This has meant fruitless hour upon hour on the phone with Apple tech support, which is one reason I haven't been producing more blog posts for your amusement and edification. (Amongst other reasons are pastoring a congregation, producing approximately two sermons a week, parenting four children, getting the third of those adopted, nominally helping Mrs. Curmudgeon plan and prepare an adoption party, not coming anywhere close to helping Mrs. Curmudgeon plan our vacation for later this month, and occasionally folding laundry in the presence of Mrs. Curmudgeon: quality time for married folk. Not amongst those reasons is a dearth of barely informed opinions. But you'd guessed that already.)
At any rate, this appears to be why I wasn't notified by the Google of several comments to my June 25 post, "Grown-ups prevail at the PCA General Assembly." I learned the post had been aggregated on the Aquila Report site earlier this week while another pastor in my presbytery was trying to deflect my ruthless mockery over his ignorance of Lou Reed. Unbeknownst to me (for the record, Don Clements, the Aquila Report's editor, later apologized to me for my post being accidentally aggregated without my express consent), I seem to have caused a slight ripple in the waters of the conservative presbyterian pool in this nation. An Associate Reformed Presbyterian pastor, Tim Phillips, has taken rather lengthy umbrage in a piece entitled "The Grownup Solution."
Pastor Phillips argues that, since the Westminster Standards preceded the development of Darwinism by a couple centuries, the modern Church has no recourse to address the theological error of theistic evolution other than an in thesi judgment. While I agree there are any number of issues which the Westminster Standards do not address, and that at least a few of those issues should be addressed by the Church (and here note I've written and spoken on that particular problem in the past and hope to write a follow-up post on it in the near or not-so-distant future), this is not one of them.
To momentarily turn to another question, the Standards were written long before the peculiar doctrine of reincarnation became widely known in the West, and at no point explicitly address the question. Nonetheless, WCF 32.1 rather clearly rules it out:
The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.
Accordingly, I can see no need for a presbyterian assembly to issue a declaration against reincarnation.
Pastor Phillips seems to have entirely missed the PCA General Assembly's similar reason for not issuing an in thesi declaration on theistic evolution:
While not wishing to diminish the importance of engaging the current controversies regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve, we believe that what is most called for is not a new deliverance from this Assembly, but rather a clear and uncompromising appeal to Scriptures (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-22) and the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith 4:2; Westminster Shorter Catechism 16; Westminster Larger Catechism 17), which are already sufficiently clear that Adam and Eve are real, historical human beings directly created by God.
Now, perhaps Pastor Phillips believes those sections of the Westminster Standards do not, in fact, rule out a theory of theistic evolution. However, I and the PCA General Assembly do, and I imagine we together would direct inquiries on the question to our shared Confession.
Pastor Phillips also expresses a certain impatience with judicial process, expressing a concern about a possible fox in the henhouse. While an in thesi deliverance may appear to threaten any such hypothetical fox, only the shotgun of judicial process will actually remove him. Moreover, if there are any such foxes in the henhouse, why in the world is anyone wasting time drafting in thesi declarations when they should be submitting charges to the relevant presbytery? Judicial process is the presbyterian tool designed to remove theological error from the Church; a failure to employ it when necessary is, at best, irresponsible.
One last comment on Pastor Phillips' piece for now. Towards the end, he writes,
Near the end of the blog post, the pastor writes this statement:
The practical impotence of in thesi declarations is why I think them corrosive to the Church’s well-being.After reading that, a friend of mine (a pastor in the PCA) commented, “How can he claim something to be ‘impotent’ and ‘corrosive’ at the same time?” It’s a good question, one that requires some thoughtfulness.
That question has the strength of appearing clever, but the rather sad weakness of a failure to read my statement in context. The original paragraph goes on to explain it this way:
The practical impotence of in thesi declarations is why I think them corrosive to the Church's well-being. Church officers are free to agree or disagree with them with whatever degree of openness they prefer; disagreement brings with it no automatic sanctions. This creates the impression that the Church's highest judicatory has spoken in a final way on a matter, and can be freely ignored by any and all of the Church's members; this simply cannot be healthy for any ecclesiastical body. Far better, I think, to read our confessional standards and be content with the very grown-up statements they provide.
I continue to think that, and hope, upon further reflection, Pastor Phillips will as well.
6 comments:
Pastor Kingsbury, I do thank you for contacting me through my church's website and letting me know you had posted a response. I had issues with trying to post on your blog before; I hope this reply goes through satisfactorily.
At this point, I have no desire to go back and forth with you on this issue via blog posts. I may have some strong opinions of my own, but I do not desire to be a curmudgeon. I did make a follow up post (of sorts) on my own blog last evening (linked below), and since I don't own a time machine either, you can be assured that it was not in response to this particular post. You are certainly entitled to your rebuttal, and I understand your desire to defend your own opinions. However, there were a number of concerns I had raised in my original blog post that were largely left unaddressed by you. Among these would be the use of the offense title and characterizations in the original post, as well as my question regarding the RPCNA and the ARPC and their "maturity." Perhaps you could address those in a follow up comment without having to devote another blog post.
At any rate, I will close by adding that John L. Girardeau, as well as the PCA's predecessors in the Southern Presbyterian church, disagree with you about in thesi statements. In other words, there is actually an historical precedent for such statements in the PCA's own bloodline. I think Dr. Girardeau was a grownup, as was the PCUS, in this matter.
http://gairneybridge.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/girardeaus-statement/
“Pastor Phillips argues that, since the Westminster Standards preceded the development of Darwinism by a couple centuries, the modern Church has no recourse to address the theological error of theistic evolution other than an in thesi judgment.”
Pastor Phillips did not say that there was “no” recourse other than an in thesi statement. In fact, he stated that the proper solution was to judicial process, but that “in the meantime” an in thesi statement “serves a helpful purpose.”
“the Standards were written long before the peculiar doctrine of reincarnation became widely known in the West…. Nonetheless…. I can see no need for a presbyterian assembly to issue a declaration against reincarnation.”
There is currently no controversy over reincarnation in Reformed Presbyterian circles, so this isn’t a good comparison. A better one would be the one Pastor Phillips identified, on the issue of justification and the federal vision. Those cases have been winding their way through PCA courts for years, with mixed and sometimes confused results. “In the meantime” an in thesi statement would help clarify where the denomination stands.
“Now, perhaps Pastor Phillips believes those sections of the Westminster Standards do not, in fact, rule out a theory of theistic evolution. However, I and the PCA General Assembly do”
It is clear that Pastor Phillips believes the Standards rule out the theory of theistic evolution, since the statement he sponsored at the ARP Synod, and which he linked in his article, expressly states, “We deny… that such a theory can be reasonably reconciled with either the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or Holy Scripture.”
It does seem a bit odd, though, that you would appeal to a statement from the PCA GA to that effect, since your argument is that such statements are childish. To the extent that they opined on the matter, it would seem to undermine your argument rather than support it.
With regard to Louis's comments, on further review it is true Pastor Phillips did not say there is no recourse other than an in thesi declaration. I mistook the great length at which he went to say that the Westminster Standards did not explicitly address theistic evolution as an implication they insufficiently addressed the topic.
Louis mistakes an appeal to the Standards themselves with an in thesi declaration. Without going into an explanation of the difference, the two are not the same thing. The 40th PCA GA did the former, and not the latter.
Regarding Tim Phillips's comment, the appeal to Girardeau proves something other than what he appears to think it proves. It does indeed demonstrate a historical precedent for in thesi declarations in Southern Presbyterianism. However, the excerpt from Webb also shows these were controverted in Girardeau's time, and for much the same reasons I would also articulate today.
In the interest of good manners, I feel I should respond to the offense Pastor Phillips takes to my suggestion that not making in thesi declarations is more grown-up than doing so, although I must admit I am rather at a loss as to how to produce what he might find a satisfactory response. In thesi declarations are occasionally issued in the naive belief that making a statement is the same thing as doing something (I think Pastor Phillips response to my original post is a case in point); this strikes me as an adolescent tendency. I also think that in thesi declarations are more appropriate to Baptist assemblies, as their congregational ecclesiology leaves them powerless to judicially correct error within their congregations.
These are sincerely held beliefs of mine, and I wish all Presbyterians shared them. I'm saddened when presbyterian assemblies do not live up to the better parts of our tradition, and pray we will all grow up together in maturity in Christ in polity as well as in personal piety.
Pastor Kingsbury, I believe I have posted sufficient evidence to show that a significant portion of the Presbyterian world disagrees with you. The ARPC and the RPCNA disagree with you. The PCUS disagreed with you, in particular John L. Girardeau (though, for some strange reason, you think this actually supports your opinion). Furthermore, the Westminster Confession of Faith (31:3) does not support your opinion. Acts 15 does not support your position. We are not adolescent Baptists because we happen to disagree with your personal opinion.
Let me also end my part of this exchange by noting that it was your own original post (which some have described as a "rant"), which used rather condescending language toward ordained brothers in Christ, that precipitated this all of this. I was merely responding to that. One of us may have been acting like an adolescent. I do not believe it was me. But I will leave that to your readership to determine.
Post a Comment