From: Jonathan Barlow
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
fpcjackson.org/recent.htm
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:27:46 -0000
From: “Jeff Steel”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Have you guys actually written thousands of pages? I haven’t read that much!! Hmm.
Jeff
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:36:24 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
I am a fool. I just printed this out, ran out of ink, so that the first pages (which printed last) are illegible, and it turns out that those are the only things I haven’t seen yet. . .
Mark
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:48:28 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Anyone find any significant changes to what we’ve already seen?
joel
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:54:40 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Interesting letter. Lig Duncan’s “miscreants” are targeted from the beginning (“but alslo realizing that they all share a certain similar attraction to a distinct theological sub-culture within various Reformed denominations”). Someone thinks he has Ahasuerus’ signet ring.
Also, we see why it was important for agents from MVP to lobby so hard outside their own presbytery, to sow suspicion and discord through gossip and unofficial trials without stipulated evidence: “In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.” They go on to tell the trouble that Rich Lusk got into for the heretical notion that children under the age of nine should be regarded as Christians (though that level of detail is missing from the report, as is the admission on the part of the committee to the fact that pressure from outside the presbytery was being brought to bear.
Of course, this is all second-hand, but so is all the gossip that is left so vague in this letter. If the Assistant Pastor who was removed is who I think it is, then there is an amazing alternative vision of the facts that was actually accepted by the Presbytery concerned. Nice of MVP to set them straight in one sentence without argument or evidence.
Strange how a “not insignificant number of PCA teaching elders” who show “significant sympathy” with NP appears with no names of professors in the PCA and in trusted seminaries. The self-appointed “trusted churchmen and scholars” have spoken (or been spoken for?). Later, their presence is admitted in a limited and controlled way.
Mark
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0500
From: “John Heaton”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
All,
This is a hasty reply to the MVP report which I read. Hasty replies are ill-advised in Proverbs but this is BH after all. You’ll understand if I don’t make complete sense. Plus, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
The MVP report to one *outside* like me who has more in common with rank and file pastors who are unaware of the whole bru-ha-ha, is neither acerbic or offensive. Yes, I KNOW you aren’t happy with it.
However, you who wish to advocate NPP/AAT/FV in the PCA in the name of X and in the interest of theological development must admit an important thing and conform your rhetoric and tactics to this reality: You DO NOT represent the status quo. You DO NOT represent the PCA as they conceive it, and YOU cannot pretend that you’re NOT *dangerous.*
We have the same problem in the REC. Our bishops want to re-Anglicanize the church, which is fine by me. But they can’t pretend that the REC is returning to its roots and its old paths. We all know what the REC is, has been, etc., and, though many believe it *should* be changed, the rhetorial burden of proof is on those who want to change it. In doing so, we can’t pretend that its really nothing more than changing the window dressing. Too many parishes know better.
Thus, avoid seeking the sympathy vote. No one will feel sorry that you’re persecuted (except those of us on BH who are sympathetic to you — but can’t vote). Above all you have to appear that you are being totally HONEST about the implications of what you advocate, rather than simply minimizing the issues under the cover of reformed diversity. It won’t work. I mean, the discussions on this list are animated prescisely BECAUSE the NPP is so provocative and interesting and worth pursuing. These ideas have great consequences and you have to be the first to say it. Clearly identify the tension and fight the battle there.
Those who disagree understand this and are negatively provoked. Thus, I think the MVP report is of great rhetorical value. It is very instructive not because it obscures or reveals the ulterior motives of those who are *out to get you.* They see something very clearly that you had better recognize — they are vanilla, and you are now chocolate. You’ll only win it by persuading the PCA that chocolate is better, not by insisting that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, permitted, or otherwise mixed in the reformed recipe.
My $02.
John Heaton, Headmaster
New Covenant Schools
122 Fleetwood Drive
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434.847.8313
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:52:51 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Great advice John. But for the record my own hasty reply is never seeing the light of day. I vented on BH and that’s the end of it.
I did blog one thing which I mention briefly:
In one church, an AAT/FV-sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor’s extra- or anti-confessional views.
I so hope I don’t personally know of this situation even though it seems bizarrely familiar (like looking at a negative of a picture). How is it possible that a presbytery can make these sorts of statements that are themselves unreferenced and unquestionably highly debatiable? This is cited as evidence when it is actually a raw condemnation without a trial and is now in the public record as the act of a court.
We live in a strange de facto polity that has virtually nothing to do with what I’ve ever thought was de jure Presbyterianism.
I decided not to publish this (well, it was up for a couple of seconds). I’m wondering what I should do with it.
Mark
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:59:17 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Mark Horne wrote:
I decided not to publish this (well, it was up for a couple of seconds). I’m wondering what I should do with it.
Let it go. Let the dead bury the dead. There’s only one lesson in all of this: none of us need bother inquiring into pastorates within the boundaries of MVP. The Lord will deal with this in good time. Wait and see.
JJM
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:00:45 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Also, we see why it was important for agents from MVP to lobby so hard outside their own presbytery, to sow suspicion and discord through gossip and unofficial trials without stipulated evidence: “In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.” They go on to tell the trouble that Rich Lusk got into for the heretical notion that children under the age of nine should be regarded as Christians (though that level of detail is missing from the report, as is the admission on the part of the committee to the fact that pressure from outside the presbytery was being brought to bear.
Yes, that was an intersting remark about my case. Actually, the committee (even when pressed) refused to state a reason why I was not recommended. It would be most honest for the report to just leave it at that. Nothing was said to me about being outside an acceptable range of theological diversity. The committee was even ready to allow me onto the floor of presbytery if the church wanted to pursue that route. The chair of the committee even said he’d have to recovene in order to make a formal statement, which they did not do. I don’t think they had decided on an acceptable range of theological diversity which is why they didn’t quite know what to do with me.
In follow up, informal conversation with the chair of the committee, I basically got the impression that I was not recommended because the men did not yet “feel comfortable” with where I was theologically and still had questions. They wanted a wider body — in particular GA — to make a recommendation for the presbyteries on these issues (which will probably have to happen now that the MVP report is out).
You’ll note Frank Barker is on the list of “leading pastor-theologians” who have raised concerns. Plus, Lig himself is regarded as “the theologian” for PCA folks around here. I think Frank is a great pastor — who can argue with the great missionary zeal of Briarwood, which has minustered to thousands of people in a multitude of languages, here in Bham and all over the world? — but he is not much of a theologian. And that’s fine — but I don’t know why they’d put him on the examinations committee.
So, yeah, the MVP report of what happended to me is slanted. Still, though, I don’t think there’s any point trying to fight for a more honest record of the facts at this juncture. It would accomplish nothing profitable, and probably only make things worse. And besides, it’s not like that’s the grossest inaccuracy in the report! The thing has more falsehoods than truths.
RL
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:10:46 GMT
From: “rmmccheyne@juno.com”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
“In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.”
I’m assuming Rich is one of the two mentioned. Whose the other? (Just for the record, my exam wasn’t a transfer.)
“Members transferring from AAT/FV-friendly churches have attempted to force the sessions of the churches to which they have relocated to allow for their practice of AAT/FV distinctives relating to child communion and membership (and in one case have pursued a judicial appeal all the way through presbytery to the SJC).”
What’s this about? Anyone able to speak to this claim?
JAT
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:26:17 -0600
From: burke
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
They see something very clearly that you had better recognize — they are vanilla, and you are now chocolate. You’ll only win it by persuading the PCA that chocolate is better, not by insisting that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, permitted, or otherwise mixed in the reformed recipe.
My $02.
John Heaton, Headmaster
Great argument, John, and I think this was Steve Wilkin’s purpose, speaking for him as I often do. When I heard his lecture at the end of 2002 on the children of the covenant being on the porch, not in the house and not in the world, he was throwing the gauntlet down. And he did. And it riled people. I believe at the time he wanted to confront the PCA on its ambiguity, on its indecisiveness towards children of the covenant. And to make his point, he called out the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and he brought it on. And then he got clobbered!
But I’d say with you: go for the chocolate; and while acknowledging that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, go for the pure stuff.
My penny,
Burke
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:52:06 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Aren’t there some factual errors in that first section? For instance — the hearings they allegedly organized, and didn’t Pastor Wilkins request the meeting, not that committee?
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:27:12 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: response to ad hoc report — MVP
I didn’t get a chance to get back to the response until a little bit ago, but something like the final version is up now:
joelgarver.com/docs/response.htm
Gimme some feedback before folks go linking to it.
I incorporated what most of you said, including some thoughts in the intro bouncing off of what John Heaton said.
joel
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:57:55 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —
“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”
Talk about “shibboleth”!
joel
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:21:43 -0600
From: “Steven Wright”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Joel wrote:
Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —
“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”
Talk about “shibboleth”!
John Frame makes a helpful point about this kind of thing in DKG:
“It is impossible for theology to have precisely the same ‘emphasis’ as Scripture does. To do that, theology would have to simply repeat Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. But the task of theology, as we have seen, is not to repeat Scripture but to apply it. Thus theology not only may but ought to have a different emphasis from Scripture itself.” (p. 182)
steven
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:24:53 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:57 PM, garver wrote:
Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —
“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”
Talk about “shibboleth”!
I had not noticed this, but it is an amazing admission. Even if we grant the legal and forensic character of justification and covenantal relations, we are wrong because we don’t formulate it just the way they want. This is evidence that they are looking for conformity to terminology rather than faithfulness “to the system of doctrine taught in the Standards” (our ordination vow). This seems to be evidence that all of this is a backdoor attempt to enforce the worse form of strict subscription.
So according to this paragraph “FV proponents” are accused of downplaying the legal in favor of the relational dimensions of the covenant. What is the name of Sam Hill does that mean? What’s the real difference, in their minds, between legal and relational dimensions? I’ve always thought that the legal was a subset of the relational. Otherwise stated, of all the ways persons have of relating, a legal relationship is one. Are they claiming some priority to legal relationships over relationships based on love and friendship? The way they state this seems odd to me. Do they think they are saying something profound. It’s nonsense.
JJM
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:51:11 GMT
From: “Joe Thacker”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
It is impossible for theology to have precisely the same ‘emphasis’ as Scripture does. To do that, theology would have to simply repeat Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
This reminds me of Bishop Wright’s comment in one of the Q&A’s where he said, in effect, (quoting someone else, I believe) when you talk theology, if you don’t say everything there is to say then someone will accuse you of denying or not believing something else.
(Kind of like what happens when conversing with Cal B.)
JAT
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:52:37 -0800
From: “David E. Scott”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Someone on the study committee for the Pacific NW Presbytery just sent all the other committee members a link to the MVP report. Do you guys think it would be wise for me to offer Joel’s response as additional information, or just let the committee members draw their own conclusions from reading the MVP report? It’s hard for me to get a read on how the Southern Presbyterian stuff resonates (or doesn’t) out here in the NW.
Thanks,
Dave
Rev. David E. Scott
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Issaquah, Washington
www.covenant-pca.org
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:02:19 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
Someone on the study committee for the Pacific NW Presbytery just sent all the other committee members a link to the MVP report. Do you guys think it would be wise for me to offer Joel’s response as additional information, or just let the committee members draw their own conclusions from reading the MVP report?
absolutely!
sw
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:03:23 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
I think you should send them a link to Joel’s stuff. . . I mean, look at Rayburn’s sermons on this stuff. Plus, the MVP report only seems sad to us — to most others it will read like something responsible and even charitable. blecch
— Jonathan
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:23:25 -0800
From: “David E. Scott”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
ok, will do
Rev. David E. Scott
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Issaquah, Washington
www.covenant-pca.org
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:16:05 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
In a message dated 2/8/2005 6:04:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, jeffmeyers@earthlink.net writes:
Let it go. Let the dead bury the dead. There’s only one lesson in all of this: none of us need bother inquiring into pastorates within the boundaries of MVP. The Lord will deal with this in good time. Wait and see.
JJM
This is very interesting. When I was in seminary MVP was the easiest Presbytery in the PCA to pursue ordination. If you could breathe, find a Gospel, knew Genesis was in the OT, you passed. Arminians, four pointers, baptists, etc passed the exams.
Perhaps this is all tied together. They were so loose for so long, that many old timers and perhaps ruling elders can’t discern the differences. Those who can are few in number and mostly of one bent.
Eric.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:22:14 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
This is very interesting. When I was in seminary MVP was the easiest Presbytery in the PCA to pursue ordination. If you could breathe, find a Gospel, knew Genesis was in the OT, you passed. Arminians, four pointers, baptists, etc passed the exams.
Perhaps this is all tied together. They were so loose for so long, that many old timers and perhaps ruling elders can’t discern the differences. Those who can are few in number and mostly of one bent.
Eric.
That sort of reminds me of the Niemöller poem about Nazi Germany, only in reverse.
— Jonathan
