Frank Turk on AHA

I'm going to comment on some of Frank Turk's recent statements about Abolish Human Abortion. Keep in mind that I'm not a member of AHA. And I don't have an in-depth knowledge of AHA. I don't have a fully formed opinion of AHA. 

For example, since 1982, the number of abortion providers has fallen by 37%.  That didn't happen because the pro-life movement is merely a statement of opinion -- and for anyone to say otherwise is, frankly, sly at best.  The advance of partial-birth abortion laws in this country is a function of pro-life activism; the advance of limiting abortion to prior to the 20th week is a function of pro-life activism.
The problem, of course, is that none of these actions are seen by the folks at AHA as advances: they are seen as some kind of ethical syncretism is which some losses are acceptable for minor gains. 
it's not wrong to pass a law to stop immoral acts even though it cannot be enforced 100% and some will still be victims of crime.  Murder is already illegal in our nation - yet people are murdered every day. That doesn't make us immoral people for supporting the laws we already have.
So my first complaint against AHA is this: it is utterly unfair toward those who, frankly, share their ultimate goals but see the social  and political methods to achieving the goals as a longer process which takes back the law in steps.  It is unfair to their past accomplishments, and unwise in assessing the moral victories of the pro-life movement.

i) I agree with Frank that a 37% reduction is progress. I also think an incrementalist strategy is a valid political strategy.

ii) The extent to which AHA disagrees I will leave to spokesmen for AHA. 

iii) There's also the question of whether we can directly attribute the 37% to prolife activism. Other sociological dynamics or demographics may be a factor in the reduction. 

But I think there is a more-human, more-analogous example in the Bible which the AHA statements overlook: the body of the church.  The church is a holy thing for God (for the sake of the purists, see Eph 5:27), but it is also a mixture of wheats and weeds until the end of the final judgment (purists: Mat 13).  In God's view of it, something salvifically-necessary can be, from a human perspective, a mixed bag and still achieve what it is meant to do in this world.
So the objection from concerned citizens in and around AHA is this: The parable in Mat 13 is not about the church, but about the world -- so I am off the reservation.  My objection is nullified.  "WORLD!"
OK - first of all, the standard reading of that passage is that Jesus is talking about the church in the world.  If my reading is flawed, so is the reading of a boat-load of reliable and faithful men from almost every age in church history.

i) If Frank cited the parable of the wheat and tares to prooftext his objection, and his appeal is exegetically mistaken, then, yes, that does nullify his objection–on his own terms, for that's how he framed his objection.

ii) I'm puzzled by his confident appeal to the history of interpretation. Glancing at my commentaries on Matthew, every commentator I checked (e.g. Craig Blomberg, D. A. Carson, Knox Chamblin, C. A. Evans, R. T. France, Donald Hagner, Craig Keener, Leon Morris, John Nolland, Grant Osborne, Herman Ridderbos, David Turner, Davies/Allison) denies the identification of the "world" with the church in Christ's parable. 

iii) Frank's interpretation is counterintuitive in another respect. I believe Frank is a Baptist. From what I've read, Baptists typically deny the ecclesiastical interpretation of this parable. Baptists typically think the visible church ought to approximate the invisible church. The visible church ought to be composed of born-again Christians. A credible profession of faith ought to be a condition of membership. Baptists typically think the ecclesiastical interpretation ("the field"=the church) is used to excuse lax standards of church membership and church discipline.

But: I'll go you one better -- maybe 2 better: I'll utterly concede that the parable of the wheats and tares is a parable about the whole WORLD!  If the whole WORLD is a mixed bag of wheats and tares until the end of the world, and the point of the parable is that God is doing what he's doing and allows there to be a mixed bag, how can God be doing what he means to do in this WORLD! except by some kind of incremental change?

I agree with Frank that this parable suggests a rather pessimistic view of moral progress. 

That said, over the last two days I have been, due to some odd interactions I have had over the last week or so, examining the organization which calls itself "Abolish Human Abortion," or "AHA."  We have covered their version of absolutism, and also their view of being "biblical" about their endeavor, and I find myself left with one other complaint that seems glaringly-obvious to me but maybe not so much to them.

One problem with that statement is that when I click on the "their view of being 'biblical' about their endeavor," it takes me to:

Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

Is that just a computer glitch, or does that mean Frank deleted his original post? If the latter, he seems to be backtracking 

OK: so...maybe they aren't as absolutist as they claim to be -- but so what? 

I find that puzzling. If AHA is not as "absolutist" as Frank initially alleged, then that concession weakens his original argument. Far from being "so what," that would be germane to the state of the argument. 

Specifically: they forget that the church is the place where the authority of the Gospel is located.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean? Doesn't the Gospel have authority in its own right? Independent authority. Authority because it is true? Authority because Christ mandated the Gospel? 

So in what sense is the authority of the Gospel tied to "the church"? 

Don't think so?  Review Mat 16:16-19.  Here's what Calvin says about this passage:Here Christ begins now to speak of the public office, that is, of the Apostleship, which he dignifies with a twofold title. First, he says that the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys; and, secondly, he adds, that they are invested with a power of binding and loosing, which is ratified in heaven. ... We know that there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word. [Emph Added]

i) I don't know why Frank is appealing to Calvin. Is that an argument from authority? That we should defer to that interpretation just because that's how Calvin construed it? But as a Baptist, Frank's theology isn't conterminous with Calvin's. 

ii) With all due respect to Calvin, Mt 16:16-19 does not entrust the "keys" to pastors or elders. The text says nothing about pastors or elders. 

iii) Keep in mind, too, that what is mean by "binding and loosing" is disputed. By analogy with Lk 11:52, one interpretation is that this metaphor refers to evangelism.

iv) Finally, Evangelical commentators normally coordinate 16:19 with 18:18. However, the scope of 18:18 isn't confined to church officers. 

The Gospel is not running around without a church. 

I'm afraid Frank sounds an awful lot like Charles Chauncy. As if he represents the Old Lights, who opposed the Great Awakening. During the 18C Evangelical Revival, freelance evangelists like George Whitfield, Howell Harris, Daniel Rowland, William Pantycelyn, and Gilbert Tennent got in hot water with their ecclesiastical superiors because they didn't receive ecclesiastical permission to preach the Gospel. Is Frank really going to take the establishment position on this? 

The rest of the New Testament testifies to this -- for example in Titus 1-2, 2 Tim 2, 2 Peter 3 and so on -- and demands that the Gospel come from the church under the good order of the body as protected by faithful men.  The fact is that all the people saved into Christ in the NT were saved into the church -- a local church, a physical body of people -- and worked together from the church into the world.

There's a difference between claiming that converts are "saved into the church" and claiming that the Gospel "comes from the church." Even if the former is true, how does that logically follow from the latter? The Gospel comes from the Bible. The church gets the Gospel from the Bible. And a church is no better than the Gospel it proclaims. 

In that: so-called "Gospel" ministries in which the workers and especially the leaders are outside of the protection of the church, and are not accountable to the church for their actions, are problematic.  It's not enough to say that they are members in good standing at their local church: if they are doing the work which is prescribed for the local church but they are not under the authority of the local church, they are either robbing the local church or scoffing at it, or both.

i) How is it "not enough to say that they are members in good standing at their local church"? If the allegation is that they "are outside of the protection of the church, and are not accountable to the church for their actions," but if "they are members in good standing at their local church,"then doesn't their membership place them within the "protection" and "accountability" system of the church? 

ii) Does sharing the Gospel demand a "leadership" structure? Was the Samaritan woman (Jn 4) wrong to witness to her neighbors? 

iii) How, exactly, are they "robbing" the local church? Does a local church own the Gospel? 

The problem, at its heart, is a failure to see that there is a need for all the parts of the body for the right function of the body -- in this case, the function of leadership over the function of social action.  This problem is present in spades in the AHA organization.

Why assume that social action even requires "leadership"? Is there something wrong with Christian individuals participating in social action? Is there something wrong with a few Christian friends who informally coordinate their social actions, without a designated leader? 

First: there is no visible, accountable leadership structure.  After inquiring with someone who knows, I was able to get a short list of fellows who are sort of running AHA, but that list is not readily visible to the public.  In the best case, that's AHA simply asking for grace that they aren't willing to give anyone else.  They are hell-bent to make sure the names of the people they find lacking are well-known and well-dunked in the shortcomings they have charged them with.  Imagine what AHA would do with a church that wouldn't list its leadership, or an outfit which funded abortions but shielded its leaders behind an anonymous "inquiries@prochoicepayouts.com" e-mail address.  At best it puts them at risk of wandering around without any real purpose; at worst, it gives them a license, as they said in the '70's, to do until others, then split.

i) To begin with, some prominent figures in AHA have gone public, viz. Don Cooper, Russell Hunter, Alan Maricle, Matthew Martellus. 

ii) Frank's objection strikes me is inconsistent. If he thinks ADA ought to be accountable to a local church, then that wouldn't be public. Rather, their identity would be known to their elders. Insider information. To take a comparison, many churches have church directories, but those are normally accessible to members. They are not public directories. The only thing that's public is the church staff.

iii) I don't know for a fact that AHA lacks transparency. But let's assume for the sake of argument, that it lacks transparency. So what? 

Assuming that AHA lacks transparency, there could be good reasons for that. Maybe they don't want to have Theocracy Watch or the Southern Poverty Law Center snooping on them. Maybe they don't want the IRS or the DOJ snooping on them. Keep in mind that we're currently living under a surveillance state, where the administration targets conservative organizations as if they are domestic terrorists. Where the administration shares private information with leftwing pressure groups. Where the administration coordinates with leftwing pressure groups.

I've also read one AHA spokesman accuse some Catholics of colluding with the local police to harass AHA protesters. I can't vouch for that allegation. But, if true, there's a good reason why AHA members might wish to minimize their digital footprint.  

iv) Why is the identity of a prolife activist anyone's business? Suppose a Christian layman stands on the curb of an abortion clinic, passing out Bible tracts. Suppose the police question him. Demand that he show them his driver's license. The authorities are not entitled to that information. He's exercising his First Amendment rights. He's a private citizen, not a public figure. He's under no obligation to give his name or furnish contact information. 

Second: they have removed themselves from Gospel accountability.  That is to say, it seems obvious that there is no one with a mature view of Scripture out in front. 

I don't know most of the folks affiliated with AHA. However, Alan Maricle has a "mature view of Scripture."  

Yesterday we saw at least two significant errors in theology and in the meaning of the Gospel; there are more to be found on their website.  Those errors are replicated as this organization goes about its business. 

Considering the fact that Frank bungled his appeal to the parable of the wheat and the tares, his accusation is a bit embarrassing. 

 It stems from failing to have a local church accountable for and accounting for their actions, and overseeing their work to make sure both that it is wholesome and godly and also that it is not a scandal.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that AHA has some "significant theological errors," it's completely illogical for Frank to conclude that this "stems from failing to have a local church accountable for and accounting for their actions, and overseeing their work…" Surely Frank thinks that many local churches suffer from significant theological errors. You can have significant theological errors with or without ecclesiastical oversight. Frank's inference is a blatant non sequitur. 

Think about this for a second: if they were a seminary that cropped up out of the wild blue yonder, or a publishing house, or a prison ministry with no means of maintaining confidence in the theology they were teaching and preaching, who would take them seriously?  But in this case, there is no visible means of doing that at all, and (not surprisingly) they have given themselves a free pass.

Does one need a "means" of maintaining confidence in their theology? What means would that be? There is no foolproof mechanism. Certainly church oversight is insufficient grounds to maintain confidence in someone's theology. Unless a local church is theologically trustworthy, trusting a local church as a means to maintain confidence in their theology is misguided and gullible. 

Indeed, don't we have to have prior theological standards to judge which local churches are theologically sound or unsound? 

Third and finally: they have inverted God's economy of the church.  Yesterday I linked to the "Church Repent" site to show how they are shaming churches they say are not living up to the standards these unaccountable fellows have established.  In the best possible case where these fellows are 100% correct and the churches they are shaming are 100% wrong, this activity is simply never found in the NT -- it's not even implied.

i) Once again, I don't see how the conclusion logically follows from the premise. Assuming that the NT is silent on this activity, does does that "invert" God's economy of the church? 

ii) If (ex hypothesis), ADA is 100% correct and the churches they censure are 100% wrong (keep in mind that this is Frank's own hypothetical), what's wrong with telling a church that's in the wrong that it's in the wrong? Do you need a special right to say what's right? 

Likewise, how is that different than OT prophets shaming wayward Israel? 

BTW, I'm not commenting of the "Church Repent" site. I'm just commenting on Frank's argument.