Favorite Quotes: Herodotus — Mutual Defenestration Means Self Annihilation
The Athenians waived their claim in the interest of national survival, knowing that a quarrel about the command would certainly mean the destruction of Greece. They were, indeed, perfectly right; for the evil of internal strife is worse than united war in the same proportion as war itself is worse than peace. It was their realization of the danger attendant upon lack of unity which made them waive their claim, and they continued to do so as long as Greece desperately needed their help. (Herodotus, Histories 8.2)
Following the deaths of the Spartan King Leonidas and “his brave three hundred” at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., the various Greek city-states decided they needed to pull together. Xerxes’ gargantuan army and navy were poised to overwhelm Greece, indeed the whole of Europe. At the eleventh hour the Greeks realized they needed each other.
Traditionally, Greece looked to Sparta for leadership on land and to Athens for leadership on the sea. But in this case there were misgivings about giving Athens command of the city-states’ combined fleets (despite Athens’ contributing the largest number of ships). Herodotus isn’t clear whether the reluctance was due to lack of confidence in or envy against Athens, or due simply to a recognition of Sparta’s moral capital.
The point is: Athens “got it,” to quip Herodotus: civil war in the face of an external threat is suicide.
Or, in Facebook-speak: mutual defenestration means self annihilation. When the enemy is at the gate, that’s not the time to be throwing each other out the window.
Rather than lobby for their traditional right to command, Athens accepted Spartan command of the navy as well as of the army. The result: two brilliant victories — one by Greece’s combined navies (at Salamis) and one by Greece’s combined armies (at Plataea) — and one huge and final retreat by Xerxes. The result: daughters of neither Athens nor Sparta were exported to harems in Persepolis.
There are times that call for a sense of measure and proportion — times when you need not to be doing a smack down on each other. Fifth century B.C. Greece it figured out. Will we?
On one front, we face militant Islamists who have declared a reverse Crusade on us, demanding we either grovel before a disincarnate cosmic monad, or die.
On another, Mormons, arguably the fastest growing religion on the planet, knock on our doors with their terminal niceness (with, as Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven chillingly recounts, notable exceptions) and their uber-Disney promise that not only can you wish upon a star but you can get your own star where you’ll be a god or goddess.
Then there are the angry atheists who grouch about the immorality and intellectual suicide of faith. And just wait until this Christmas season’s (how deliciously ironic) release of the movie based on Philip Pullman’s vision of anti-Narnia: The Golden Compass.
Meanwhile, mainline Western churches languor under the sway of pre-pagan eros and post-Christian heterodoxy, embodying in a way that couldn’t be more precise Jude’s prescient warning about “ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).
Meanwhile evangelicals headbutt each other … and do everything we can to our nearest neighbors to let them know we’re more against them than against what should be our common enemies.
Sisters raise voices of orthodoxy in pulpits long abandoned by theologically conservative men — and we have the temerity to tell them they have no business battling battles we’ve walked away from.
A minority of voices ask whether we in the Presbyterian Church of America (my denomination) ought to look more closely at whether our preaching adequately reflects the corporate nature of the apostle Paul’s vision — they suggest even that our view of the unity of the covenant implies that perhaps it’s worth considering whether our children belong with us at the Table (as Hebrew children did at Passover).
The answer: a study paper (passed — I note with chagrin — overwhelmingly) not on the biblical merits of the positions considered, but on whether they pass confessional standards (as interpreted by a tendentiously and carelessly written paper). When the point of the positions was never whether the standards were wrong, but whether more needed to be said than the standards say.
Suggest that we might do a better job representing Paul’s view that the Body and Bride are elect as a whole, and get accused of denying that Paul teaches individual election.
Suggest that more could be said about the way Jew and Gentile oneness in the gospel demonstrates the righteousness of God than the Westminster Standards say, and get accused of denying justification by faith.
Battle as relentlessly and courageously as the Church of England’s N.T. Wright does to champion the view that Paul’s theology is animated by a comprehensive and integrated story of promise and fulfillment — scoring points against both the postmodern deconstruction of the biblical meta-narrative and the dispensational fracturing of the singular story of “the Israel of God” into dichotomous stories of “Israel” versus the “church” — and what do you get from your potential allies in the conservative reformed world? How about getting dismissed as importing an alien biblical theology into the established categories of systematic theology, as being vague about the atonement, and as compromising biblical authority? While we build careers at our potential friends’ expense, the hostile armies and navies amass. Nice work.
Write courageously, as does Duke University’s Richard Hays, into a most liberal Methodist environment about Paul’s seeing in homosexuality the red light on the cultural dashboard, champion Paul’s theological method as building upon Old Testament themes and texts and Jesus’ ministry as being the embodiment of Israel’s story, and get accused of Nestorianism because you believe that complementary to Paul’s teaching that we are to believe “into Jesus” we are also supposed to have a faith that was like that of the incarnate Jesus? Puhleeze!
As the Scoutmaster once said to his troop of Boy Scouts who couldn’t do anything but bicker: “Boys, it’s time to start whizzing out of the campsite instead of into it.” (Apologies to my friend Wes Sumrall for the euphemism.)
Is it possible that Sparta and Athens understood better what was at stake in their time than we do in ours? Can we stop devouring our own? Can we make common cause against common enemies instead of against one another?
We’re better than this. We’re wiser than this. And the gospel deserves better than this, because more is at stake than when the beneficiaries of the sacrifice of King Leonidas and “his brave three hundred” took stock of the price that had been paid for them.
Beautifully stated, bold words, brother. Entirely appropriate. May God protect you from the cannibals among us.
Comment by John Frame — September 4, 2007 @ 7:10 am
Greetings, dear brother.
Thank you, once again, and eternally, for helping to disciple me in the faith back in the day when I was a new convert at Duke and you were working on your PhD there. Thank you, once again, and eternally, for helping to disciple me in the faith when I showed up at RTS during its start up days. Thank you, once again, and eternally, for preaching the gospel to me at my ordination service (in York Chapel on Duke’s campus) 13 years ago this month. And thank you for your friendship manifest in countless other ways.
I do want to be able to engage with you about these things, because I think you are wrong in some ways and in need of correction (it was not easy for me to type that, but there it is!), but I am not sure how to go about it. How should I go about talking with you about these things without it being taken for head-butting or cannibalism?
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Jeff Hutchinson
Senior Pastor, Trinity PCA
Asheville, NC
Comment by Jeff Hutchinson — September 4, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Jeff,
Thanks for chiming in, brother. There’s head-butting and there’s contending for things that are important. I’m grateful for any engagement you may want to pursue. My concern is the lack of proportion on the ascendancy in our community, and what I can only take to be a deliberate misreading of brothers when their qualifications are dismissed and they are taken at the worst possible implications of what they could mean.
Only a fool is closed to correction … it does take iron to sharpen iron. So engage away … you’re welcome to post here, or if you’d prefer to e-mail, you’re welcome to do that too. Thanks. Reggie
Comment by Administrator — September 4, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Prof. Kidd,
Thank you so much for this. You’ve expressed my own sentiments and struggles as a student during these times. This is needed advice, as well as a great comfort to know that there are others who discern our situation.
Comment by Steven W — September 4, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Dr. Kidd,
Beautifully put, and I am thanking God this morning for your challenging and (I hope) helpful words to us all.
DP Cassidy
“There is a world of difference between contending and contentiousness.”
D Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Comment by David Cassidy — September 4, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Dr. Kidd,
Thank you so very much for these timely words. And thanks for all of your faithful labors for God’s kingdom, including teaching me about the epistles of Paul. And thanks so very much for your patience with young ministry students like me who had even less of a godly sense of proportion then than they do now.
Many blessings, Ken
Comment by Ken Christian — September 4, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Thank you, Reggie. I don’t think we’ve ever met, but I’m a regular reader of your blog. And seeing our brother John’s comment above, I want to commend you for your courage. That is what keeping our 6th ordination vow looks like in today’s church.
Comment by Craig Higgins — September 4, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Dr. Kidd,
Well said. I only hope we can realize where we (the Reformed) are in the full perspective of things. The enemies of The Faith will appreciate the weakness our division brings as they devour up (and have devoured up) once Christian lands.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
Christ Church, Santa Clarita, CA
Comment by Garrett Craw — September 4, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Reggie, You just put into words what I am going through right now… or at least how I am interpreting what I am going through. Thank you for getting it.
Comment by Rick Gilmartin — September 4, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
[…] I asked him why he never wrote anything on the subject that might have swayed pastors to vote the other way, and the answer was that he just didn’t have the time. It looks like he found the time recently, and his thoughts are right on the money: As the Scoutmaster once said to his troop of Boy Scouts who couldn’t do anything but bicker: “Boys, it’s time to start whizzing out of the campsite instead of into it.” (Apologies to my friend Wes Sumrall for the euphemism.) […]
Pingback by How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace » Mutual Defenestration Means Self Annihilation — September 4, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Wonderfully put.
Comment by RickCapezza — September 4, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
[…] Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 in Machen Hall Still Speaks, Conversations n Service, Hermeneutic of the lacunae Wow, Reggie Kidd just picked a fight with the current state of polemic in the Reformed ethos! I’m hoping everybody chim’s into his post CLICK HERE! […]
Pingback by “THIS IS SPARTA!!!”: Reggie Kidd on the real enemies of the gospel! « Sets ‘n’ Service — September 4, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Leonidas you have my sword as weak as it may be.
Dr. Kidd I’m an MDiv alumni of WTS west (and the organizer of the “Emerging Churches Forum” last Fall), just wanted to say thank you for this post and the boldness you displayed in putting it up here. I’m linking all my readers to it. May your courage be honored by others stepping forward with a similar message. Shouldn’t the gospel call us to such boldness in times like these? Thank you.
Tony Stiff
Comment by Tony Stiff — September 4, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Reggie:
Thank you for speaking out with such courage, passion and, above all, sanity.
Doug Green
Professor of Old Testament
Westminster Theological Seminary
Comment by Doug Green — September 4, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Thanks, Reggie. I’ll try to put my thoughts together and write you an email.
Jeff H.
Comment by Jeff Hutchinson — September 4, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
[…] 4, 2007 “THIS IS SPARTA!!!”: Reggie Kidd on the real enemies of the gospel! Posted by setsnservice under Evangelicaldom , Gender issues , Missional Living , Hermeneutics ,Confessional Reggie Kidd, an NT prof down at RTS Orlando just dropped a boom of a post today. […]
Pingback by “THIS IS SPARTA!!!”: Reggie Kidd on the real enemies of the gospel! « ‘Conn’-versation — September 4, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Bless you, Reggie. May God drive this challenge home to all of our hearts.
Steve Tayor
Westminster Theological Seminary
Comment by Steve Taylor — September 4, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Thank you, Prof. Kidd! I think there’s a lot of people out there that feel the same way but are afraid to say so given the climate of suspicion that has been cultivated in our circles lately.
Comment by Jeff Meyers — September 4, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Reggie,
As you know, I’m no big fan of either the so-called New Perspective on Paul or Federal Vision theology. Yet, I have been appalled for some time by the treatment of these brothers who are trying to wrestle with some big questions in Scripture.
My distaste of their treatment culminated with this year’s GA (nicely alluded to in your blog). I told my session afterwards that I wondered if there was any point in attending GA any longer. For at least the last few GA’s, regardless of the “big issue” for the year, it seems that we’ve all made up our minds long before we arrive at the assembly. The caucuses have already formed, and there is little room for real, meaningful discussion. Whatever happened to seeking the mind of Christ together? Why pay for the airfare, hotel and food expenses to just observe what is already a decided issue?
You summarized well the trend in this last GA. What was perhaps most distressing was that this overwhelming vote took place quite blithely, and we could then all return to getting our coffee and snacks and browse the booktable, oblivious to the harm we had just inflicted on our system of governance, not to say the least to many fellow brothers in Christ.
You’ve always got us thinking, Reggie. Thanks for that.
Still learning,
John Canales
Comment by John Canales — September 4, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
“the gospel deserves better than this”-I could agree more, our denomination deserved better too. It was hopeful and proud during the early speeches on the floor and terrible ashamed by the attitude, rhetoric, and responses that came later.
Comment by ewan — September 4, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
It is quite refreshing to see a Reformed seminary professor sticking his neck out. And kudos to Professors Frame and Green for chiming in.
Someone said recently in an online forum that RTS Orlando seems to be the most impressive Reformed seminary these days. Your post, along with the first comment, was confirmation that he was probably onto something.
I hope the Lord blesses your boldness and makes it contagious among others of influence who are safely staying “in the rear with the gear” (as we used to say in the Army).
Comment by Jeremy Sexton — September 4, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Dr. Kidd,
You’re my hero (next to Jesus of course)!
Comment by Rev. Matthew Paul Buccheri — September 4, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post Dr. Kidd. I’m freshly encouraged about the PCA today.
Grace & Peace,
Comment by Mark Robinson — September 4, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Reggie, thank you for this “parable” which speaks so eloquently to our sin and issues such an effective call to repentance. You got me on a couple of matters I was blind to, and I repent. And you reinforced my resolve to stand on other matters.
Shalom,
Dan Dillard
Comment by Dan Dillard — September 4, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Prof. Kidd,
I too want to thank you for putting up with Ken’s lack of proportion during seminary, man I am glad there weren’t too many of his kind around (you too Rick)!
Really, thanks for the word of exhortation as well as the wise advice in the follow up to Jeff.
Blessings,
Jesse Pirschel
Providence OPC
Temecula, CA
Comment by Jesse Pirschel — September 4, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
One more thing,
It was your making us read far and wide outside of our own “tradition” that
1. Made me know I was Reformed
2. Helped me see the value of the broader church
3. See that there was plenty we didnt have the corner of the market on.
Just last week we had a young Orthodox man worship at our church and because of several books you had us read I was able to engage him in a manner that was informed as opposed to reactionary.
Blessings,
Jesse
Comment by Jesse Pirschel — September 4, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
This is the first time I have ever responded to a blog! But I cannot pass by the opportunity to thank you and thank God for your clarity and courage. This is much, much needed, and I pray that others in similar positions of influence will follow your lead.
Comment by Stewart Jordan — September 4, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Thank you.
Comment by Josh — September 4, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
This is very good; you have guts. I pray that future dialog over this post does further not illustrate your point.
Justin D.
Comment by Justin D — September 4, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Thank you for this; you have real guts. I pray that your point here isn’t illustrated by further dialog over your post.
Justin D.
Comment by Justin D — September 4, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Reggie,
Even if you are sauteed to perfection and greedily consumed by Machen’s Warrior Cannibals, your words are encouraging to those of us who imagine better days. Thank you.
Comment by Matt Brown — September 4, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Dear Reggie,
It’s been a long time since we were at Duke together and a longer time since I first met you at WTS East. I remember your preaching at Jeff’s ordination and the winsome, but clear way you upheld the Bible’s teaching against women’s ordination in public discussions with male and female students at Duke Divinity School. I respected the coolness and carefulness with which you conducted yourself there. You may not know it, but your demeanor made me think about how to carry myself as a Reformed scholar. I appreciated that.
I must confess, however, that I did not find that same winsomeness in this post, nor does it have the kind of level-headed calmness which I remember you possessing in a high degree.
I was especially struck by the sharp tone and terms used to ridicule the PCA GA’s study committee and the GA itself. I would have assumed that you would have shown more respect to the distinguished men on the committee and towards the General Assembly itself. Perhaps the internet provides an irresistible temptation to all of us to vent.
Given your courageous stand at Duke for Bible doctrine, I am uncertain what to make of your blanket criticism of brothers who think that some of the new doctrinal formulations are dangerous. Your post left me wondering if brothers who are not persuaded of new formulations have a right to oppose them publicly.
Church history teaches us that not every new formulation is good and that there are new formulations which were originally proposed as improvements, but which actually led to the loss of the Gospel. I am not suggesting that all new formulations are bad. That would be silly. But don’t you think that new formulations ought to be subject to careful analysis and criticism to see if they do pose a threat to the foundations of our faith?
Professor Frame, who liked your post, spoke out against the ‘Openness of God’ proponents in a book. Was he pissing on the brethren? Should he have aimed at someone else?
I guess what I am asking is, what standard would you offer to indicate when we are pissing in the wrong direction?
Hope you are well,
Jim O’Brien
Comment by JIm O'Brien — September 4, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Thank you indeed, Dr. Kidd.
Comment by Barb Harvey — September 4, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Brilliantly written. Thank you for writing this.
Comment by art — September 4, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Thank you, Dr. Kidd. I could spill ten thousand words to elaborate, but…thank you.
Joel Hunter (RE)
Tates Creek Pres
Lexington, KY
Comment by joel hunter — September 5, 2007 @ 12:40 am
I liked the good ole days when your blog was a nice little secret and I got to feel cool when I recommended it to people. Now, you’ve gone and done something like this and ruined all my fun. So, since you’ve said what so many of us think, and said it so well, your blog will be pulling onto the internet superhighway. So, I’m off to find another erudite but charitable blogger that few people know about so that I can recommend it and feel cool again.
Comment by brian prentiss — September 5, 2007 @ 12:49 am
[…] It has been said. Suggest that all parties ought to be a part of this conversation, and receive a fluffy, but smugly cute repartee about the folly of inviting the accused to join the jury — have the derisiveness compounded by a disingenuous faux-rebuke of the “righteous applause” with which the vacuous remark is sycophantically met. […]
Pingback by The Boar’s Head Tavern » He Rides Out and Meets Them — September 5, 2007 @ 12:51 am
My dear brother,
My I echo those voices above in commending your gracious and yet prophetic assessment of the current state of affairs in the Reformed world, a world — though not necessarily a theology — on which many of us are giving up hope.
God bless you.
P. Andrew Sandlin
Comment by P. Andrew Sandlin — September 5, 2007 @ 3:18 am
Dr. Kidd,
There are times I cringe when I read the musings of my brothers in Christ, and times that I smile and my hope grows. You made me smile! Being a Baptist with a deep reformed soteriology I find myself in many campfire settings myself and quite frankly I end out playing the part of the urinal. My guess is you might too brother, but keep on calling the Church to unity, for if we have not that, the World won’t believe our message (John 17). You writing combined pathos and rationality in a way that honors the King, Thanks,
Bill Boulet
Senior Pastor
Heritage Baptist Church
Lakeland, FL
Comment by Bill Boulet — September 5, 2007 @ 7:05 am
This is just a delight to read. May you circulate it far and wide, and may God bless you abundantly for saying it.
Comment by David L. Bahnsen — September 5, 2007 @ 8:11 am
I appreciate this post too, and am glad for it. Some of the specifics are obscure to me, like where Hays was accused of Nestorianism.
And also this:
“we have the temerity to tell them they are more wrong for pursuing those pulpits than we are for giving up on their denominations.”
Um, we are?
That requires me to know 1) that we’re “giving up” on their denominations 2) that we’re wrong for doing so.
I suppose in one sense, if we’ve given up on their denominations, it means their pursuit of pulpits isn’t wrong at all. If you’ve lost the mark of discipline, and aren’t a true church, being an orthodox female lecturer and food blesser could be a plus.
Maybe you could clarify the contours of this more.
Comment by pduggie — September 5, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Reggie,
It sounds like you got a lot of yourt chest–for yourself and many of us. Thank you for just doing what Christians are supposed to do: speak truth without fear of man. As you rightly note, there are so many, many issue into which the church could be speaking (if I might add, e.g., materialism, the “alternate eschatology” of modernism NTW talks about; what we teach young women about body image, etc., etc., etc.). All of these and more are dehumanizing and the intellectual fire power of our tradition could be put to good use by fighting the “powers and principlaities” that rejoice in infighting. So, along with others who have chimed in, thanks for your comments. May they fall on ready ears, for, in these things, as in ohters, the Gospel is very much at stake.
Comment by Pete Enns — September 5, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I disagree, Jim. When I’m being swept away by a lynch mob, I sort of appreciate anyone who will raise his or her voice against the mob, even if they don’t sound winsome.
Comment by Rev. Mark Horne — September 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
BTW, my comments might be taken as referring to a far broader scope than I intended.
I’m referring to the apparent atmosphere of the last GA where it was acceptable to categorize brothers in good standing (and in good standing still) in the PCA as a snake pointing out forbidden fruit. I spent a good day and a half with that graphic (the cover of a DVD being given away from a booth at the Assembly) inserted in my name tag and hung around my neck. I never saw anyone object to that display at the booth as an attack on the Brethren. Everyone at the Assembly seemed to think it was a perfectly ethical thing to allow. So I wasn’t surprised by the rhetoric on the floor or the vote results. Once you are called a snake (and the point is illustrated in a sickening shade of green), there is not much left to fear.
All that is to say, I doubt everyone involved on “the other side” of this is necessarily a “lynch mob” and even some leadership seemed much more careful and just than that piece of propaganda that I decided to own in place of my name that week. I wouldn’t want to be understood as referring to them. But I think “lynch mob” does categorize the atmosphere at the GA and its allowance of things that we all know are just wrong.
Comment by Rev. Mark Horne — September 5, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Nevermind, I see your answer to the “woman question” in the Hawthorne pots earlier.
“And, finally, there are any number of women who have come to a testosterone-rich RTS/Orlando for training in ministry. Often from left-of-whoopee denominations, these sisters have convictions that have led them — often in defiance of church officials — to come to us for training that is theologically orthodox. They do so just so they can stand in pulpits that otherwise would be sub-orthodox. Their courage shames me because, unlike them, I’m in a theologically “safe” denomination — gee whiz, the most courageous thing I’ve done in years is force my eyes to accept contact lenses. But these sisters’ bravery bespeaks the promise that Jesus is not finished with his new creation.”
Is better sounding than “we’re more wrong than they are”
Comment by pduggie — September 5, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
It looks like people are finally listening to you and well they should. “Speak what we feel not what we’re supposed to say.” I think that’s Shakespaere. Regardless, it’s the truth, often what we need to hear but not necessarily what we want to hear. Keep speaking light into darkness. Man, I miss you!
Comment by Linc Ashby — September 5, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
It hath pleased Jesus, God of the Universe, for the 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America to receive favorably the Report of Ad Interim Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology. Give Praise, adopted siblings of Jesus, for He has done Good things! Now, having passed the aforementioned Report, so have the ministers and laypersons of the PCA done good things.
Comment by james raisch — September 5, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
i am just a redneck from South Georgia, and I do hate being around someone who finds only depravity and not dignity. Your comments are right on. It is interesting that no-one is willing to dispute anything that you say here. I promise you I did not abandon the denominations that are being led by women. But yo know that the curse fruits itself out in men being passive and women pursuing dominance. Here in your article you rightly rebuke the men for being passive but then praise the women for ‘leading”.
Comment by Jim Luke — September 5, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Reggie,
It is nice to have company like you in this type of gospel-centered appeal. I assure you that many will be helped by your courageous comments while others will mark you with a label for the purpose of libelous speech and actions. Some in the PCA will not easily tolerate this expression of concern and you will likely prove how right you are in the process.
I confess that it does feel quite encouraging to read someone saying the things I have believed for almost ten years now. I am intrigued by your comment about the mainline since I chose to transfer my ordination into the Reformed Church in America after being outside such a theological context for half a century. Are there problems in the RCA? You bet. But they are pretty clear to those of us who are orthodox. In the PCA I fear that the majority of people do not see the problems at all, blissfully seeing the number of new churches and young pastors growing month by month. But the problems you have underscored are there regardless. Anyone who has tried to have a discussion about most everything that you wrote about has discovered this first-hand.
God bless you my friend. I love your spirit and your desire for the Church to be one. You are engaging the real issues that must be engaged if we are to see wide-scale renewal in our time. You are a model teacher and a servant of the Lord of the Church. I am praying for you and all who read these precious and insightful comments.
Comment by John H. Armstrong — September 5, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
the word temerity is an interesting choice. you work for a seminary that is not sanctioned b any denomination and has no more authority above it than any corporation and less so being a 501c3 entity. Students decide to come and pursue a career much like and MBA student would seek a business degree and then look for a call. then you train them to argue. Now you are discusted with what you have been participating in.
I hope you stop with the arm chair quarteerback comments and go plant a church and love some people.
Comment by Jim Luke — September 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Professor Kidd:
Using the political alliance between Sparta and Athens as the point of departure for this essay terrifies me. It is precisely the sort of approach that we pragmatic Americans are prone to take, but it is difficult to see how this squares with Scripture. Was Paul wrong to oppose Peter to his face (Galatians 2)? Didn’t he realize that Peter had so valiantly championed the things of God and the tremendous scope of the “real” threat that the Church faced from those who were outside the household of faith? By all means, let us confess our belief in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with our lives as well as our lips. Yet, this should never cause us to be silent where God has spoken in His word.
David
Comment by David A Booth — September 6, 2007 @ 9:17 am
David Booth (Comment 51):
Paul did not confront Peter based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Peter. You’re absolutely right about this, though: there’s much more at stake here than political alliances. The Athens-Sparta alliance, in fact, only lasted through the campaign against Xerxes. Because it was a matter of mere political expedience, it fell apart, and ended in the Peloponnesian War (ancient Greece’s version of our own Civil War). But that’s a blog for another day.
Comment by Administrator — September 6, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Jim O’Brien (Commment 32):
What standard indicates brothers are whizzing in the wrong direction? When they treat brothers the way they would not wish to be treated themselves — well, that’s the way the Rabbi Hillel put it, in the negative. Jesus put it in the positive: “In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets” (Mt 7:12, NET). If a document were brought against you, Jim, purporting to represent your views but attributing to you the worst possible interpretation of your beliefs, I think you’d be grateful to have someone speak up on your behalf, even if others might consider his tone immoderate. In this case, I think my tone was quite proportionate. Jim, we needed each other during our years at Duke. And in the days to come, we’re going to need the guys we’re defenestrating.
Comment by Administrator — September 6, 2007 @ 10:08 am
David Booth,
I think you raise a valid point, and I always find myself appreciating your contributions to these discussions. They are always fair. No one, to my knowledge, wants to give away half of the gospel in order to just play nice. Dr. Kidd’s post was all about keeping things in perspective.
I would, however, like to suggest that we’ve misused Paul’s rebuking of Peter in Gal. 2 over the years to justify all kinds of “gospel” stands. We always manage to see our current oponents in Peter’s place, whether it be Thomas Aquinas, the Pope, or Richard Baxter.
I think Paul is so angry with Peter in this instance because of the specific context and the immediate ecclesial harm that Peter’s segregation is causing. I don’t think its purely racial or sociological, but I do think ecclesiology is connected to Christology. I think Peter’s mishandling of historical progession is a denial of the person of Christ, and that’s the gospel.
We see Paul behaving quite differently in Acts when he returns to Jerusalem. Acts 21: 20-26-
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
–And what is Paul’s response?
“The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.”
– He says “Ok” to the Jews’, zealous for the law, request and goes to the Temple to perform an act of ceremonial law.
What’s going on here? Is Paul falling into the same mistake as Peter for fear of the Jews? I don’t think he is. I think he’s making a reasonable “compromise” with Jewish Christians. They are the weaker brother, and Paul tells us later that none of their worries really continue. In fact, the Gentile’s restrictions handed out at the Jerusalem council seem analogous to this sort of compromise. The Jews needed a little time to adjust. Paul can even have Timothy circumcised (but not Titus!).
Peter’s problem though was more than a simple fumbling of the ordo salutis. He was forcing Gentiles to become Jews, and thus denying that the world-order (eschatology and ecclesiology) had changed. He was barring people from the one table, and that’s really bad news.
I’m not sure our current situation is a Peter in Galatia scenario. Even if it is, I wouldn’t be entirely confident which side is Peter and which side is Paul.
Comment by Steven W — September 6, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Professor Kidd,
Along with many others I greatly appreciate your words. Thanks for speaking up. I think you have said what MANY have been thinking, but have been afraid to say.
God Bless,
Chris Smith
Comment by Chris — September 6, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Thank you, Dr. Kidd, for this excellent and brave article. May our God use it to promote honesty and charity within the church, and mission without.
Comment by Rev. John P. Lindsay — September 6, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Steven,
Thanks. My only (intended) point was that the high degree of threat faced from outside does not in itself mean we should abandon internal critique.
As you are probably aware, I am not in favor of throwing the men associated with the FV nor N.T. Wright out the window.
Comment by David A Booth — September 6, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
“The kiss burns his heart, but the old man remains firm in his own ideas and unbelief.”
Thank you for your show of affection. May it be to better effect than this, its dark predecessor.
Comment by Daniel Kirk — September 6, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
I am not one to spend a lot of time reading theological blogs, but since I got wind of what was said here (being an RTS-Orlando alum and still living in the area) I felt I should read the blog post and all the comments.
This post was very necessary. Even its tone was necessary. You speak in certain ways and in certain tones in different social circumstances. Alluding to a previous comment on this page, Reggie is going to have a different tone amongst his PCA and Reformed brethren (especially if he thinks people are not being treated properly) than if he’s preaching/teaching at Duke (or any other non-Reformed institution). In some cases there must be winsomness; in others sharp rebuke; in others, both.
We should also notice that nowhere in this post did Reggie endorse NP or FV. He’s addressing how people are responding to proponents or sympathetic listeners (whether they agree or disagree) of these theological issues.
As someone stated recently to me that was helpful: If these two issues had come up 5 years apart, we wouldn’t be lumping them together. #2 - Federal Vision deals more with systematic theology; New Perspectives with biblical theology. I think that’s a reasonable assessment.
For anyone who can find a hard-copy (if it’s not available on-line) of Peter Enns’ article in the Winter 2006 WTS about Reformed scholarship, it is also very helpful.
Comment by Kedric Webster — September 6, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
This from Lane Keister […] September 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm (Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, Heresy) Here is what Dr. Reggie Kidd, and John Frame, Pete Enns, Doug Green, John Armstrong, and a whole bunch of other people think about the PCA’s study committee report and the last GA. (Reggie Kidd wrote the article, and the others commented). A lot of these men I either went to seminary with as colleagues, or had as teachers. It is therefore quite difficult for me to describe what went on in my mind/heart as I read comment after comment in the comment box. But someone needs to answer this post, and I think it will fall to me. Please understand that this post is amazingly painful to me to write. I feel like I am tearing my own heart out. […] Lane Keister
•
To all concerned,
For a different angle of vision than mine, see Lane Keister’s post (referenced in this comment). I don’t agree with his overall take, but he was indeed closer to the inner workings of the process than I. I have a simple suggestion, however, for anyone who wishes to confirm the meticulousness of the committee’s research and the care with which it was written. Go straight to the brothers in the cross hairs. Call them and ask: does the G.A. report accurately reflect your views? (By the way, this is the time of year I wish I were in North Dakota, because it’s hot down here in Florida.)
Reggie
Pingback by Response to Reggie Kidd, part 1 « Green Baggins — September 6, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
The fact that I have to write this speaks volumes, but apparently if you comment on this blog in a positive way it means you agree with all that is written herein.
Well, anyone who knows me (including Reggie and Prof Frame), knows full well that there is plenty in Reggie’s critique I don’t agree with 100%. If you read my comment, I was grateful for the exhortation (particularly his clarification to Jeff about hearing peoples views clearly) and for Reggie’s labor as one of my teachers.
But alas, I live in CA and another blog gets a lot of press out here and it seems if you wrote a comment on here it tells everyone what “team” you are on. I am fighting no battles here, just asking folks to read my words and not “into” them. But then again, I know reading peoples actual words is getting harder and harder these days (and that is actually the part of Reggie’s post and response to Jeff I was addressing, go figure!).
Blessings,
Jesse Pirschel
Temecula, CA
Comment by Jesse Pirschel — September 6, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Yes, the team mentality is part of the problem.
Comment by Steven W — September 6, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” - A Cannibal.
Comment by Sean Gerety — September 6, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Kidd,
Sorry, but this is lame. The islamists are not the real enemies of the church, the lack of faith in our own hearts and the wolves in our churches are.
You might as well argue that Paul should have fought against Rome (the enemy at our gates) instead of the judaizers.
If this is the level of biblical wisdom at RTS/Orlando, the reformed world is in terrible shape.
Frame, get a clue.
Feed my sheep.
•
Sorry the post disappeared on you, KBennett. I was trying to comment on your comment. Wasn’t quick enough. The enemies of the church are many. My examples weren’t exhaustive … and, indeed, they include our dull hearts and false prophets within. My point was to provide some perspective on the differences within our camp: we don’t need to be having a civil war while there’s an external war that needs our attention. As far as biblical wisdom goes, I’d suggest that what’s being argued about in the PCA is not at the level of Paul vs. the Judaizers in Galatians (despite the opinion of some), but at the level of the “disputable matters” of Romans 14 & 15 … and, yes, I believe that Paul would require us to learn to get along. My concern is for the way we treat and address our brothers … which includes a needless head-butt of John Frame.
Yours,
Kidd
Comment by KBennett — September 6, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Thank you, Reggie. Praise God for men like you who are willing to point out the injustices that took place at GA 2007. May God bless you as you continue to stand against the oppression of truth.
Comment by Troy Greene — September 6, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Upon a second reading, it actually seems that church discipline is what you are arguing against. In a land in which real church discipline is nearly impossible (considering if you get defrocked, you can start your own church tomorrow), you seem to be upset that one would even try. A denominaiton tries to do it’s confessional duty, and ‘yall are upset.
Damn the tone! Damn the terse use of words! “Can’t we all just get along?”
You’re right, why should we fight proto-gnostics or judaizers within the church when we should be fighting against the philosophers of Mars Hill!
Or perhaps the Roman Emperor!
They must be the true enemies. We should never have such devision when all it’s going to do is help strengthen the church…
When will we christians learn?
Comment by KBennett — September 6, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I just noticed that my previous post was removed.
Do we only get one post per person, or have I the newfound honor of being censored by the tolerance party?
•
KBennett, please check Comment 65 … you weren’t deleted. Just trying to show you a little love. Kidd
Comment by KBennett — September 6, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Reggie,
When I studied at Oxford during the summer of ‘97, N.T. Wright was my great ally. My tutor continually ridiculed Wright as a “stodgy conversative.” Wow, have times changed! Sadly, we could be spending time drafting resolutions which commit to more intentional prayer for a very dark Great Britain, and God’s blessing on Wright’s bold ministry. Instead, I’m afraid we’re straining out gnats…
Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
Many thanks for your courageous voice,
Chuck DeGroat, TE
Central Florida Presbytery, PCA
Comment by Chuck DeGroat — September 6, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
[…] Entire piece here. […]
Pingback by And Reggie Kidd Weighs In at Toward Praxis — September 6, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Dear Sir,
Your post is a rallying cry for evangelicals to ‘unite against’ what you define as the real enemy. Implicit in your call to arms is your assumption that we must first battle our internal demons. I agree with you on that point. Judgment must begin with the household of God. However, I believe that you are in error as to what the Churches’ internal demons are. You propose that the removal of “headbutting” within the church would propel us to some sort of victory in the world. Setting aside the fact that you are “headbutting” in making this assertion, you have not proved your premise from scripture. You cannot prove it from your analogy; your analogy is not sound. We do not fight against physical armies or navies, as did the Greeks. We fight against the “schemes of the devil”. We do not fight Mormons with a phalanx of pikes. We use the Sword of the Spirit. We have judged them using God’s word and found them deficient. We call them to repentance and, if they are so appointed to be, they are saved.
While the devil’s schemes are certainly at work in the false religions of this world, they are at least as active in the evangelical church. Will we be capable of curing Mormons with God’s word when we are unwilling to take our own dosage?
You say yes, God’s word says no.
Matthew 7:5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.;
Romans 2:21-24 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written.
By railing against the application of dogma, you imply that the judgment and cure the church uses in evangelism, is not to be sanctioned in the church.
A good many evangelicals are unaware of the errors of Mormonism. They are unaware of these errors for the same reason they are unaware of the errors of evangelical feminism. They have never experienced what you call “headbutting”. They are unequipped, ill trained soldiers. They have not practiced warfare and their senses are not trained to discern good and evil.
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
Respectfully,
David Curell
(BTW –Weak men did give up on their denominations. One of the principle ways in which they did so was by believing that having a woman in the pulpit could be “orthodox”. There should have been some serious “headbutting”.)
Comment by David Curell — September 6, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Kbennet,
Nicely illustrated.
Comment by Jesse Pirschel — September 6, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Kidd,
Indeed I disagree. This (now over!) debate is not at the level of disputable matters such as the eating of unconsecrated foods, or those sacrificed to idols. I’m quite distressed that you sought to use that passage as an illustration. This is a dispute about how one “appropriates” justification. This IS at the level of judaizing.
One could justly argue that mode of music used in worship services is more of a Romans 14-15 type issue (i.e. is one sinning if one uses music styles known to be used by pagans, etc.), but this is definitely a judaizing-style of issue.
The point that you are making about the distress over tone is entirely misplaced. This is not a debate over disputable matters (foods, music, or color of carpeting)! This is over the nature, meaning, and appropriation of justification itself.
Frame deserves many a head-butt. As Peter (more than once) did, and many others in the early church did. This does not mean that he deserves no respect, but it does mean telling the truth. Was Paul being a cannibal when he told the judaizers to castrate themselves? Was John being a cannibal when he denounced the pharisees that the axe was at the root of the trees? No. Nor am I being a cannibal for denouncing those who cry “peace, peace” when there is no peace!
This is far, far too big of an issue.
This entire post shows how out-of-whack our priorities are here in today’s reformed church.
We confessionalists need to be angry about this.
Jesse,
I’m glad to be an illustration. And, I really do think that you guys know better.
Comment by KBennett — September 6, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Reggie,
At some point before comments reach triple digits it might be helpful to remind readers that your views do not represent the faculty of RTS Orlando, some of whom may still consider themselves to be Machen’s warriors.
I myself remain partial to Barth’s menschenfresser.
Best,
John Muether
Comment by John Muether — September 7, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Dr. Kidd, thanks for your gracious response. I have this question for you. Since when does either side have dibs on objectivity? You say ask those in the crosshairs. Will they ever admit to error, even if they were in error? Will they ever admit to being understood? The only times I’ve seen them admit to being understood is when it doesn’t have anything to do with the main points of their theology. The cry of being misunderstood is getting to be quite the broken record. It loses more and more credibility once the galaxy of (intelligent!) critics is taken into account. If this many people have misunderstood the FV, then isn’t it possible that the FV is simply unclear? And if it is inherently unclear, then are the proponents fit to be teachers, whose first job is to be clear?
Let’s not prejudge in my post here whether or not the FV is heresy for a moment. Let’s talk, however, about every heretic that has ever come down the pike. Have they ever admitted to being in error? Have they not cried out that their views are being misunderstood? Were their views on whether they were misunderstood the final authority in the church’s dealing with them? It is hardly the case that the heretics have no axe to grind, and that they have no prejudged notions, and that they are somehow objective, and only the critics have an axe to grind. To John Canales, I would ask if he preferred that people came to GA with a tabula rasa, knowing nothing about the issues involved. If that were to happen, how much time would be lost explaining what is in the documents before them?
•
Lane,
Thanks for this follow up, and for furthering the sort of conversation that needs to take place.
First, nobody has dibs on objectivity. Nobody can claim not to have an axe to grind. Including me. All any of us can do is beg, “Kyrie eleison,” and commit ourselves to holding each other to the Scriptures and to the Standards to which we’ve submitted. No argument there.
Second, I don’t expect those in error to admit to error either. Judicial process is a vital part of the church’s business. I don’t think it’s never right to, to revert to the language of the original post, defenestrate anybody. No argument there.
Third, I understand that it is frustratingly difficult to figure out what FVists mean. I haven’t been able to break the code myself, and that is disappointing, especially, as you note, when we’re talking about the teaching office of the church. Consider me an FV sceptic.
Moreover, I recognize critics have made good faith efforts. In some respects, the Ft. Lauderdale symposium was such. And when Calvin Beisner, whose judgment I respect though I know him only through his writings, throws up his hands, that gets my attention. Nor was I put in the position, as you were, of being asked to offer an assessment on the denomination’s behalf. So I don’t know what the landscape looked like to those charged with that responsibility. Nonetheless, the G.A. report left me wondering: why are beliefs being attributed to FVists that I know they’ve said aren’t theirs? Why can’t they be asked? How differently would the report have read if they had been asked?
Reggie
Comment by Lane Keister — September 7, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Reggie,
Just a quick note to thank you and others for expressing my heart in all this. May God have mercy on us!
David Wilcher
Grace Presbyterian Church
The Woodlands, TX.
Comment by David Wilcher — September 7, 2007 @ 8:58 am
[…] RTS Orlando Professor Really Unhappy with the PCA General Assembly Dr. R. Scott Clark has posted a very important article at the Heidelblog concerning Reggie Kidd, a New Testament professor at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL who is unhappy with the PCA General Assembly’s stance toward the Federal Visionists in the PCA. […]
Pingback by RTS Orlando Professor Really Unhappy with the PCA General Assembly « Gospel Driven Blog — September 7, 2007 @ 9:31 am
[…] Reggie Kidd - Dr. Kidd pens a piece critiquing the PCA study committee on NPP/FV in light of lessons learned from Spartan/Athenian war history. Follow the conversation in the comments. Lane provided two great responses (Part 1, Part 2). […]
Pingback by Nota Bene 09.07.07 « Mining Grace — September 7, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Dr. Kidd:
I think you have some problems with your allegory.
First - Islam is any enemy of the State, not really an enemy of the Church. It’s merely a tool for the REAL enemy.
Secondly - the New Perspective and Federal Vision are out of accord with Reformed Theology. Period. You even wrote as much a few years ago.
Thirdly - the PCA affirms that the West Standards are our understanding of Scripture. Therefore, to declare the NPP/FV out of accord with the WS is to declare it out of accord with the PCA (and Reformed) understanding of Scripture.
Fourthly - I have yet to see ONE reformed denomination (other than the Dougs, er CREC) affirm the NPP/FV. It fails many tests of Biblical fidelity.
Lastly - continueing a ‘conversation’ on this is really fruitless. We have a point of division: Justification Sola Fide (JSF). And those who want JSF to be something it is not, are welcome to join a more fitting fellowship.
Blessing - Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Comment by Bill Lamkin — September 7, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Wow, quite a lot of fire on this one. I’ve got mixed feelings on it, but there are clearly some who don’t.
On the side of Reggie et al., it’s worth remembering that the good doctor is an ordained minister in good standing in the PCA, as well as a respected teacher in the Reformed community. If you think he’s wrong about FV/NPP/AA, it is still worth considering the possibility that there is some validity to what he’s saying. He has, after all, been specializing in Paul for many years, and he has proven himself to be one of the good guys. Maybe there is a perspective on this you haven’t considered yet. But even if you’re not inclined to be open to dialogue on the issue, it is at least worth nothing that Reggie is not an “armchair quarterback” – he ministers in a local congregation, and is a professional New Testament scholar. There’s nothing “armchair” about this guy. He’s also right that there are bigger fish to fry. Regardless of what we think of FV/NPP/AA, we should all be able to recognize that finite beings can’t do everything all the time. If we spend all our energy on internal issues, we ignore external ones. The Bible and the Standards call us to pay attention to both internal and external matters, and to affirm the good even as we reject the bad.
On the side of the Presbyterian Church in America, it’s a confessional church and it has an obligation to uphold its standards. A sufficient number of PCA pastors had concerns about these matters to direct a committee to investigate them. Was the committee biased? Probably. But I don’t know anything in the Standards or BCO that require it not to be biased in favor of its existing theology. Personally, I think it is probably good to have a bias in favor of the traditional views of the PCA, including the traditional interpretations of the Standards, so that we aren’t so easily tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Did the committee do its job perfectly? Well, being Reformed I can safely say that this side of glory we never do anything perfectly. But the elders of the PCA who voted on the matter did not have to rely solely on the report. Most of them have been aware of these issues for quite some time, and many no doubt did some homework before GA. I doubt their votes were determined by the report. It is also worth remembering that the report did not censure individual PCA ministers; it censured viewpoints. If the FV/NPP/AA people argue that the report does not represent their views, then the report should be little threat to them.
On the side of the FV/NPP/AA camp, it is always a good idea to remain open to reforming our doctrine. We know we hold to doctrinal errors, but we don’t know what they are. If we are unwilling to reevaluate what we believe in the light of the proper use of Scripture, we become incapable of finding and correcting our errors. There’s nothing wrong with the dialogue, as long as it’s done responsibly. And insofar as these views make true statements, we are required to “hold on to the good.” There is at least a little truth in most errors, and that truth is something we are called to find and to preserve.
On the side of Reggie’s critics, the bit on R.C. was over the line. R.C. gave voice to what many people already thought. In the same way that I would encourage others to give Reggie some credit for knowing what he’s talking about, I would encourage Reggie to give his fellow elders some credit for not being vacuous sycophants. Yes, they clearly have a different opinion, but I would not liken them to a mob, or call them idiotic, or suggest that they were merely flattering R.C. (what could they expect to gain by flattery?). Yes, harsh language is sometimes required. But in Scripture it is typically reserved for great offenses. To use such language here is to imply that those who oppose FV/NPP/AA are erring in such gross ways. But they are clearly not denying the gospel, or turning God’s house into a place of commerce, etc. They are, for the most part, good men with good hearts. In this case, many really believed they were defending the gospel. I also get the impression from Reggie’s posts that we should be affirming the good instead of condemning the bad we find in doctrines, scholars, etc. It should be an either/or proposition; Scripture requires us to do both. Reggie knows this. I’m guessing he simply tailored his rhetoric in this way because he thinks the present crisis requires the pendulum to swing the other way. But to those who don’t have the benefit of knowing him, it probably sounds irresponsible. (In this regard, it is interesting that so many of those who affirmed his words also know him personally. It looks like they have given him the benefit of the doubt on this point, whereas others have not.)
On the side of the critics of the PCA, it is probably true that the committee could have done a better job, providing a more comprehensive analysis of the views under scrutiny. It may also be that PCA polity and rules of order do not always offer the type of open forum one might like to see in order to debate these subjects. And it is probably true that not all the elders did their homework before adding their voices to the vote.
On the side of the critics of FV/NPP/AA, these really are “new” doctrines insofar as they are not the traditional interpretations of the Standards. The proponents of these doctrines might have received a better hearing if they had not been so arrogant in defending themselves, and if they had not tried to skirt the polity they took a vow to uphold. When they saw all the trouble brewing, they should have gone to their presbyteries and asked for their ideas to be evaluated. That’s what their ordination vows required. Had they done so, it might never have gone this far. And if it still went this far, it would have been with far more reflection and dialogue. Instead, the FV/NPP/AA camp preferred to have their views tried in the court of public opinion, publishing and preaching new views without prior approval. Besides this, I think they erred greatly by trying to redefine traditional theological terms – not only is that annoying, but it can be a great source of confusion. Moreover, it seems to me that most of the “good” that is found in FV/NPP/AA was already in the Standards and the tradition, even if it wasn’t emphasized, and that the bad that is these views is worth rejecting. Finally, while the bad in these views may not rise to the level of Islam and Mormonism, we are still called to “test everything.”
On the side of peace, many people in this debate don’t seem to be following 1 Timothy 5:1 as closely as they might. Yes, we find exceptions to this rule in Scripture. But the general rule is pretty clearly stated, and overwhelmingly the examples we find in Scripture follow the rule rather than take exception to it.
Comment by Probaton Mikron — September 7, 2007 @ 10:43 am
This is the first time I’ve read this blog, but for what it’s worth I would like to make some comments and ask a few questions that would help me clarify matters.
My first question is to John Frame, who so tendentiously and carelessly calls some of his colleagues “cannibals.” John, who might they be and why do you find it necessary to pin that label on them?
Moreover, given some of the comments in the post and some responses, the “cannibal” shoe could conceivably be on the other foot, don’t you think? Cannibalism can be in the eye of the beholder.
But on to Dr. Kidd’s comments. On balance, Dr. Kidd, you sound angry and bitter. Perhaps you believe that you have good reasons to be.
“The answer: a study paper (passed — I note with chagrin — overwhelmingly) not on the biblical merits of the positions considered, but on whether they pass confessional standards (as interpreted by a tendentiously and carelessly written paper). When the point of the positions was never whether the standards were wrong, but whether more needed to be said than the standards say.”
It seems that this has been discussed before, but a few comments are in order. In a fair and open debate, with both sides being given equal time, a vote was taken. Some, like myself, were pleased with the outcome of that vote; others, like you, John Frame and others were not. In your own words, the Ad Interim committee’s report passed overwhelmingly. It is what it is. The Assembly spoke. I’m certain that most if not all of us have experienced times when the GA did not “go our way.” It does little good to carp and grouse after the fact.
I keep coming back to the mandate issued to the committee at the 34th GA. It was not to discuss the biblical merits. Go back and read it for yourself. The wording is clear and unequivocal.
Why, when we disagree with something or someone, are they tendentious? Could it not be argued that your blog on this subject is highly tendentious? Or, could we also not argue–especially if we disagree–that you were “careless” in your words and conclusions? Is it not possible that you were the cannibal, especially in your comments:”Suggest that all parties ought to be a part of this conversation, and receive a fluffy, but smugly cute repartee about the folly of inviting the accused to join the jury — have the derisiveness compounded by a disingenuous faux-rebuke of the “righteous applause” with which the vacuous remark is sycophantically met.”
I know R.C., but he’s a big boy and can take the heat. Why, however, did you leave out the part of his comment that was directed to justification by faith? Why, for example, did you mention the “fluff” and his “smugly cute” repartee without mentioning the substance?
It appears that we are divided on a number of issues in the PCA currently, not least of which are the FV & women. The discussions surrounding women are coming and they are coming rapidly. They will be upon us soon–possibly sooner than we think. Some will welcome the battles; others, who have gone through them before in the PCUSA & PCUS, will rue the day that they come. The early stages remind me of my time in Holland & Canada. Yes, I’m willing to be accused of the domino theory.
As I’ve mentioned before, if I were FV–which I am not–I really do believe that I would seek another church affiliation that was more in keeping with my views. After all, I did give my word in my ordination vows that if my views changed on Scripture or the Westminster Standards I would, of my own accord, make those changes known to my Presbytery. Is that being done? Have all who now embrace the FV or the NPP done that? Have all who have or are changing their views on the place and roles of women in the PCA done that?
We’ve given our word and like it or not, the FV & NPP do deviate from the Standards.
One last word: Please, please spare me by not asserting that I hold the Standards to near infallible status. How does that go? Puh-leeeze?
Comment by Ron Gleason — September 7, 2007 @ 11:02 am
A discussion of the GA committee isn’t complete without considering the background of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery Study Committee. It was largely responsible for elevating the “controversy” to its current status:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/mvptimeline.html
Comment by sp — September 7, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Mr Gleason:
Good words and summary.
As I see it the issue of women in the church is going to hit us quickly. First, I am for women in the church. I am for having them in service to the church and world.
Second, the Church needs to do better than relegating the women to children’s Sunday School, VBS and ‘female staff.’ How do we improve and mature? I don’t know.
But (stong “But”) I am not in favor of crossing the boundaries established by Scripture. As I’ve posted on this blog, a few unclear mentions in the Scriptures do not establish Church Canons. We are not at liberty to infer what we want from a few unclear texts. We are bound to follow the clear and stuggle with the unclear.
Perhaps this means that we will err on the side of caution until Jesus returns. But, is it not far better to be cautious than head out recklessly where we have no clear instruction?? I’d rather be chastised by the Lord for being cautious than for being reckless.
Like it or not, there is a domino affect. Every Church that has crossed the boundary of ordination has (in time) given up it’s commitment to the Authority of Scripture and the purity of the Gospel (Sola Fide Justification). Eventually, the gospel gets watered down to “as long you’re sincere.”
Make no mistake, I’m not saying, “The Women are Coming! The Women are Coming!!” It’s not the fault of the women. It’s the abandonment of the commitment to Scriptural Authority. Once a Church gets squishy on one area of the Word, the rest will surely follow.
The time is upon us to make some serious stands.
May God help us to honor Him and His Word above all!
Comment by Bill Lamkin — September 7, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Bill Lamkin,
Excellent # 79. Amen!
Comment by KBennett — September 7, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
“Perhaps this means that we will err on the side of caution until Jesus returns. But, is it not far better to be cautious than head out recklessly where we have no clear instruction?? I’d rather be chastised by the Lord for being cautious than for being reckless.”
To err is still to err, regardless of which side we pick. There is no scriptural principle for preferring to sin on the side of “cautious” (an oddly positive-sounding term for an admitted sin) rather than on the side of “reckless.”
In different language, you seem to be saying that we should be restrictive (“cautious”) rather than permissive (“reckless”) when Scripture is unclear. The problem is that restrictiveness is just as dangerous as permissiveness. The advantage of restrictiveness is that it tends to prevent sins of commission. But its disadvantage is that it tends to encourage sins of omission. On the other side, permissiveness does the opposite. It tends to prevent sins of omission, but tends to encourage sins of commission. Since neither sins of omission nor sins of commission are inherently less evil, all else being equal, neither approach is inherently better than the other.
Comment by Probaton Mikron — September 7, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I am a student at RTS…and just to add to John Muether’s concern: RTS does not have a position on the FV or the NPP, though we have all studied the issues and read particular books as an appropriate way to interact with current discussions. Reggie has been a fair professor in advising us of the good, the bad, and the ugly of both positions. Unlike so many, he has actually read and researched the issue as I can certainly testify from personal and classroom interaction. My prayer (and I speak as one of the few STUDENT voices at RTS/Orlando who deeply admire the works of FV scholars and selected works of Bishop Wright) is that the PCA would repent of her decision and carefully analyze their report in light of the Scriptures and not allow Southern Presbyterians to have the final say.
Comment by Uri Brito — September 7, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
[…] September 7th, 2007 RTS New Testament Prof Reggie Kidd has made a statement calling for a truce in the PCA’s civil war over New Perspective and Federal Vision theologies, saying that outside enemies need to be fought, not inside allies. Some just say no, claiming divided forces necessarily can’t be united. I’m with the Kidd. Posted in justification, denominationalism, communion, theology, community, church | […]
Pingback by Them’s (let’s stop) Fightin’ Words! « Uber Goober — September 7, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
reggie
I apologize for my armchair quarterbck comment. I am way to far removed from what you guys do to say anything. This was my first blog that I ever read and I had assumed that the name “common grounds” meant that it was accessable to everybody. Now I understand thatt you have to have a pretty good understanding of what went on at a PCA assembly meeting in order to comment.
the reason I thought I knew something is that one of my customers comes outside to talk to me after I mow her lawn. she is teacing a class on NT Wrights perspective in a PCUSA church in my town.
It is readily evident that my name at the bottom of those mean comments is the name of a fool.
Jim Luke
Comment by Jim Luke — September 7, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
[…] The fiery comments keep coming in response to Reggie’s post. My friend and fellow cigar smoker John Muether wrote a clarifying comment when he said: At some point before the comments reach triple digits it might be helpful to remind readers that your views do not represent the faculty at RTS Orlando, some of whom may still consider themselves to be Machen’s warriors. […]
Pingback by In Defense of Reggie Kidd… at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam — September 7, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Dear Dr. Kidd,
While it has been some time since I was a member of the PCA, I do find your comments interesting in that there is nothing new under the sun.
Back when I was in the PCA, the usual suspects were pitting the confessions against Scripture in regard to the regulative principle of worship in the court of public opinion. Now they are doing it with the doctrine of justification by faith. So what else is new?
Cannibalism? This from the bloodstained mouth and hands of one responsible for something like his book, Worship in Spirit and Truth. If there was a truth in theological advertising law it would be entitled Worship in Spite of the Spirit and Truth of the Reformed Confessions. Yes, Robt. Reymond in his Systematics considers the brother’s apologetic work first rate. While I might trust Reymond’s judgement, somebody still ought to stick to their expertise instead of essentially apologizing for Anglican worship.
For that matter you yourself say that you find FV hard to understand and consider yourself a FV skeptic. Maybe then those who are blathering on about it really aren’t qualified to the teaching office. Has even a glimmer of the implications of that ever occurred to anyone?
As for the Muslim/Mormon - Athens/Sparta paradigm, I am sorry you couldn’t be more mistaken. God visited the eastern antiChrist on a disobedient, unbelieving and apostate Christian church and Islam incorporated and elaborated on many of those views in her take on Christianity and Jesus. In other words, God still raises up pagans to afflict his church for their previous disobedience. Even on reformed worship and doctrine. Hello.
But for that matter, just now, I noticed the book ad on your page, With One Voice.
But I guess I forgot. The PCA allows exceptions to the confessional position on pictures of the deity - something I understand that the Muslims also find extremely distasteful. As for the historical fact that the Assembly and the Standards they produced considered the inspired psalms to the only approved songs in worship, I am not so naive as to realize how rude even the mention of that is among modern moderate American presbyterians. After all, the Mormons are knocking on the front door and they can’t wait, all the while somebody is tilting at windmills again.
Thank you.
cordially
Comment by RSuden — September 7, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Sisters (who are listening in but have not commented, please do) and brothers if I could appeal to the ranks on either side of this blog post that we try and keep the main thrust of Kidd’s critique/concern in clear view. Look at his analogy, Reggie’s point is that the onslaught of unbelief is so great right now that the church in the West needs to consider whether or not interior feuds (which may or may not contain real interior enemies) are more dire than the undisputed exterior enemies.
Its a simple point…moving beyond our denominational banners or Confessional affections, the Church in the West is either wanning or on death’s bed. Some of us feel this more certainly than others, perhaps due to geographical local (north, south, middle) or perhaps due to sociological local (urban, suburban, exurban). Certainly these differences are cause for patients with one another as we broach the ‘post-Christian’ question? But it must be broached…
Because these issues (the ones Reggie noted) stand to further divide us and not unify us, at such a time as this Reggie’s concern - I believe - is a sound one. Can we return to these matters latter - definitely; must we concern ourselves with the greater loss of churches and souls now - assuredly.
Sisters and brothers: the decision was voted through, the committee report is approved. It appears that the labor ahead of us is not to merely deconstruct what was done, but consider inside our own Presbyteries how to use and evaluate the report; BUT even more so how to address the greater concern of the loss of our churches and the continually evident loss of our witness in a world that is globalizing, urbanizing, and rending old without the salt and light of Christ’ witness in His body.
Until our Presbyteries move beyond these issues & this committee report to the business at hand - mission & restoration - no matter who adopts or drops this report will be productive for Christ’ Kingdom. Let us all at least be able to hear Reggie clearly here: mission and relevant cultural apologetics to this globalizing, urbanizing, and rending old world is direly needed.
Will we address our neighbors with Jesus, or bite and devour one another until only the remainder of our time, leaders, and energy is able to be given to labor of expanding Christ’ Kingdom?
Wouldn’t it be something if next years GA announce a recomendation by a study committee to engage our Muslim neighbors with the community of ‘Prophet Jesus’; if we were as passionate about getting mission right on our university campuses around us through support our local-struggling RUF campus pastors; if our filled pews began to wear on our hearts and cause us to raise the MNA church planting question…wouldn’t it???
Tony Stiff
MDiv WTS Phily, PCA licensure/ordination candidate
Comment by Tony Stiff — September 7, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
(Re: Comment 53)
Dear Reggie,
Thank you for your helpful reply. I certainly agree with you that brothers ought to respond courteously to one another. Even if one thinks a brother has erred he is required to go to him “in a spirit of gentleness.” Galatians 6:1.
But clearly you are not concerned with mere discourtesy. It appears that you see these men as saying something important. It also appears that you think that they are essentially orthodox. Would I be right in concluding that you are concerned that they are going to be driven out of the church to the church’s loss. Have I heard you correctly?
I find myself concurring with what Lane (Post 75), K Bennett (Post 73) and Bill (Post 79, excluding his first point about Islam) have said and do not feel the need to repeat them.
As for thinking there is still value in the FV I would point out what I consider to be a deeply disturbing similarity between Roman Catholicism and the FV. What the FV says about the covenant would sound very familiar to a Roman Catholic if the word, ‘church,’ were substituted for the word, ‘covenant.’ Consider: You become a member of the covenant/Catholic church through baptism. By virtue of baptism you truly are in a state of saving grace. You thereby have almost all the benefits of Christ. By virtue of your baptism you are truly regenerated, truly united to Christ, truly dead to the condemning power of the Law, truly justified, truly adopted by the Father, truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit, truly possessing a new nature, who can nonetheless fall out of a state of grace and lose all those benefits. The one benefit not guaranteed to you is the gift of perseverance. Thus, Roman Catholics can never be sure that the grace they have will save them.
Without the gift of perseverance a converted person could sin in such a manner as to have their union with Christ revoked, come back under the condemning power of the Law, have Christ withdraw the efficacy of his atoning death for their sins, have the forgiveness of all their sins revoked, have their adoption annulled, have the Holy Spirit depart and find that the new nature with which they were endowed has died.
The FV’s vigorous opposition to the distinction between the visible and the invisible church, is fundamental to their view. It is a critical departure from the Reformers that makes such other Romanish-like views possible.
As one who studied medieval theology at Duke, I find the similarities compelling. Counter Reformation apologists made a concerted effort to prove their doctrines from Holy Scripture. (Ford Battles translated John Eck’s Enchiridion so English monoglots, like myself, could see how a Romanist apologist lined up text after text after text to support the teachings of the Roman church.) Protestants, of course, countered their exegesis.
FV proponents have, in effect, adopted the Roman Catholic exegesis of the Scriptures over against that of the Protestant Reformers. (I am not saying they took it over from Romanist exegetes, only that they are reading Scripture in the same way.) Look at how they exegete the Scriptures dealing with baptism, membership in the church, justification, apostasy and final judgment. An institution like the Church of Rome doesn’t arise without there being a certain plausibility about their reading of Scripture. (See Elizabeth Clark on Reading Renunciation to see just how favorable the Scripture can appear to be in favor of asceticism.) In like manner there is a certain plausibility in FV exegesis, but it is only a seeming plausibility.
Would it be harsh of me to say that such views, as outlined above, are monstrous? May I say without unchristian severity that they deeply disfigure the Gospel and strip our Lord of much of His glory? Opposing the spread of the FV in our circles is not fundamentally about trying to lynch brothers. It is about loving Jesus Christ and attributing to Him all the praise, honor and glory to which He is due as our sole Mediator and Savior. When you change the Gospel, you attack Christ. When you do that you bring yourself under the condemnation of God’s anathema. (Galatians 1). Would not the church be disloyal to Christ if it did not echo His anathema?
Am I right in thinking that your major concern was that you believe the GA acted precipitously and that more discussion was needed before deciding it could render a judgment about the FV?
If that is the case then I would be happy to see that case made with argument rather than rhetoric.
If you think that the proponents of the FV do not hold the views outlined above, then I would be glad to hear you make the case. Perhaps there is some key distinction or concept that I and others are missing.
Or, perhaps, they have truly found some middle ground between Rome and the Reformation. If you think this is the case, then please explain it so that ordinary ministers like me can understand it.
Lastly, if you also believe that there still is positive value in the New Perspectives and in the FV, (a better way to express the promise/fulfillment teaching of the N.T.?) then I would urge you to show us where it lies and how it can be utilized without forsaking the grace of God re-proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation and our Westminster Standards.
You have a lot of credibility, skill and learning Reggie and if you can put that to use healing the breach in the Church I would be delighted. Perhaps you could enlist others to help you. But unless someone can reconcile these things I don’t see how or why the Church could or should avoid confronting these men.
May we all come together at the foot of the cross where our Savior redeemed us fully and finally.
Cordially,
Jim
P.S. (Forgive me brother. I fear that graduate school disabused me of the concept of writing briefly. I find I must forsake brevity in order to attain clarity! You would be surprised to know how much I actually cut out!!!!!!!!!!!)
Comment by JIm O'Brien — September 7, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Everybody,
A quick heads up. I’m going to be out of town through the weekend, so I won’t be in a position to “approve” comments of newcomers, or answer anybody who’s already in the conversation. Don’t want anybody to get frustrated. It’d be OK with me if everybody took a breather. It has been gratifying to see how brothers “fer & agin’” are laboring to “speak truth in love,” even when that includes “tough love.”
And, Jim O (Comment 92), man, I don’t know when/if I’m going to be able to address all your concerns in this go around. Please know that I will take it all in as I am able and give your thoughts serious consideration. Apologies to any who’ve been hoping for more interaction (or repentance).
And to Jim Luke (Comment 88): the only fool is the person who doesn’t think he is one. Thanks for chiming in.
Oh, if you’ve been redirected back here looking for my apology to Sproul, it’s on the home page: http://reggiekidd.com, or http://reggiekidd.com/RK/category/christian-living/
Best to you all.
Reggie
Comment by Administrator — September 7, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Wow Reggie,
I was grateful to know you, when all i knew ABOUT you was that you liked the color salmon, wore bow-ties/sandals and spoke transparently on Sunday’s of your walk/struggle/joys with the content of scripture. Now I’m honored even more!! Now i feel i know an intellectual/biblical Rock Star:-)
I know what I just wrote might sound trite and simple-minded…but hey…you/what you do/what you say/who you are day to day (which btw is a pretty great/funny/REAL guy who allows himself to grapple difficult texts//who tries not confine himself to the pre-established doctrine/definitions of “who God is” and “who/what He’s called his church to be/how to act/or ordain”, and instead allows for the sometimes painful tension of seeking Him out and wresting with His word for clarity of His purpose/intent for His people) challenges/encourages me every week.
Thank you for YOU…THANK GOD, MY GRACIOUS LOVING GOD, FOR REGGIE KIDD.
Comment by Chisten Rodgers — September 8, 2007 @ 12:51 am
I haven’t read your blog before tonight. It was linked on the Jesus Creed blog so i thought i would take a glance. For someone who is reformed in my thinking and convictions yet very saddened by the PCA and reformed circles impact on communities, it didnt surprise me to find all this rambling going on. I love reformed doctrine but have to say that the reason I left the PCA church is for this very reason. Of course I loved the theological sharpening that took place within the walls of the church but all the while my “hood” was being destroyed by drugs, injustice, poverty, and hopelessness. My only wish for you guys who “carry the torch of the gospel” and defend (for which I am thankful and would never take for granted)it is that you take that same zeal in which you have for FV and GA issues and share the Gospel with a lost and dying world. As a minority who holds to reformed doctrines (yes i know it is rare but it’s true! there is good reason why reformed churches are predominantly white which is sad)I only wish that you guys would take these wonderful doctrines of grace that have been passed down to us and share them with the world. And for all you seminarians and post graduate students who are commenting on this blog please don’t fall into the trap of “defending the faith” and forget to share it. Let’s do all things for His glory and for the “sake of the elect.”
Grace and Peace,
aaron (aka urban reformed guy who the PCA doesnt like)
Comment by aaron — September 8, 2007 @ 3:32 am
One more thing! I just need you to know that I am so grateful for what you guys do but am very disheartened by the fact that reformed doctrine is anglo doctrine only here in America. Even to the point where European classical music is elevated to “sacred” while all other cultural expressions are shunned. That was actually told to me one who everyone looks up to. So maybe I was a little harsh in what I said earlier but it has been hard to stomach the lack of PCA churches in “special needs” communities. Forgive me for my generalizations for i know that some reformed circles are taking the doctrines of grace to the “streets” but man it is few and far between.Forgive me for making your blog a place for my personal groanings!
Grace and Peace,
aaron (aka someone who needs to keep his mouth shut at times”
Comment by aaron — September 8, 2007 @ 3:46 am
[…] My hat is off to Reggie Kidd for his honesty and boldness to act in civil disobedience with a rhetoric that brims with potency. (The conservative Reformed bashing of a misunderstood New Perspective and an unwillingness to subject the issues to the test of the Bible animate his post.) […]
Pingback by Jesus Creed » Weekly Meanderings — September 8, 2007 @ 7:05 am
Reggie,
That took testicular fortitutde, but it was well said! Many of us feel exactly the same way.
Mike Bird
Comment by Michael Bird — September 8, 2007 @ 10:30 am
One more clarification, if I may, again on a relatively trivial point in relation to the real thrust of Reggie’s post:
Someone above commented that he was not aware of anything that required the PCA to have anyone sympathetic to the FV/NPP on the committee or to even interview any such persons in the preparation of the report. That is simply wrong. The PCA GA conducts itself according to Robert’s Rules of Order, which clearly states that any committee formed to study an issue that is of controversy amongst the members of the organization, particularly when there are members within the organization who hold the minority view, must have representation from the minority review.
Comment by Mark Traphagen — September 8, 2007 @ 10:45 am
[…] I wrote this post the day after the PCA approved the study committee’s report on the FV/NP(s)P/AA. It has been sitting in my drafts folder since then, but I was motivated to post it after reading Reggie Kidd’s brilliant post this week. […]
Pingback by united together in the finer points of doctrine…or was it love? « finitum non capax infiniti — September 8, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
[…] Prime place goes to Reggie Kidd’s response and challenge to the PCA study committee’ and the PCA as a denomination polemical direction. For anyone wondering what the present sense of sentiments are after this committee report inside this denomination you won’t want to miss the comment chain. For some other bloggers thoughts see Michael Bird’s piece, and R. Scott Clarks response here; or Scot McKnights hi-five here. […]
Pingback by This week in Blogs: Suggested reads « Sets ‘n’ Service — September 8, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
[…] the makeup of the committee clearly violated the rules to which the GA has committed itself. Therefore, many of us believe it was an illegally constituted committe and therefore the whole process is open to question. This particular issue is one that burns in my gut all the more because one of the most vocal blog critics of Reggie’s post above, someone with close connections in the GA power structure, openly bragged about a year ago in the bookstore where I work that no one should worry about the outcome of the PCA report; he had inside knowledge that the powers that be had arranged the committe to be sure of its outcome. One might understand after hearing that how difficult it has been for me to hear that same person and others now defend the “objectivity” of the committee. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback by once more with feeling » Blog Archive » Yet another witness to the obvious (FV/PCA psychosis) — September 8, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
“guess what I am asking is, what standard would you offer to indicate when we are pissing in the wrong direction?”
Usually, it’s when your toes get wet.
ofs
Comment by OldFatSlow — September 8, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
[…] Posted by saintluke on September 8th, 2007 If you are interested in the state of the PCA, you may be interested in this insightful article by RTS Orlando Prof Reggie Kidd. […]
Pingback by Kidd pro Wright, Spong contra Williams « Saint Luke — September 8, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
“The PCA GA conducts itself according to Robert’s Rules of Order, which clearly states that any committee formed to study an issue that is of controversy amongst the members of the organization, particularly when there are members within the organization who hold the minority view, must have representation from the minority review.”
With all due respect, I believe you have misread the relevant portions of Robert’s Rules. Robert’s V.32.8 states:
“A special committee to investigate and report upon a subject SHOULD consist of representative members on both sides of the question, so that both parties in the assembly may have confidence in the report, or reports in case there is disagreement and a minority report is submitted” (emphasis added).
Note that it says “should” not “must.” Should indicates normal and advisable procedure, but not necessary procedure. For the reasons stated in Robert’s Rules, it might have been advisable to include a minority opinion holder in the committee, but it was not necessary to do so.
Moreover, BCO 19-1 states that Robert’s Rules is the standard for parliamentary procedure “except as otherwise specifically provided in these [BCO] Rules.” It could be argued that the words “as designated by the Assembly” in BCO 9-1 constitute a specific exception to Robert’s Rules on this matter:
“The Assembly may elect or appoint ad interim or study committees of a temporary character to handle particular matters of business as designated by the Assembly.”
Comment by Probaton Mikron — September 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
So we are officially admitting that the GA, rather than investigating and issue, purposely used a committee with a predetermined verdict?
One might wonder then, who this committee has any authority as an objective witness to the facts.
Comment by Rev. Mark Horne — September 8, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Correction: “One might wonder then, how…
Comment by Rev. Mark Horne — September 8, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
I don’t believe the GA has officially said that. I am merely pointing out that such a move would not be “unconsitutional.” Therefore, those who disagree with the decision are unlikely to be successful in calling for an appeal or review on this basis.
If this matter is to be revisited, the minority would be well advised to come up with a better strategy — one that interprets the Constitution in a compelling way, and that approaches the Assembly with humility rather than arrogance. Cries of unfairness are likely to be received poorly, and so are assertions that the Assembly would have voted differently if they hadn’t been so ignorant. In my estimation, the more people fight about this, the worse the outcome will be for FV/NPP/AA.
For the time being, it probably would not change anything to assign a new committee with a minority presence. Nor is it likely that the outcome of the vote would have been any different if a minority presence had existed on the committee in the first place. The majority report would still condemn FV/NPP/AA, while the minority report would affirm it. The assembly would not vote any differently; they would favor the majority report and reject the minority report.
Comment by Probaton Mikron — September 8, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Hmm…maybe trackbacks are moderated or it just didn’t make it? Here’s my take.
Comment by Kevin D. Johnson — September 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
[…] A Blogging Rarity: Last week Charlton linked to the blog of Dr. Reggie Kidd, a seminary professor in Orlando. The linked blog entry was a harsh (yet well-written) rant about recent goings on in the PCA. After visiting the blog and browsing around a bit, I decided to make Dr. Kidd one of my regular reads because he had some pretty interesting stuff on there (for instance this post on hunting alligators and this one on women deacons). Yesterday Dr. Kidd posted an apology for his rant against R. C. Sproul and the PCA, which I think was a very admirable move. Partly I think it is admirable because I disagreed with the gist of his rant, but apart from that, we all know how difficult this it is to admit when you are wrong, especially when you are a seminary professor and the thing you are apologizing for is on the internet for all the world to see. Anyway, it is an interesting phenomenon on many levels. […]
Pingback by Bullets over Blogdom « Creeps Like Me — September 9, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
[…] Waiving our claim - what should we be fighting over? 9 09 2007 To anyone who read this blog at all…check out Reggie Kidd’s blog and read his post on Christian internal bickering as “self annhilation,” and how we probably could learn alot more from the account of the Spartan stand at Thermopylae, then we may realize. How many times do you think we as church, or denomination, or larger body of Christians, make our fellow brothers and sisters dodge our own firey arrows, and all the while an onslaught of our Enemy’s attacks are heading directly at them? […]
Pingback by Waiving our claim - what should we be fighting over? « Intersection — September 9, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
little sheep,
I think you’re missing the point Mark and others are making. The reason why Bob’s rules says “should” is because in matters of controversy, it’s not likely for a report to represent the body’s opinion’s accurately unless representatives of those opinions are represented on the committee. That “should” is wisdom. This is why many of us are disappointed in the committee report and GA’s response: that there was wide dissension in the PCA was well known, nearly every person on it had at some point before their appointment publicly stated an opinion against the issues involved, and no effort was made to find representatives of the other side to comprise the committee. Whether this would’ve changed the report or not is speculative in lieu of a report, and is therefore immaterial to whether a new, fairly stacked committee would change GA’s outcome.
Comment by JD — September 10, 2007 @ 12:23 am
JD,
I think it’s pretty clear that there is NOT wide dissention on this matter. There are a few very vocal proponents of these new theological viewpoints, and a host of opponents to them. That the vote so overwhelmingly favored the report indicates that the report represented the views of the Assembly — and did so quite well. If you’re in the minority, ignore that detail at your own peril.
It’s important to remember that the same Assembly that voted on the report discussed it at length before the vote. No one went into this vote with a misapprehension about the nature of the report. There were FV/NPP/AA people present who told the entire Assembly that the report was flawed. It didn’t matter; the Assembly affirmed the report anyway.
To think this huge majority will crumble if a new study committee is appointed is wishful thinking. The PCA is mostly composed of traditional thinkers. Most of the ministers don’t decide doctrinal issues on the basis of reports, or at the time discussion is held over the vote. Minds are made up far in advance.
So, if the minority wants a different outcome, they need to do grassroots work, convincing people one-on-one before the committee reports and before the vote is taken. That’s just the way politics works, especially in the South. If the minority in this case hadn’t been so young and inexperienced, they might have navigated the political waters more safely. Even now they are failing to learn from their mistakes, taking the same tack yet again.
I get that the minority is upset and feels like it has been treated unfairly. But they brought it on themselves through their political naivete. They are up against opponents who know the system, who know how to work the system, and who are already in control of the governing body. If the minority blunders into a rematch without doing its homework