My thoughts on the 2013 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America

General Assembly (GA) seems to be the gift God gave to make Presbyterians miserable in this present world and long for the world to come. If true, then this GA was particularly successful. 
There are many places one can go to get an accurate roundup of the actions of GA—those who thought it was the end of the PCA, those who thought it could've gone better, and those who thought that everything was a smashing success.
From my perspective the story is not the actions of GA particularly. The actions were pretty much laid out before us before GA convened. GA is a well oiled machine and its actions are usually outlined a month of so in advance. Sometimes the floor moves things in a different direction, but rarely with significance. This is not to say I am pleased with the actions of GA; I am not. I think they were bad decisions for our life together as a confessional church. But, except for the minority report on the insider movement (which we deferred for another year), there were no surprises.
What struck me as unique about this GA was the party spirit of those in control of things (I will refrain from using a left/right analogy) which I will refer to as Atlanta because that is where the denominational bureaucracy is headquartered. Now party spirit on all sides is something that has plagued the PCA as long as I have served in her ministry. However, it is generally a behind the scenes thing and is thought to be too unseemly to let out in the open. I personally can't see how we can avoid parties and it may be that openness about it is a good thing. But I would hope that openness about parties would rather soothe than heighten the divide among us (by way of eliminating suspicion).
There was little mood for unity evidenced by anybody at this GA. The mood was set by the opening sermon by the outgoing moderator, Mike Ross. It was a provocative sermon on the sin of conservatism. Rev. Ross has always been one of those whose style from the pulpit is confrontational; in any other context the sermon theme might be considered a healthy challenge to self examination. But sermons are not preached in a vacuum. Considering the obvious anxiety many conservatives had over the direction of the PCA coming into this year's GA and the strained relationship the theme had to the text, it could not help but be heard as a direct attack. And it was.
The rest of GA followed suit. The new moderator appeared to be overwhelmed by his duties and this slowed, confused, and frustrated the floor. The inability of the GA to even protest the actions of the Standing Judicial Commission was bad enough; but it did not help matters that the man who was moving the protest was berated by the moderator's stand in. The mood off the floor was even worse.
Too many in our church think that the PCA is okay as long as we refuse to ordain women. It is clear that we are not near that course of action so therefore we must be okay overall--that is the conclusion of far too many. We don't question the Bible's infallibility or inerrancy so we must be very healthy. But what if we don't slide into liberalism and yet still lose the gospel? What will it matter if we only ordain men if those men only care about extending their influence and power? What does it matter if our church grows if those in the church think membership and sacraments are their safe harbor rather than the testimony of a conscience trusting in Jesus Christ for righteousness and holiness?
The lack of unity and identity in the PCA has finally caught up with us I fear. The great problem with a party spirit is that it allows one to accept positions he normally would not in order to defeat the other party. It also tends to make the smaller party more defensive and less open to compromise. It leads to a breakdown of trust necessary to the life of the institution which is corrupted by party spirit. Our national politics is sufficient proof of this. I think this GA should wake us all up to this danger.
I don't know what to do about it, but I think for the love of our Lord and his church we ought to do something. I am a confessionalist. I think it would be great if the PCA were more fully so. At this point, however, I think my party should aim more modestly. I am a traditionalist. I think the chaos that we have in regards our worship practices is not healthy for our church (it makes us de facto congregational outside matters that concern only the eldership). But I also think that uniformity has always been a pipe dream in the PCA and we should be realistic in our expectations. But we do need an identity that we can all get behind: All—not just those who attend presbytery and GA. Hopefully, some dear saints that love the PCA from different parties can get together (openly) and hash it all out before we go our separate ways.

A Request for Help

I recently dropped all the posts that linked to sermons I have preached. I am having trouble with the audio upload. It is too complicated. I was behind in posting anyway. For those who post sermons online could you post in the comments what service you use and how much the service generally costs? I just need ballpark information. Our church is updating its sound system and it should be easier to make consistent recordings but the service should allow me to post as an individual. Any information would be helpful.

A Low-Church/Reformed Defense of the term Sanctuary

What should we call the building we, as the church, worship in? Amongst Protestants there are generally two words that come to mind: auditorium and sanctuary (this excludes the more traditional language of the Church of England because her vocabulary is drawn from the Medieval church). Sanctuary is more common today, but auditorium has a venerable history and much theologically to commend it.

Changes to Mississippi RUM (THE RUM)

Reformed University Ministries is a product of the heart for students found in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Because of its Mississippi origins RUM Mississippi has always enjoyed a somewhat separate existence from the Atlanta bureaucracy, which was developed from it. Of course, human envy and lust for power drives all bureaucracies and Atlanta is no different. Here's an article showing the threat to the fine ministry here in our home state: (be sure to read Roger Collins's heart-breaking letter at the end)

Major Debate in Covenant Presbytery on the Structure of R.U.M. in Mississippi

Book, eBooks, eReader, and iPads

     I am a reader.  I am also a bibliophile.  I love books; I love the feel of books and I love the look of books.  I also have a Kindle e-reader.  I have had one since they first came out and I have recently added the new Kindle WiFi to the family.  There are some who believe or hope that e-books will replace paper books.  Then there are some that think that e-books are a passing fad.  I belong to neither camp.

Social Justice? Social Envy:

Hand in hand with covetousness goes its close companion— invidia or envy—which hates to see other men happy. The names by which it offers itself to the world’s applause are right and justice, and it makes a great parade of these austere virtues. It begins by asking, plausibly, “Why should not I enjoy what others enjoy?” and it ends by demanding, “Why should others enjoy what I may not?” Envy is the great leveler. If it cannot level things up, it will level them down; and the words constantly in its mouth are “my rights” and “my wrongs.” 

--Dorothy Sayers, Letters to Diminished Church, Kindle location 1132.

Here is the truth by what usually names itself "social justice".

First Eggs!!!!

My wife gathered our first eggs from our chickens last evening.  Apparently the Easter-eggers mature a little quicker.  Both eggs are a beautiful light robins egg blue.
UPDATE:  Wed., August 4, 2010:
The eggs, along with two other we harvested yesterday, were delicious scrambled with two slices of bacon.

Do we still believe the Bible is sufficient?

In the past century Presbyterians fought, and ultimately divided, over the inspiration and authority of scripture.  In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) our commitment has been solidly to the Bible.  That, I believe, is still the case.  However, there is another doctrine regarding scripture that IS JUST AS IMPORTANT -- the sufficiency of scripture.  What does that mean?  It means that the scripture is the only direction that the church needs to accomplish her mission.  How do I you share the gospel?  Go to the Bible.  How do I relate to my fellow believers?  my neighbor?  my enemy?  Go to the Bible.  What ought the church to do when she gathers together?  Go to the Bible and find out.  The Bible is sufficient for all these things, despite being over 2,000 years old, because it is the Lord's message to us.  Is his wisdom sufficient for these things?  Then so is his word.  Without a vigorous commitment to the sufficiency of the Bible, it doesn't matter a whit whether you believe the Bible is infallible or not.  Just as good works reveal the sincerity of one's faith, so living by the Bible gives proof that the church believes the Bible to be authoritative.
Sufficiency is dealt with in the Confession

New Blog in the Blog Roll

Christianbook Distributers has a great blog about Christian books. Particularly useful is their interviews with authors of new titles. Check them out.

P.S. If you're interested, they have a great contest for a set of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.

Wealth and Liberty

  It is commonly held that with wealth comes liberty.  I mean liberty or freedom in the classical sense: not so much the existence of choices but the removal of barriers that hinder one's goals.  One can easily imagine that a little more money, a slightly more secure situation, a larger pool of resources could open many doors that currently remain shut.  The doors might not be that obvious.  A liberal education is not cheap.  Certain social circles are hard to break into without the experiences that come with wealth.  Time comes at a price when one lives from paycheck to paycheck.  Philosophers will deny all this, but philosophers have generally come from privileged classes.
  Yet wealth comes with its own chains and burdens.

Spring Is Here

Spring has come and it is time to spruce up the look of the blog.  Thanks to Blogger for the improved templates and customizing options, I can brighten things up a bit.  Let me know if you think it is an improvement or disaster. :-)

Marriage, the Core of Society:

In chapters 2 & 3 of the Politica, Althusius identifies the family as the basis of human society. Of course, this is sort of a common place. We hear this sort of thing in political rhetoric all the time today. It was an old concept (indeed a biblical one) even in Althusius' day, but it was not popular. The nation state was emerging with its strong centralized power. Althusius believed that society and government was organized around consent and commitment, that is, covenants. There was no absolute human authority.

Are these two ideas compatible? Can the basis of society be the family and, at the same time, consent? After all, we do not general choose our family members. But a moments reflexion identifies the basis of the family is the covenant between man and wife. If were but one society, only one family, at its base would be a commitment between a man and his wife, between a woman and her husband. This is the teaching of the Bible. Adam and Eve were joined together in marriage by God (see Genesis 2, and Matthew 19). In fact the creation of man included the creation of both male and female, they together complete the concept of man.

The bond of this union is such that it even trumps the duty of a child to his or her parents (see again the two references above). Now the law of God does not pit one duty against another, we are to honor father and mother AND keep the marriage bond pure and unbroken. However, we live in a sin-sick world and their are times when our duty to God overrules our duty to our neighbor. It is better to obey God rather than men, says our apostles. When we remember that our duty to respect and honor civil government is derived from the fifth commandment (our duty to honor our parents), the sacredness and solemnity of the marriage bond is intensified. In human society it is covenant, not power, that is fundamental.

But can the same argument be made outside of revelation? I think so. While our understanding of humanity's early years is clouded and based largely on conjecture, recorded history sees mankind already organized in complex societies. And common to all those societies is the institution of marriage in one form or another. It is true, that hierarchies of power asserted themselves over the mutual commitments of men, patriarchs of families began to undermine their sons' marriages by demanding unwavering loyalty, and that sacred institution became a way of extending political clout, it became one more tool of power. But in the beginning it was not so, and our Lord makes that clear. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Another Warning against Faith in Government:

This article is a must read:

Is Joe Stack a Wake-Up Call to America? by John W. Whitehead

Its purpose is to show the tragic futility of trusting government. Government is not God, it is not capable of doing what it promises & often promises what it has no intention of doing. Why? Because government is human. It is made up of men and women wielding power. It is subject to human corruption. And like mankind everywhere, it lies, cheats, steals for the extension of its own "good" (which, from the perspective of government, is power). Of course, government wants to put the best spin on its actions and so it creates myths and presents itself as the protector of human freedom, prosperity, and wellbeing. But that is its own useful fiction. The tragedy is that many people believe government myths, and they either become pawns in the oppression of themselves and their neighbors or they end up disillusioned and despondent: thus Joe Stack.

This is not to say that government serves no good purpose for mankind. All things work together for good to them that love God, and to them who are the called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). God uses the evil of the world to bless his people. Government, as evil as it is, is still a restraint against humanity's utter depravity. God uses many such restraints. But when we confuse a restraint with a positive blessing, we set up an idol. This is the problem with the so-called Christian Right and the Christian Left, both replace politics with the gospel. Government is a burden, but with Paul we can say, I can do [endure] all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Phil. 4:13).

The Social Imperative

Moreover, Aristotle teaches that man by his nature is brought to this social life and mutual sharing. For man is a more political animal than the bee or any other gregarious creature, and therefore by nature far more of a social animal than bees, ants, cranes, and such kind as feed and defend themselves in flocks. Since God himself endowed each being with a natural capacity to maintain itself and to resist whatever is contrary to it, so far as necessary to its welfare, and since dispersed men are not able to exercise this capacity, the instinct for living together and establishing civil society was given to them. Thus brought together and united, some men could aid others, many together could provide the necessities of life more easily than each alone, and all could live more safely from attack by wild beasts and enemies. It follows that no man is able to live well and happily to himself. Necessity therefore induces association; and the want of things necessary for life, which are acquired and communicated by the help and aid of one’s associates, conserves it. For this reason it is evident that the commonwealth, or civil society, exists by nature, and that man is by nature a civil animal who strives eagerly for association.

--Althusius, Politica §32,33.

Here is an argument from natural law (and God's revelation in the book of nature) that undergirds all social intercourse amongst men. Man is, by the necessary conditions of his creation, a social being. Man cannot be alone and be complete: thus moral obligation and love. By the same law, a Christian man cannot be alone and be complete: thus the church. Moving from natural theology to revealed theology, God has declared unto us that we are created in his image. Is it any surprise then that he has also revealed himself to be a community of persons in one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Another Way to Read Althusius

This link will take you to an online version of Althusius' Politica. You may access the whole translation for free, with the same page numbers in the print version.

Thank you Liberty Fund.

Introduction to Althusius' Politica

"Politics is the art of associating (consociandi) men for the purpose of establishing, cultivating, and conserving social life among them. Whence it is called "symbiotics." The subject matter of politics is therefore association (consociatio), in which the symbiotes pledge themselves each to the other, by explicit or tacit agreement, to mutual communication of whatever is useful and necessary for the harmonious exercise of social life."

Thus Althusius begins his Politica (p.17). His vocabulary does present some problems to the casual reader so I would like to help clear things up a bit. First, we should not read politics as referring to the squabbles of political parties. Nor does he have in mind political government per se. He is seeking to explain the principles underlying every association between individuals (government, church, family, professional associations, &c.). Art is used in the sense of a subject of inquiry or a skill.
Symbiotics is from a Greek word meaning "living together." The symbiotes are, therefore, those who live together (or associated together for whatever purpose they are so associated). Communication is sharing, related more to communion (the modern word indicates the sharing of ideas, words, thoughts, &c.). This is how the older English versions of the Bible use the term (typically rendered fellowship in newer versions).
One should note that Althusius was committed to the "social contract" theory of politics before the Enlightenment formulation. However, Althusius' preferred word would be covenant. As man's relationship to God is covenantal, so is his relationship with the rest of mankind. And so his understanding of politics includes elements of piety: "The end of political "symbiotic" man is holy, just, comfortable, and happy symbiosis, a life lacking nothing either necessary or useful."
Althusius constructs his Politica on divine & natural law, both conceived as coming from the Lord. As such his politics assumes the liberty of mankind (though this was less a concern before Thomas Hobbes). Along with the mutual agreement of the members of the political body being considered is the belief that human sovereignty in a commonwealth lies not with the prince but with the people as a whole. He concludes "that the efficient cause of political association is consent and agreement among the communicating citizens." (Page 24). Of course, these ideas are at the very heart of our free society (or at least they were).

A Different Direction & a Good Book:

I know some of you miss the short run-throughs of the sermon texts from week to week, but I really cannot bring myself to them justice. I may still do some of that, but obviously I cannot do it consistently (the last such post being back in November). So what should I do? I did get some feedback on my last post. It was just a link to an article I read with some of my own comments attached. That seems to be a good use of the blog, but certainly not a primary use. I am considering posting reading notes on some of the books I am reading. Right now I have several books in the queue and several strategically locating in my reading zones (on my desk, by the bed, near the couch, &c.). I will probably write most on Johannes Althusius' Politica. Althusius was an early advocate of popular sovereignty, federalism (and social contract), and local rule. However, he is pre-Enlightenment and his views grow out of his commitment to the Reformed faith (Calvinism) and natural law.
The link below has information about Althusius' Politica (and how to order):
Liberty Fund | Fifty years of affirming the ideal of individual liberty

Posted using ShareThis

Why God warns us against faith in government:

How To Fix the Jobs Problem by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

This is an article that should be read. This a cogent explanation of the blessings of a free society. Note, freedom encourages a strong work ethic, entitlements encourage laziness. Government policies are inherently oppressive (see 1 Sam. 8). As St. Augustine taught, we have government because we are sinners and it is the punishment of the Fall. Paul teaches us that we are to honor those in authority because they are ordained by God, but we do not give them our devotion (and the early Christians' failure to do so got them eaten by lions). Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and with Abraham we have our eyes on a better country.

Satanic Peter

In Matthew 16:17, Jesus pronounces Peter blessed because Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Matthew 16:23, Jesus rebukes Peter as a Satan, trying to tempt him from his mission. What happened? Peter confesses Christ by forsaking the evaluations of the flesh and relying on the Father’s revelation. In seeking to shield his master from suffering and death, Peter savored of men not of God. From standing firm against the gates of hell to being one of the Devil’s own siege weapons, Peter’s fall is dreadfully quick. Yet it is the common lot of the disciples of Jesus Christ to this very day.

The problem, as Jesus clearly points out, is the fact that Peter falls back on his own conception of what it means to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Sin is such that only with constant vigilance can its corrupting influence be mitigated. We know the truth, we learn God’s will from the Bible through private reading and personal study, preaching, and study groups. And yet, as sinners, we are constantly avoiding the implications of God’s word to us personally. We place ourselves and our comfort at the center of the Lord’s work, instead of God’s glory.

Peter was not content with Jesus’ description of his mission: rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection. It did not fit with his idea of Christ’s glory. It did not fit his idea of discipleship. What would it mean for the student, if the master was to be so cruelly and dishonorably used? And that is the point of Jesus’ teaching in the rest of the chapter (Mat. 16:24-28). Of course, our Lord has already been crucified and is raised in glory. But we are content to let him bear the cross for us. We chafe at any notion that suffering is part of our life with God. To that our Lord says, “Get thee behind me Satan.”

The Rock

When Peter confessed Jesus to be Christ, the Son of the living God, our Lord made a confession to and about Peter (Mt. 16:16-18). Jesus declared Peter blessed in that he had received the truth from God himself. He also gave Peter his name, which in Greek means rock (John tells us in his Gospel that Jesus gave him his name upon meeting him, but this is a confirmation and an explanation of what made him a rock). Jesus also said that, “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Now whatever else this may mean, it has nothing to do with which bishop is head of the true church. The New Testament knows of no individual but Christ as the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11). The Bible does name the prophets and the apostles as the church’s foundation with Christ as the chief cornerstone in several places (see Ephesians 2:19-22; Revelation 21:14). And it is true that the church must be apostolic, which means she must be founded on the teachings of the apostles. But she can only be built on the apostles as she is built on their witness, which is the holy Bible. Like Peter, the church must receive and submit to the Father’s revelation (see verse 17). Like Peter, the church must trust Jesus as the Christ, God’s anointed servant to bring salvation from sin and death; the church must trust Jesus as God’s Son, the very bosom of the Father. To be built on the rock of Christ, the church’s faith must be the same as Peter’s faith.