There are (at least) two ways to get rid of heretics from a denomination. One is to study the issues, grasp them, determine if your opponents are actually teaching them, and then make the decision. The other is generate some slogans, doggedly persevere with those slogans ("that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it"), pull some levers, stack some committees, and then ban anyone who has read a book by N.T. Wright without glowering the entire time.
There may not be fireworks this afternoon, but this is a really big deal. Pray that God would protect the PCA from nativism.
Posted by Douglas Wilson
**************************
Did the PCA stack the deck against the FV and NPP? I've run across this charge fairly often. And it raises an interesting question:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that PCA clergyman who oppose FV and/or NPP outnumber those who support it by 20-1.
In that event, how do Doug Wilson and his like-minded cohorts think that the committee should be constituted? Should it be on the basis of proportional representation? Or would that be “stacking the deck”?
If he rejects the principle of proportional representation, then is his proposing the ecclesiastical equivalent of affirmative action? Quotas and set-asides for FV/NPP committee members?
Given his views of the Confederacy, one wouldn't expect him to be a big fan of affirmative action, but in the church version of identity politics I suppose it all depends on who is in the minority.
If a committee were equally represented by supporters and opponents, even though the opponents outnumbered the supporters by 20-1 among the ordained clergy as a whole (not to mention the laity), the how would that be the least bit representative of the denomination at large?
I think Wilson would've been delighted with proportional representation. That would've been a vast improvement. Even one would've been better than none.
ReplyDeleteTwo, I think Wilson would've been delighted if the PCA had followed its own instructions on the matter. Its committees are required to have at least some representation of the view in question. This one did not.
Three, when weeks before the vote, the FV guys made loud, public protest that they patently did not believe the vast bulk of what they were being charged with, I bet Wilson would've been delighted to see someone say, "Hey, wait a minute. Something's amiss here." In fact, several non-FV pastors did say that, publically, but they weren't on the committee, and their voices were ignored.
I submit that you would not be pleased if a church council came up with a list of 50 things believed by Triabloggers, and 47 or so of them were patently inaccurate. And when you protest that, and the fact that you were never asked what you believe, they ignore you and go ahead and vote on your heresy anyway. Especially so when you go out of your way in print to distance yourself from the vast bulk of ideas on that list of 50.
On top of that, then you get bloggers who aren't in your denomination and are only passingly aware of the issues, who decide to come down on you as heterodox at best, based on the fact that the list of 50 was overwhelmingly approved. Approved by convention voters who by-and-large did not even have the level of knowledge that the ill-informed bloggers have...
As a non-FV Southern Baptist, I love Triablogue, but you guys have missed it on this one and are in danger of bearing false witness against some decent Christian men.
If a non-FV Southern Baptist can complain that the PCA has missed it on this one...
ReplyDeleteCan I, as PCA member who has been opposed to FV for at least the last three years, with equal authority just say that the PCA got it?
By the way, I am fully aware that there is no "one" FV idea out there. However, it's not like Wilson wasn't in conferences with folks like Schlissel, Wilkins, and Barach--you know, the whole Auburn Avenue thing. I listened to the conference form the first Auburn Ave meeting, and it was attrocious doctrine. Whether Wilson disagrees with 47 other points, the 3 the he holds to are heterodox (and by the way, there are more than 3 but I'm using your analogy for this).
GORDAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I submit that you would not be pleased if a church council came up with a list of 50 things believed by Triabloggers, and 47 or so of them were patently inaccurate. And when you protest that, and the fact that you were never asked what you believe, they ignore you and go ahead and vote on your heresy anyway. Especially so when you go out of your way in print to distance yourself from the vast bulk of ideas on that list of 50."
i) Since I'm admittedly a low churchman, I wouldn't lose any sleep over what a church council said about me. It's not as if the Tridentine anathemas keep me awake at night.
ii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FV faction as unfairly treated, that's the price you pay for being a high churchman. It's all about process. An argument from authority.
"On top of that, then you get bloggers who aren't in your denomination and are only passingly aware of the issues, who decide to come down on you as heterodox at best, based on the fact that the list of 50 was overwhelmingly approved."
i) Since you yourself belong to the SBC rather than PCA, your accusation is self-incriminating.
ii) Since FV and especially NPP are transdenominational positions, I don't have to belong to a particular denomination to render an informed judgment on FV or NPP.
"Approved by convention voters who by-and-large did not even have the level of knowledge that the ill-informed bloggers have..."
i) How are you in any position to know what they know or don't know? Did you conduct a series of interviews with a scientifically representative sample group?
ii) Would you say the same thing about Green Baggins?
umeWell, Wilson denied all but three of the points that this unbiased committee said represented FV. And I didn't see anyone owning up to any more. So we agree there was something wrong with the report: it didn't represent FV. So if the General Assembly gets together and rejects the theology represented in the report, how is that an indictment of FV?
ReplyDeletePeter, I grant you every right to think they got it right, but you didn't address the issue raised in the post, about whether the committee was stacked or not. Shouldn't there have been one FV rep on the committee? At least one?
Do you think the PCA followed their own procedures here?
You may abhor the theology of the Auburn Avenue conference, but your opinion is not justification for a group violating its own procedures to indict men unfairly. Bring them up on charges for what they said at Auburn Avenue! But this report was not done appropriately.
As a long-time reader and fan of this blog, I have to grin at the idea that you guys would "lose no sleep" over an entire denomination slandering your views and purposely misrepresenting you. You can't even let the individual blogger get away with that, for crying out loud.
Gordan said:
ReplyDelete---
So we agree there was something wrong with the report: it didn't represent FV.
---
Not at all. What I'm saying is that Wilson isn't representative of the entirety of FV. The FV movement is bigger than Wilson.
You said:
---
Peter, I grant you every right to think they got it right, but you didn't address the issue raised in the post, about whether the committee was stacked or not. Shouldn't there have been one FV rep on the committee? At least one?
---
I don't think there needs to be any on there, no. Then again, from the start I've maintained that FV is heresy. In essense, it's like you're asking me if I think that they should include Arians on the committee if they wish to discuss what the PCA affirms about the Trinity.
You said:
---
Do you think the PCA followed their own procedures here?
---
As far as I can tell, yes.
You said:
---
You may abhor the theology of the Auburn Avenue conference, but your opinion is not justification for a group violating its own procedures to indict men unfairly.
---
But your begging the question that these men were indicted unfairly isn't justification for claiming the PCA violated their own procedures.
You said:
---
As a long-time reader and fan of this blog, I have to grin at the idea that you guys would "lose no sleep" over an entire denomination slandering your views and purposely misrepresenting you.
---
What, you mean like the Roman Catholics, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, and atheists do? Why bother with a denomination when entire religions purposely misrepresent us and slander our views?
By the way, it's not like I'm saying Wilson doesn't have the right to complain. He can say whatever he wants. He can argue that this is unfair if he wishes. I will simply respond that I think it was perfectly fair, and the right judgement was likewise given.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that the PCA rule for investigating a doctrine which has not yet been labelled heretical, and is known to be held by some PCA pastors, is that the committee charged with studying it and making a recommendation must have representation of the view in question.
I realize you don't personally think they need to do that, and that's fine, but I thought the PCA had a particular rule about that. This is the rule that was referenced, I believe, by a handful of non-FV PCA pastors prior to the GA in an open letter stating their view that things had not been done properly and in order.
(By the way, I think the councils that eventually hashed out the Arian controversy did in fact have representation on both sides. I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong.:)
And, seriously, you're saying you wouldn't be upset if a group of Reformed bloggers got together and mischaracterized your views and began propagating the slanderous mischaracterization? Guys who are supposed to be on your team, that wouldn't stick in your craw even a little bit? And then if other Reformed guys jumped in and congratulated that group for laying the smack-down on your heresy? C'mon, seriously? You're a better man than I am, then.
There were two admitted Arians that voted against the first Nicene. Athanasius was not so naive as time went forward toward the Second Council.
ReplyDeleteI would point out that this report was years in the making, and that sessions and presbyteries across the PCA weighed in on it. This committee wasn't like the ad hoc committees you and I are used to the SBC producing this year to report back to us the next.
Gordan Gordan Gordan! You didn't think that you could point out that the triabloguers were wrong about something did you? I mean goodness knows none of them can ever be wrong about anything! Tsk tsk. Of course I will be asked to please provide a copy of everything I have ever said or written so it can be pored over by everyone here to see if it is accurate and whether or not my sources line up and in what way am I presenting an argument and blah blah blah....but please don't make the mistake in thinking that you can call them out on something! no no nooooooo.....
ReplyDeleteGordan said:
ReplyDelete"And, seriously, you're saying you wouldn't be upset if a group of Reformed bloggers got together and mischaracterized your views and began propagating the slanderous mischaracterization?"
Of course, that's a trick question predicated on a tendentious description of the FV/NPP controversy.
Gordan said:
ReplyDelete---
I was under the impression that the PCA rule for investigating a doctrine which has not yet been labelled heretical, and is known to be held by some PCA pastors, is that the committee charged with studying it and making a recommendation must have representation of the view in question.
---
Of course there is a simple way to handle this :-) The PCA uses the Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order. Perhaps you can show me which rule you're specifically referencing here?
You said:
---
(By the way, I think the councils that eventually hashed out the Arian controversy did in fact have representation on both sides. I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong.:)
---
That wasn't my point. I was giving a modern day analogy, not a historical argument as Nicea was most definitely not a PCA gathering. My point is that if the PCA were to do an examination of the Trinity today, they would harldy invite Arians to the meeting.
You said:
---
And, seriously, you're saying you wouldn't be upset if a group of Reformed bloggers got together and mischaracterized your views and began propagating the slanderous mischaracterization?
---
Which begs the question that the views have been misrepresented.
Again, you have to realize that the FV is bigger than Wilson. Thus, going against the FV in entirety means responding to things Wilson doesn't agree with too. By responding to all of FV, it's not implying each individual member of FV agrees with all of the points.
It would be like if I put up a list of politicians, with various beliefs, who are under the label "Republican" and summarize their beliefs as "Republicanism." Suppose one of these guys, Mitt Romney for example, says, "I don't agree with what John McCain says on this issue, therefore your summary of Republicanism is a mischaracterization of Republican beliefs." Would such an argument be reasonable? Only if Mitt Romney was the definition of "Republican"...but he isn't. No one politician is.
In the same way, Wilson falls under the category of being FV, but he does not define FV. That he doesn't agree with 100% of FV doesn't mean we've mischaracterized anything in condemning FV as a whole.
In any case, to answer your question: would I be upset if a group of self-proclaimed Reformed bloggers got together and mischaracterized my beliefs and slandered my position? Maybe when they did it the first time at the Auburn Avenue conference, but after years of this behavior from the FVs I've pretty much figured out how to ignore it.