PCA Committee Report on Federal Vision, New Perspective
The PCA study committee commissioned by last year's General Assembly to study and write a report on the Federal Vision (aka Auburn Avenue) Theology and New Perspective on Paul has released its report. The committee comes to nine conclusions and five recommendations that it is asking this year's General Assembly to adopt.
I've seen some less than enthusiastic reaction to the report among some in the blogosphere who are opponents of FV and NPP. These folks view the report as not strong enough in its language or proposals. Overall, though, I think the committee did a fine job.
There are a few things worth remembering:
I've seen some less than enthusiastic reaction to the report among some in the blogosphere who are opponents of FV and NPP. These folks view the report as not strong enough in its language or proposals. Overall, though, I think the committee did a fine job.
There are a few things worth remembering:
- Committees don't judge cases. The committee was commissioned to study FV and NPP and give its recommendations to GA. This they have done.
- Ultimately it is up to each presbytery to handle judicial cases - if necessary - in regard to teaching elders who hold to FV or NPP doctrines. And it is up to each session to do so in regard to ruling elders.
- More than that, though, I believe the report (assuming it is adopted essentially as is by GA) calls on TE's and RE's to be faithful to their vows. In particular, men are required to have the good conscience to report themselves if they find they have adopted views out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Again assuming the report is adopted, it will be the "official" statement of the PCA regarding FV and NPP, and as such, any men who hold to these views in the PCA will be honor bound to report themselves. I believe the committee's report is giving them this opportunity. Also, elders vow to uphold the peace and purity of the church. To report themselves, and to submit to the correction or discipline required by session or presbytery, is to uphold the peace and purity of the church. For some (or perhaps many; I hope not) this may mean they will need to leave the PCA peaceably.
This kind of scenario and outcome probably doesn't satisfy the more rabid folks who are looking for red meat. But it is presbyterian. God forbid that it should be so, but given our sinful nature I don't doubt that there will be FV/NPP adherents who refuse to submit, messy trials will then result, and they may have to be forced out of the PCA. That may satisfy the rabid folks. But it shouldn't.
Labels: PCA
Well said.
Posted by
pastorshaun |
4/26/07, 8:13 AM
As an elder in the PCA for the past 24 years, and one who has attended many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, I can firmly say that I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the study committee was set up with the particular membership to bring about a desired conclusion. Historically, when a study committee has been set up, both proponents and opponents formed part of the committee. See the study committees on Creation, Women in the Military, Paedocommunion, to name a few. Look at results of study committees and note that there were both majority and minority reports. What does that tell you? Not everybody was in agreement. They knew that would be the case going into their study but the desire was to see two sides work together to try and reach a consensus through honest theological interaction, not just with writings and blog shoutings but with real people who could put forth cogent answerable thoughts and questions. This was not done here. One has to ask why? When I mentioned to one of the members of the church where I serve as a ruling elder that a committee had been formed by the PCA to “study” Federal Vision and NPP etc. and that they had finished their work, his first question to me seem reasonable. He asked who made up the committee and if there were those who were “for” and “against” so as to adequately study and discuss the matters at hand. When I told him that only opponents were on the committee (and I might add some of those proponents had already made their opinions quite well known in published writings and internet dialog) his gut response was “then the study committee was a sham. How can you have divergent theological views being espoused in a denomination, set up a study committee to actually study and dialog and only have one side represented?” My question indeed. I must admit that I am a presuppositionalist, but this kind of presupposition concerning my mother church I did not want to hold. At least a little window dressing to include a “token” FV proponent might have given more credibility to the committee. Certainly this committee’s report will do nothing to dissuade FV proponents that this is more a matter of a “witchhunt” with a forgone conclusion then a serious attempt to deal with the issues. Four presbyteries have already dealt with FV proponents and while they agree that they have disagreements with some of the FV musings, all have clearly made it known that the men under question are within the bounds of orthodoxy and Westminster. In all sincerity, why not have proponents on the committee? There are certainly men who are articulate, members in good standing in their respective presbyteries who could have adequately represented the position. The notable absence of such men was a great disservice to both the committee and the assembly at large. Are we viewed as men with such a lack of ability to follow theological arguments that we must be spoon fed the “appropriate” line and no more? This type of action demonstrates a great lack of trust and confidence the elders’ ability to actually do the work of “Bereans”. It is also a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to rightly persuade men. We have been treated like children whose “parents” must do the thinking for them.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5/5/07, 12:13 PM