were three with two upheld and one not sustained.  The one not sustained was that findings and rulings in a previous SJC decision were misapplied. However, the BCO (14-7) says that previous decisions are to be given “due and serious consideration” but are only binding on the parties involved.  Therefore, for another presbytery to not follow a previous decision is not in itself an error.

The two errors sustained had to do with how the Presbytery handled the initial complaint.  In one case they ruled that it was a motion to reconsider and having voted in the minority the complainants were not in a position to bring such a motion.  In the second case the Presbytery  had ruled that without charges actually be filed in the case a complaint was out of order.  To both specifications the SJC reminded everyone that under BCO 43-1 “it is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject.”

The SJC decision then makes extensive, detailed, and specific reference to Leithart’s statements to support the opinion that there is a strong presumption of guilt that he is out of accord with the Standards.  They note that while Leithart appeals to Scripture in support of his views, and that Scripture is the “supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” (WCF 1.10) they also point out that although the Constitution is subordinate and fallible the BCO (29-1) affirms that it is still adopted as “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”  The decision then goes on to say:

By appealing to Scripture in this way to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation.  If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them to be “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture.”

In my mind that summarizes the essence of being Presbyterian – we acknowledge Scripture supreme and our interpretations fallible, but our discernment of Scripture and God’s will in our courts (in the Presbyterian sense) as a collected body is on the whole more sound than our individual interpretations.

Anyway, back to the decision… What next?

It is our opinion that PNW, even though confronted with statement(s) and writing(s) of Leithart that place him out of accord with the fundamentals of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America, chose to place Leithart’ [sic] statements in the kindest of light and engage in critical thinking and reasoned judgment… [long quote from the PNW report not included]

In failing to exercise this critical thinking and reasoned judgment, PNW has failed to guard the church of teachings and writings “which injured the purity and peace of the church,” (BCO 13-9.f) and in doing so has caused much pastoral confusion and harm.

In conclusion the decision states:

In determining what is the appropriate remedy, the SJC remands and sends this case back to PNW with instructions to institute process, based on this finding of a strong presumption of guilt, and appoint a prosecutor, to prepare an Indictment of Leithart and to conduct the case.

A final decision will be issued in Marc
h 2010.

While I am sure there will be a lot of reaction coming out in the next few days as the decision is read and maybe a full hearing is requested, and I will post some of that when appropriate, today I will leave you with the words of TE Jason Stellman, one of the complainants in this case, in his concluding comments on his blog De Regnis Duobus:

Please be in prayer for all who are involved in this matter,regardless of which “side” they are on. When it comes to issues surrounding the so-called Federal Vision, there are those who believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake, and on the other hand there are those who feel that mountains are being made out of molehills and our denomination is being turned into a mere sect. But what no one should forget is that intertwined with all the doctrinal debate are the personal relationships and livelihoods of those involved. All that to say that this is no occasion for congratulatory back-slapping. Just as the Reformed distinguished themselves from the fundamentalists in that they left the mainline churches weeping rather than rejoicing, so we who witness the state of our churches would do well to lament our own lack of unity.

.
There are no real winners here.

[For some more great discussion with TE Stellman about this case that really helps fill in a lot of details and put the human face on it I highly recommend the November 2008 installment of the podcast Ordinary Means.]

UPDATE: Peter Leithart has posted a theological response to some of the SJC’s comments about his views.

Some Brief Updates

Leave a reply

There are a number of stories I have covered recently that now have updates that I have been collecting.  However, with no sign that there will be enough other related information for any to warrant a post of their own in the short term I now present a series of these in one general post.

Church of Scotland/Free Church of Scotland Discussions

In an update to the internal discussion in the Church of Scotland over ordination standards, it was announced by the Free Church of Scotland last week that they have decided to suspend their biannual talks with the CofS.  In the news item they say:

However, the Free Church has said that, in the light of the uncertainty over the Kirk’s position on homosexuality following the induction of an allegedly gay minister earlier this year, which appeared to be sanctioned by their General Assembly, it cannot for the time being continue “as if nothing had happened.”

The announcement goes on to say that the decision was accepted with regret and then quotes the convener of the Free Church committee:

Rev. Iver Martin, Convener of the Free Church Ecumenical Relations Committee, said, “Suspending the talks, whilst regrettable, was the most tangible way of expressing the Free Church’s discomfort with the failure of the Church of Scotland to take a thoroughly Biblical stand on the place of marriage between one man and one woman.” The Free Church continues to value and encourage the close relationship that there is between congregations of both denominations in many areas of Scotland.

Case heard by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission

It has been over a year since I have touched on the Federal Vision discussions in the PCA, and in that time the controversy has been moving along quietly but steadily.  Since the 35th General Assembly adopted the report of a study committee that was critical of this theological perspective the denomination has been dealing with it in the regular presbytery review process.  For the Pacific Northwest Presbytery this began with a theological examination about 13 months ago and the presbytery accepting that examination.  A complaint was filed and this past week the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA heard the complaint.  Jason Stellman over at De Regnis Duobus is one of the complainants in the case and has provided his observations of the proceedings.  He includes this description:

A couple of the eyebrow-raising statements from the respondant include: (1) His insistence that the Westminster Standards do not teach that the covenant of works sets forth a distinct principle by which we receive eternal life from that of the covenant of grace; (2) His encouragement to the SJC that they all read John Frame’s review of Horton’s Christless Christianity so as to learn from Frame how to avoid the dangers of Westminster Seminary California’s sectarianism; and perhaps the most telling of all was (3)seeing firsthand what happens when one flattens out redemptive history so as to take Yahweh’s dealings with Old Testament Israel under the conditional, Mosaic covenant as an unqualified, across-the-board paradigm for understanding how God relates to the church today. When asked by the commission, “In what sense are we saved by baptism?”, the response was given, “Well, in the same sense that God can pardon his people and then damn them.”

The PCA SJC has 42 days to render their decision (unlike the PC(USA) GAPJC which must render their decision before the meeting adjourns).  TE Stellman concludes with this:

And to those of you who love asking, yes, if they find in favor of Leithart [the respondant] and against us, I will submit to that and never bring it up again.

Deaconess Issues In The PCA

The more prominent discussion in the PCA recently has been the status of women serving in ordained office, or what seems to resemble ordained office.  Recently, the discussion was fueled by a video of a commissioning service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, NY.  Well, Bob Mattes asked the senior pastor at Redeemer, TE Tim Keller, about the video and has posted the response at Green Baggins.  In short, Rev. Keller writes:

We do not ordain our deaconesses nor do we ask our congregation to obey and submit to them. The minister in the video is newer on our staff and he accidentally read the deacons’ questions from the BCO and did not use the different questions we commonly use for deaconesses.  Others who go to Redeemer can attest that this is not our practice, and it will not be in the future. The minister in the video apologized when he realized what he had done.

While Mr. Keller has provided this explanation I would note that the BaylyBlog, one of Redeemers strongest critics, has updated the original post to acknowledge the explanation, but they basically say there is still a problem with what Redeemer does.

Responses To A Minister’s Term Not Extended By The Uniting Church In Australia

A couple of months ago I posted some comments on my initial review of the polity in the Uniting Church in Australia and illustrated that with a controversy that had erupted when the Illawarra Presbytery declined to extend the term of the Rev. Gordon Bradbery to his present call at Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall.

Now, before we go getting too Presbyterian about this, let me remind you that this is the Uniting Church and while the Presbyterians were part of the union that formed the church the polity is a bit different.  In that denomination the pastors are called with specified term lengths which may or may not be renewed or extended.  In addition, even though a congregation may vote overwhelmingly to want the call extended by the fixed amount, the presbytery, and in this case the synod as well, have substantial input into the extension.

So in the last two months there has been no change in the presbytery’s decision not to extend Rev. Bradbery’s term, but there has been plenty of activity regarding the decision and trying to get popular support for reversing the decision.  This includes a meeting of presbytery leaders with Rev. Bradbery (what the Illawarra Mercury called “peace talks”) and a letter from the Presbytery, a Facebook page to gather support and communicate to his supporters, an online petition (currently 20 signatures), as well as a recent op-ed piece in the Illawarra Mercury.  Too early to tell if the popular support will sway the presbytery but it is interesting to see the role the Internet is playing in the rather local story.

And finally, not an update but a news brief…

New Official PC(USA) Blog – Beyond the Ordinary

There is a new official blog from the PC(USA) called Beyond the Ordinary that discusses the U.S. Congregational Life Survey.  It is written by staff from the PC(USA) Research Services office and, as you would expect from them, deals with their statistical numbers.  It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Reflections On Corporate And Individual Salvation — It Is Not Either/Or But Both/And

Leave a reply

from Wikimedia Commons
 A couple of weeks ago the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, began a heated debate with these comments in her opening address to the Episcopal Church General Conference:

The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being.

This comment has been taken in many quarters to equate to the statement of Cyprian of Carthage:

Outside the Church there is no salvation

Part of the reason that this was taken negatively was that it seemed to be addressed at particular churches and dioceses that were departing from the Episcopal church and realigning in their own, new ecclesiastical structure.  For more on how this was taken within the Anglican world as an insult or threat you can check out comments from VirtueOnline, Anglican Curmudgeon, and Sydney Anglicans.  In the broader blogosphere there were comments, as much about the theology as the church politics, from Apprising Ministries, Internet Monk, and Bible Belt Blogger.  Maybe most notable were comments from two seminary presidents — Richard Mouw at Fuller and Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist.

The comments got me thinking both about confessional Christianity as well as the ecclesiastical relationship to salvation.  I’ll leave the former to another time and just address the latter now.

Let me state my thesis right at the beginning:  Based on my understanding of Scripture and Reformed thought this is not an either/or proposition but a both/and situation.  To put it in the simplest form — The Church is the bookends around individual salvation.

Part of the expressed concern is a long-standing theological tension that exists between individual salvation and corporate salvation.

On the individual side there is the ancient confession that “Jesus is Lord,” and the more modern tool – the Sinners Prayer.  As Dr. Mohler nicely points out in his piece, the mechanistic use of these formulae can be manipulative and gives a simplistic representation of the meaning and depth of salvation.  There is also concern for “Lone Ranger Christians” and the “Jesus and Me” situation, both of which are labeled heresies by some, where the only thing that matters is if a person has a right relationship with Jesus exclusive of the role other Christians play in that relationship.  All of this presents a simple view of the rich experience of Christianity.

On the other side is the belief that all you need to do to be a Christian is to jump through the hoops to become a member of the church.  The individual relationship with God is not what is important, but rather it is the relationship in the community — fidelity to the teachings of the church and participation in its sacraments.  You are saved by being a member — corporate status precedes salvation.  This view negates the personal call and responsibility that is involved in the Christian life.

Now most theological positions are more complex and I have caricatured the two extremes.  The varying theological positions are generally found in the middle ground.  Dr. Mouw in his article reflects this by saying that individual salvation is important but “that individual salvation is not enough.” (emphasis his)  He also mentions the centrality of the church in salvation.  I suggest that the answer to individual versus corporate lies very close to the center of this spectrum.

To begin, let us turn to the first post-ascension, and in many ways the archetype, conversion experience — the Day of Pentecost.  On that day one of the men in the crowd asks Peter “what should we do?” (Acts 2:37) and Peter responds:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

The center of the conversion story is the recognized need, individual repentance and baptism leading to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

But note the full context in the story — It begins with the believers receiving and being empowered by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4)  When the crowd mistakes their divine empowerment for inebriation (Acts 2:13) Peter preaches a sermon (Acts 2:14-36).  Only then comes the question about what they should do.  And the response includes baptism.

For those of a Reformed bent you probably caught where I am going with this, but for those who are not as familiar with it, the Reformed view of the marks of the church can be expressed like this:

Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matth. 18: 20.)  [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.9]

The repentance and conversion experience are bracketed by the Word preached and the sacraments administered.  The individual is buttressed and supported by the corporate.

And what happens?  “And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47b)

The interplay of the corporate and individual is remarkable.  The core of the experience is individual — you must repent for yourself.  But the initiative belongs to God in the empowering by the Holy Spirit that produced a sermon that with the Spirit’s touch convicted those that heard it such that they were “cut to the heart.” (Acts 2:37a )  The first Great End of The Church: The proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of human kind.  But the story does not end there because with individual repentance comes the sacrament of baptism that produces new believers that are added to “their number,” that is the New Testament Church, daily and share the breaking of the bread.

Empowered by God the Church supplies the preaching of the Gospel that leads to individual repentance which through the sacraments bring those individuals into the Covenant Community that is the Church.

In fact, in John Calvin’s thinking, salvation through election and the Body of Christ found in the Church were inseparable and each presumed the other.

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.7]

I won’t repeat the argument here that I made in my last Calvin post, but the essence is that if salvation is the act of adoption by God into His family then the Church and Salvation are two sides of the same coin.  It reverses Cyprian’s statement so that “Outside salvation there is no Church.”

Now I won’t pretend that either Scripture or the writings of John Calvin are totally clean cut on the issue.  There is the story of Paul and the jailer in Acts 16:25-35 where the jailer, after the earthquake, asks what he must do to be saved.  And the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 where Cornelius has a vision and sends for Peter.  In both cases there is a divine prodding, earthquake and vision, and there is a proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is also a baptism of those present after hearing the Gospel proclaimed.  The nature of the repentance or individual acceptance of the good news is a bit murkier.  It is clear that in both cases the head of the household has an individual conversion experience.  But the result is the baptism of the whole household.  It is left as an exercise for us, the readers, to decide if all members of the household had an individual conversion experience or if the repentance of the head of the household, and maybe some others, was enough.  I won’t pursue that any further except to affirm that at a basic level there was the pattern of divinely assisted proclamation of the gospel, some level of individual repentance, and the inclusion of multiple individuals into the Covenant Community through baptism.

From another perspective, Calvin includes in the Church Invisible, the true church known only to God, individuals who are not part of the visible church body but who have none-the-less not rejected Christ or the Church. (Inst. 4.1.9)  While this might argue against the need for the role of the Church and the possibility of isolated individual salvation, remember that Calvin is viewing this in the context of the Church Invisible.  Community and salvation form an indivisible union.  From a practical standpoint, and from my reading of the Institutes, this represents a particular moment in time and does not necessarily speak of the conversion which came before or the Christian life that is to follow.  And of course, this all ultimately falls in the realm of the Sovereignty of God and His perfect will.

It is probably also necessary to acknowledge that the idea of “individual salvation” takes on a nuance for the Reformed side that is not part of the view of much of the rest of the Church.  This difference is not a major issue for the discussion here where the focus has been on individual salvation in the sense that salvation comes to each of us individually apart from whatever role the wider community plays in the process.  Outside Reformed circles the “individual” nature of salvation also includes the idea that there is an individual choice in accepting salvation based on our human free will.  The Reformed view is that our condition is far enough corrupted by our sinful nature that left to ourselves we can not make the free choice for salvation and God must do that for us.  So while God saves each of us individually, as opposed to a chosen nation of the Old Testament, we can differ over what role an individual can play in that salvation.

So in summary, what scripture gives us as examples of salvation in the New Testament church is the necessity of the corporate component and the individual part, but neither is sufficient by itself.  The church’s ministry of Word and Sacrament are the foundation on which in individual receives salvation — the Word to convict and the Sacraments to affirm.  It is not individual salvation or corporate salvation but individual salvation through the corporate presence.

Action By The Pacific Northwest Presbytery, PCA, Related To Federal Vision Theology

Leave a reply

As long as I am on the topic of doctrine and judicial cases in the PCA, here is the latest on another…

This past Friday, at the regular stated meeting of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Presbytery acted upon a report from a study/examining committee concerning the doctrinal views of one of its members related to Federal Vision Theology.  The controversy over this topic has been relatively quiet since things were settled last March in Louisiana Presbytery regarding the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana.  However, the Pacific Northwest case has been active for over a year, it has just been progressing quietly in the usual Presbyterian “decently and in order” way.  Going forward from here it may gain a higher profile.

At this point there has been enough written about the Federal Vision Theology and controversy that I will not rehearse all of that.  A good starting point for that is the web site www.federal-vision.com, or check out what I have written over the last, almost, two years.  This particular case began in June, 2007, when the 35th General Assembly of the PCA adopted a Study Committee Report on “Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology.” In accord with the report Teaching Elder Peter Leithart immediately sent a letter to his Stated Clerk in Pacific Northwest Presbytery outlining his doctrinal views. He simultaneously published the letter on his blog as well.  In our usual Presbyterian fashion a study committee was established to examine TE Leithart and report back to the Presbytery on how well his views align with the Standards of the PCA.  It is also important to point out that while TE Leithart is a member of the PCA, he serves at Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, which is a member church of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), of which many of the other Federal Vision Theology churches are now members, including Auburn Avenue.

I will not go into details about the action of Pacific Northwest Presbytery since we have the good fortune that T.E. Jason J. Stellman, who gave the report to the Presbytery as the acting chairman of the study committee, has provided a wealth of information on his blog De Regnis Duobus.  To briefly summarize his most detailed post, the committee presented both a majority report and minority report, Mr. Stellman being a signatory on the minority report.

The majority report concludes:

In the committee’s view Dr. Leithart’s views are
compatible with the teaching of our standards though there are certainly some
differences in statement, emphasis, and elaboration. Our brief was to determine
whether he denied or contradicted the teaching of our Standards, not to object
if he wished to say more than they say or even, in confessing the same truth,
to improve upon their form of words. That his positive constructions may seem
in some respects difficult to reconcile with the language of our standards is
not itself evidence that he denies their teaching. The dialectical character of
biblical teaching famously produces tensions that remain difficult, if not
impossible to resolve. We further take note of the several assertions of
loyalty to the teaching of the Standards that are scattered among Dr.
Leithart’s published works. He explicitly confesses his agreement with the
Standards’ doctrine of decretal election, forensic justification, and so on.

So, TE Leithart has some differences in doctrine, but not enough to be at odds with the Standards.

It is interesting to note that the minority report is about the same length as the majority report, but the total length was doubled, 27 pages versus 13, by analyses included as Appendices.  The minority report saw things differently:

We recommend
the following:

1. That Presbytery find TE Peter
Leithart’s views, as summarized in the Minority Report, to be out of accord
with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards.

2. That Presbytery direct TE Peter
Leithart to reconsider his views, as summarized in the Minority Report, and to
report the results of this reconsideration to the next meeting of Presbytery,
with the understanding that if his views continue to be out of accord with the
fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards,
Presbytery will proceed to depose him from its ministry without censure.

The Presbytery adopted the majority report.  From Mr. Stellman’s account a major argument was “theological innovation:”

The real concern on the part of the presbyters who spoke in favor of
Leithart was that we not become overly narrow and that we do not
discourage bold, pioneering theology.

Since the detailed post came out Mr. Stellman has responded to a public allegation that this is part of a “witch hunt” to rid the PCA of the Federal Vision Theology.

What will happen with this case?  The next step, according to Mr. Stellman, is to formally complain
against the Presbytery and they expect the complaint to be dismissed at the next
regular meeting in January.  If dismissed the next step will be an
appeal to the General Assembly level where this case could look a lot
like the Louisiana Presbytery one.

Decision in the PCA SJC Louisiana Presbytery Case

1 Reply

On March 6 trial was held by the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America in the case of Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of TE Steven Wilkins.  In a moment the results of that trial…

But to cover the bases I want to get caught up on the prosecutor situation since my last post on February 11.  As I mentioned at the end of that post, RE Sam Duncan had announced his intention to resign as the prosecutor in the case.  Upon his resignation TE Dewey Roberts was named as the prosecutor.  Our thanks to Rev. Lane Keister at Green Baggins for posting RE Duncan’s resignation letter.

Well, after trial on Thursday and deliberations that evening, the SJC returned their verdict on Friday morning.  In count 1, a technical count about classifying declared departures that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded “not guilty” to, the charge was dismissed.  In count 2, that the presbytery did not conduct the examination of TE Wilkins to properly find a “presumption of guilt,” to which the presbytery pleaded “guilty,” the SJC “admonished” the presbytery, the lowest form of correction.

Now, I am not going to try to reinvent the wheel here because there is a good summary post at Reformed Musings about the proceedings, and if you want the details from a ruling elder close to the situation in Louisiana Presbytery you must check out HaigLaw’s post about the decision.

Looking forward it is tempting to say that the PCA has sent a message that Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with their doctrinal standards and that remaining leaders and churches who hold to the Federal Vision will flee or quickly be chased away to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  But it is important to point out that this whole case was more about examinations regarding the theology than about the theology itself.  And there is not one unified Federal Vision Theology but several varying approaches leaving some aspects doctrinally untested.  So the controversy may continue until a clear declaration regrading doctrinal standards is made by the SJC.  Or, the PCA might take this as a good point to take a break and get distracted by its next controversy.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of “legs” this topic has because it has clearly “got the attention,” “struck a nerve,” “rattled the cages,” (fill in your favorite cliché here) of the various proponents and opponents to this theological controversy.  And, with out going into details here, note that it deals with the nature of the covenant community, a topic at the core of Reformed theology.  But one post on Green Baggins currently has 707 comments to it and there is a thread on Puritan Board that has developed quite a discussion as well (4239 posts to date). So at least at the moment the topic has momentum in the blogosphere.  We will see what happens next and what happens to the momentum.

Recent News from Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA SJC Trial

6 Replies

Over the weekend there was another meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we are once again indebted to HaigLaw for his first hand information about the meeting.  (And as an aside, HaigLaw has a nice new look to his blog page.)

The quick rundown of the most recent events that got us here:  At a January 19 meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery they decided to plead guilt to one charge and not guilty to the second charge they faced in church court and turn the trial of Federal Vision (FV) advocate TE Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Church over to the higher church court but within days the church and the minister decided to leave the denomination for an FV friendly denomination and everyone figured that would be the end of that.  But wait, it can’t end that easily…

The February 9 special meeting was called because the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has decided to go to trial on March 6 in Atlanta on the one count that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded not guilty to.  HaigLaw gives a blow-by-blow description of the meeting but a few interesting points add to the convoluted nature of this specific proceeding.

The first is that while attendance appears small from the report of the voting (5-5, 6-5, 7-7), the numbers suggest good turnout since the Louisiana Presbytery web site lists seven churches in the presbytery.  (Yes Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been removed from the list).  Figure there should be 14, or slightly more, total votes since it would be one Teaching elder and one Ruling elder from each church.

But the second point, as you can gather from my numbers above, is that the votes show the Presbytery is split on this.  A motion to change their plea to guilty on the second charge failed on a 5-5 tie.  The written content of their defense passed by a 6-5 vote.

The next, but related, item of business dealt with the request of Rev. Duane Garner to continue as a member of Louisiana Presbytery laboring outside its bounds.  Rev. Garner is an associate pastor at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church but would prefer to stay with the PCA rather than departing to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) with his church and his senior pastor Rev. Steve Wilkins.  Permission to labor outside the bounds was denied on a 7-7 tie and a request that TE Garner show his exact adherence to the PCA constitutional standards at the next Presbytery meeting passed on a 6-5 vote.  The question arises out of the fact that Rev. Garner is second author on a Federal Vision book with his boss, TE Steve Wilkins, so there is a paper trail.

Finally, I will conclude with the fact that the prosecutor for the case, Ruling Elder Sam Duncan, was a guest at the meeting.  HaigLaw relates that Mr. Duncan recommended to the SJC that the remaining charge be dropped since with Rev. Wilkins’ departure it was moot, but the SJC voted to continue to trial.  Mr. Duncan declined to give his opinion of what the possible punishment would be if the Presbytery was found guilty.  And Mr. Duncan also said that he would be resigning as prosecutor for the case. 

There was one more comment by RE Duncan that was outside the scope of HaigLaw’s post but came out in the comments and in Jeff Meyers’ blog Corrigenda Denuo.  Jeff Meyers relays information from Mr. Garner that Mr. Duncan said that “No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC.”  This has lit up the blogosphere including the comments on both HaigLaw and Corrigenda Denuo.  Well, TE Lane Keister was a member of Sam Duncan’s prosecuting team and took the time to call him up, find out about the context, and post it on his Green Baggins blog.  The comment boils down to the fact that details in Federal Vision cases are so wide spread now that you could not find a “jury” that had not been influenced by “pre-trial publicity.”  It is not that the SJC members are inherently biased against the Presbytery.  This has unleashed a significant discussion and the comments on the Green Baggins blog post are up to sixty at the moment.  If you are interested, check it out.

Federal Vision Controversy News — Report that Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Has Voted to Leave the PCA

2 Replies

Rev. Doug Wilson, a prominent proponent of the Federal Vision Theology, in his blog “ Blog and Mablog,” reports today that the congregation of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana, yesterday voted unanimously to leave the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and affiliate with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  There is no confirmation of this on the Auburn Avenue web site.  This comes in the wake of Louisiana Presbytery being indicted and choosing to plead guilty over their improper examination of Auburn Avenue’s Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins.  They also voted to turn over the trial of TE Wilkins to the denomination’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).  (For more on this see my post yesterday on this topic.)

While we are waiting for confirmation and more details, there has been reaction, particularly about whether TE Wilkins would be released to CREC and if this would stop a trial before the SJC.  David Booth, in a post on his blog post tenebras lux, raises these questions and argues in favor of the trial saying: “Trials are painful, but I believe that it would be healthier for the PCA to actually have held a trial of Pastor Wilkins in an actual church court rather than on the Internet and through administrative
maneuvering.”  And the blog Green Baggins has confirmed an e-mail from Doug Wilson with this information as well as the announcement by the blog’s owner, the Rev. Lane Keister, of his resignation from the PCA prosecuting team since his services there will no longer be needed due to these developments.  Stay tuned to Green Baggins both for its spirited discussion of this topic and, I am hopeful, that Rev. Keister will provide some insight into the process and proceedings he helped with.

UPDATE January 29, 2008: As of today the front page of the web site of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been updated to reflect, both in the body and in the headlines side bar, the move from the PCA to the CREC.

UPDATE January 31, 2008:  Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has now posted a letter from TE Steve Wilkins explaining the rationale for leaving the PCA.

Louisiana Presbytery Enters Mixed Plea in SJC Case

Leave a reply

The Louisiana Presbytery decided, after four hours of debate, to enter a mixed plea to the indictment by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission according to HaigLaw in his blog entry of January 19.  This one seems to have really been under the radar and my thanks to JHG for bringing it to our attention in an entry on his blog In Light of the Gospel.

Specifically, the presbytery voted to plead “not guilty” to the charge that they failed to properly handle the differences that Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins declared with the “Confessional Standards.”  On the other hand, the presbytery voted to plead “guilty” to the charge that the failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in TE Wilkins’ views being out of conformity and with that vote are forwarding the case of TE Wilkins to the SJC.

It is important to note that count 1 was a technical charge (see my previous post on the subject for more details) so pleading not guilty to that one seems to be more about the precise wording than the intent.

HaigLaw reports that several proposals were floated during the meeting but other approaches, including having the LA Presbytery conduct the trial of TE Wilkins and a vote of confidence for TE Wilkins, could not garner a majority.

I would quote HaigLaw about the meeting: “…I was impressed with the charity with which these
elders debated their divergent views on these issues, and the courtesy and fairness extended to Pastor Wilkins. “

Needless to say, there is also analysis over on Green Bagginses.  I will let that (mostly) speak for itself, but read through the comments if you care about this stuff because HaigLaw contributes to the discussion comments and provides more detail than he did in his original post.  Thanks HaigLaw, or “Grandpa David,” for all of this info. I just added you to my regular reading list.

From that discussion I would state here one point made by HaigLaw, that it was conveyed to them that the SJC would likely drop charge #1 if there were a guilty plea on charge #2.  Also, the discussion touched on the point that TE Wilkins might not be able to avoid trial by resigning from the PCA since the resignation must be accepted.  I have been involved in two cases in the PC(USA) were the pastor resigned, or in polity language “renounced jurisdiction,” to immediately avoid trial.