Fault Lines, Part Two

Fault Lines, Part Two: A Question to Ask and Positions to Consider

It is vital to ask a tough question before I explore the ways in which the various cultures within the PCA that I described in my last article may respond to the question of women deacons/deaconesses. We have to truthfully answer the ‘why’ question before we move to the ‘what’ question. Is the issue of a woman’s role in the church as a deacon or deaconess a question motivated by an abiding concern to be more Biblical, or is it motivated by embarrassment with regard to our stated position when it comes to how the world views the PCA? Before someone shouts, ‘False dilemma!’ let me hasten to note that I am certain that some people may believe the current stance of the PCA banning women from holding all ordained offices, including deacon, and not currently officially recognizing an order of non-ordained deaconesses is indeed Biblically inaccurate and that they sincerely wish to see this changed whatever the world thinks of how we handle this matter. Yet this question must be faced because those who do often argue for this change do so out of a stated desire to ‘more effectively’ interface with our contemporary culture, a society dominated by a feminist mindset and agenda. Often some very nice sounding theological jargon (like ‘being missional’ or ‘incarnational’) is employed to dress up this concern; no one wishes to appear to be a mere appeaser, or as Paul would put it, a ‘man-pleaser’ (maybe he should have been more prescient and written ‘feminist pleaser’).

This question cuts both ways however. Those who simply don’t wish to even discuss the matter might equally be accused of cultural and theological arrogance. If upon reflection we find that our current practice does indeed fall short of what Scripture commands then we should be prepared (and eager) to change. Simply saying, ‘We don’t do it that way around here’ is no shelter for anyone claiming to be Reformed.

So then, cultural capitulation and ecclesiastical arrogance should not be allowed to govern the reasoning and conclusions the PCA reaches on this matter. Just because someone says, ‘We can’t effectively reach the Bay area without this change’ (as though the power of the Gospel depends on the purity of our polity), or, “We don’t do it that way in Mississippi” (as though that big river is the one that must be crossed to find the home of orthodoxy) is an insufficient basis for making a determination about this important question. Those who want to enter into the debate must ask first why they wish to champion the position they hold. Neither the maintenance of Reformed tradition nor the appearance of being culturally hip are very good reasons for starting a study committee.

That noted, I turn to the various PCA tectonic plates and the possibility of their collision over this issue. How will each of these respond to the question?

Obviously, the grid I am suggesting is a generalization, and there is overlap among these various sub-communities. What I think is vital to recall is the distinctive that worship makes as these groups wrestle with the issue. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi must be kept in mind. That old Latin phrase means in essence that the way we worship shapes the way we believe. It is a truth born out in experience over the centuries and a phenomenon observed by ecclesiastical sociologists of all stripes. From David Wells to Benedict XVI we have ample writing to demonstrate the reality that the culture of worship often drives the bus of belief. Informal, pop worship can lead to a view of God that is also informal and ‘pop’, a view in which God exists to entertain the congregation. In this model, the personal experience of worship as getting goose bumps to line up and fly in formation becomes the standard of evaluation for the effectiveness of the worship service. The Revivalism of 19th century America reshaped the Church and her culture of worship – right down to the architecture – and her view of the Faith. I don’t think I will meet with widespread opposition when I assert that Anabaptist belief and practice is the dominant evangelical culture in America, long ago displacing the older communities that arose out of the early Reformation – Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed. These latter communions, often in an effort to play catch up with their brothers, are now adopting worship styles that are not congruent with their stated theology of God and worship. This abandonment of their ancient practice (lex orandi) will reshape their ancient faith (lex credendi) into something virtually unrecognizable to those who were around long enough to witness the transition from one generation to the next.

In the PCA, the HCs, the NPs, and the STs, will be less likely to embrace any change on the role of women in the Church as officers, or as non-ordained deaconesses. The EPMs however have already shifted the culture of their worship to accommodate what they understand to the demands/needs/desires of their market-niche/audience/community/parish. That strategic decision to reshape the worship culture of the church for accommodation with the demands of the contemporary society sets these churches on the path towards a more ready acceptance of change with regard to women’s roles – even advocacy for such change – because they have come to grasp the significance of ‘branding’ in the world’s church mall. If a church is viewed as being ‘anti-woman’ (at least as defined by feminists) it loses credibility – and perhaps viability – in certain ‘markets’ of outreach. Thus the matter of the way in which the Church relates to the world, the mystery of how she is ‘in’ the world without being ‘of’ the world, lies at the heart of the discussion. Many EPM’s will not countenance for a moment the notion that Scripture alone must determine this matter. Oh to be sure, Scriptural arguments will rolled out in defense of the position stated, but one must again ask if this ‘exegesis’ has been done to defend a culturally relevant position, or if the new position on women arose from the exegesis.

HCs find themselves in an interesting position. They will be mindful that Scripture must be determinative (indeed, in many ways radically so), but they will also be aware of the contribution women have made in Scripture and in Church history (especially in the early centuries), together with carefully stated concerns over the ministry of sacraments. With regard to the latter, because the HCs are very concerned about worship and sacramental ministry, they won’t be asking simply ‘Does this mean women can preach?”, but “Does this mean that women may assist in the distribution of the bread and cup?”, and “Does this mean that women may be readers in the Lord’s Day Liturgy of the Word?” The issue of ‘office’ will be important, but of supreme importance will be how such an office appears before the Church in worship. Thus, while potentially accepting the idea of an order of deaconesses who are different from deacons and are not ordained (and thus in a certain measure of agreement with EPMs), they may not accept women as liturgical readers or as participants in sacramental ministry.

NPs will be on the lookout for any evidence of modernity creeping into the Church, and eager to root it out. I suspect that the views of John Knox on women ministers will supply the sermon ideas for some of my brothers in this grouping. In certain ways, the NPs can, like the HCs, be accused of re-prisitinating a certain era and advocating for this. They too, like the EPMs, might be accused of simply doing exegesis with a view to a previously determined conclusion. They will need to make sure that they do all that is possible to show that such an accusation has no grounds, pleading their case on the basis of the inspired text and not simply on the confessional tradition, rich and in accord with Scripture as it may be.

And what of the STs? They too must have an ad fontes movement, taking seriously the Scriptural case for women deaconesses offered by those who see things differently than they have always held to be true. Yet the STs distinctive concern with preserving a ‘Christian America’ culture may prove to be a great influence as well. STs will be very mindful of the feminist political agenda, and may conclude that this agenda, which is often seen to be an attack on a traditional southern way of living, is cause enough for the dismissal of any call to consider the role of women in the Church. The ‘slippery slope’ argument – that allowing for deaconesses today paves the way female ruling and teaching elders tomorrow – will find widespread appeal in ST congregations.

Thus both STs and NPs will be able to make common cause on this issue, though perhaps from slightly different perspectives, against the EPM initiative. The HC concerns may well alienate them from ST and NP leadership, their very different worship cultures contributing to a certain level of unfortunate suspicion between leaders in these communities. As of today it almost impossible to imagine the NPs and STs countenancing any change to the BCO on the role of women in the church, or tolerating the use of the word ‘deaconess’ or ‘minister’ with reference to women in the church. It is equally hard to imagine the EPMs long tolerating the status quo as they train an emerging group of young leaders and urban church planters. One can imagine the HCs fairly divided and filled with a certain degree of wrangling over the issue for years to come, one group allowing for deaconesses, the others saying ‘Never’ to make sure the tide of feminism is stopped at the gates, no matter what the cost.

Fault Lines and Earthquakes

PCA Fault Lines and the Approaching Ecclesiastical Earthquake, Part One: Introduction

Covenant Seminary President Bryan Chappell will lead an important presentation and discussion concerning the future direction of the PCA at the PCA’s General Assembly in Dallas this summer. The stated reason that this seminar needs to take place (and it does, and will be excellent in Dr. Chappell’s able hands) is because of the increasingly controversial and divisive issue of the role of women in the Church’s ministry. The past few years have witnessed several prominent ministers and congregations depart from the PCA over the current stance of the denomination on this question. Other congregations freely use the term ‘deaconess’ to refer to women in their churches who carry forward ministry related tasks, and this makes some in other congregations very uncomfortable. At least two Presbyteries have offered Overtures for this year’s GA to form a study committee to look into this matter, reporting back to the GA the following year. Thus the issue will shortly be noted as a front and center issue, rather than a simmering controversy discussed only quietly and in private. Looking ahead to Dr. Chappell’s seminar, I thought it might be helpful to say up front the way I see it. This opening article, written before I knew about Dr. Chappell’s seminar, offers my take on why this matter  is so potentially explosive.

PCA Fault Lines and the Coming Ecclesiastical Earthquake

Introduction

For some years our family lived in western Kentucky, not far from the New Madrid fault line that runs north-south through the central United States. We were regularly warned about the danger of a major earthquake, the kind that occurred in 1811-1812 which re-directed the Mississippi River and formed Reelfoot Lake in western Tennessee. It was an almighty shake up that very well could be repeated. We never felt more than minor tremors, one occurring just a few weeks ago in that region of the country.

Fault lines are boundaries, places where the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the earth meet – and sometimes move, causing the great earthquakes which can devastate wide areas. These underground lines are well known and in some cases visible to trained eyes. Yet the surface appears to be safe to most observers, the underlying faults not readily recognizable. When tectonic plates – the massive, irregularly shaped slabs of solid rock that make up the earth’s lithosphere – shift and collide along the hitherto hidden fault lines, the energy released causes massive devastation. The minor tremors often experienced in the fault line regions are reminders of what lurks beneath.

It seems to me that some ecclesiastical geological surveying is in order. It appears to many that some fault lines are running beneath the surface of the Presbyterian Church in America, occasionally showing themselves with the eruption of various disputes. It has to be said that most of these in recent years have been what one might describe as ‘minor tremors’ (though to the people directly involved they might have felt rather dangerous indeed). Issues like the length of the days in creation, theonomy, spiritual gifts, and the more recent controversy about the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision theology have indeed demanded a lot of attention from PCA elders and congregations, and yet have been rather tame disputes in comparison with other titanic conflicts in Church history. But is ‘the big one’ coming? I think so.

In the past I have described the PCA as consisting of a few prominent groups: TRs (Truly Reformed), the BRs (Barely Reformed), the URs (Urban Reformed), and the LRs (Liturgically Reformed). Tim Keller has suggested a paradigm of ‘Transformationalists’, ‘Doctrinalists’, and ‘Pietists’. Keller’s incisive analysis captures the picture in broad terms, and I think it is certainly helpful. Nevertheless, the TR, BR, UR, and LR distinctions strike a chord at the practical-emotional level because they describe approaches to worship as well as approaches to society. TRs, BRs, URs, and LRs might all be engaged for cultural transformation, but their differences on worship would ultimately alienate them from one another.

Yet this demarcation also masks the more substantial divisions that exist in the PCA. The recent FV controversy highlights this. The BRs and TRs were able to make common cause against people they perceived to be common opponents, and thus one might fairly conclude that the fault line running between the TR tectonic plate and the BR tectonic plate is surprisingly narrow and lacking in the capacity to become the epicenter for a massive shift. But neither the TRs nor the BRs could make common cause with many of the LRs, primarily because the LRs viewed those condemned in the FV-NPP Report as on their side of the fault-lines. Why? The culture of worship. The URs were largely silent in the last conflict, not from lack of conviction either way, but probably because they saw the FV controversy as a conflict between two kinds of TRs, and the outcome would not in any way affect their worship culture. And that is where the real divide in the PCA exists – worship and sacraments.

Let me suggest that this worship demarcation is a much more critical fault line that runs through the lithography of the PCA landscape beneath the previously mentioned groupings and it is this line that provides the context for the considerable shift that I believe may well take place. This lithographic survey highlights four key ecclesiastical cultures in the PCA which I have labeled in this way: HCs (Historical Catholics), NPs (Neo-Puritans), STs (Southern Traditionalists), and EPMs (Evangelical Postmoderns). There is some crossover among these groups; there are NPs who are also STs. But it should also be noted that the chasm between each of these groups is also quite wide. There does not seem to be a place where, for instance, the HCs meet the EPMs, or the EPMs meet the STs. What is characteristic of each grouping indicates why a place of meeting would be very difficult. Some of this is due in no small part to the underlying history of the Reformed movements. The differences between the British and European Continental churches and theology (and the unique approaches that exist between the European communions, notably between the Kuyperians and Schilderians), all contribute to this divergence. Those from a Scottish heritage for instance could never bear to have portions of the English Book of Common Prayer used in their services, nor could the Dutch Reformed ponder for long a Scottish style Presbyterian polity.

Let’s look briefly at these groups as I observe them.

HCs (historic catholics) value the ancient Faith as expressed in the Creeds, worship in such a way that the Lord’s Table has a place of weekly prominence, and the liturgical structure images the more ancient practices of the Church. Scripture is taken very seriously, studied enthusiastically, and proclaimed faithfully. These congregations however see themselves first and foremost as part of the centuries deep and wide Christian Church which encompasses a far wider community than the Reformed, and takes seriously the call to work with other kinds of Christian congregations in their locality for the growth of the Kingdom. Often in favor of paedocommunion, HCs are determined to plant beachheads of kingdom renewal, appreciating their reformed pedigree and confessional allegiance, but never allowing that to trump Scripture when there is any apparent disagreement between the two. They would value Systematic theology, but not at the expense of Biblical theology, which would have pride of place in this theological scheme.

NPs (Neo-Puritans) value the Confession and Catechisms above the ancient Creeds, worship in what might be identified as a more Puritan- minimalist style, and have a liturgical structure which places the greatest emphasis on the sermon. Here Scripture is taken very seriously as well, and it is taught and proclaimed with vigor and devotion. These congregations see themselves as rooted not so much in a patristic Church tradition as in the Reformation itself, and may view with suspicion anything that is not part and parcel of that great renewal. They may work with other local congregations, but might also be reluctant to do so in the name of preserving the purity of the Gospel.

STs (Southern Traditionalists) might be described as exactly like the NPs with this notable exception: STs tend to be ready and able to work with other evangelical congregations in community wide evangelistic work and mercy ministry. In addition, their worship is somewhat more culturally conditioned as well, often with large choirs at the front of the worship space, and magnificent productions and spectacles presented that affirm America’s uniquely Christian history, as well as the expected Christmas and Easter pageantry. One person described these congregations as NPs with a smile. That is not fair to either group in fact. Their similarities in concern are genuine, but their differences in worship remain profound. Like EPMs, these churches will be happy to employ modern technologies of mass communication to increase their reach and (as they see it) effectiveness in getting the message out.

EPMs (Evangelical post-moderns) value contextualization and the constant search for the narrative of the people they serve, so that the narrative of Scripture can be communicated to those people. In a certain sense this is not post-modern; it does after all acknowledge a meta-narrative in both the community and the Scripture. But it is post-modern in its shape, for its methodology suggests that the narrative of the post-apostolic experience of the Church can be “mined” for examples without buying the whole parcel of the experience and history of that ancient Church. EPMs would thus be more than happy to quote an Augustine or Athanasius, while in the same breath roundly asserting that we must beware of the dead religiosity of the past. Worship here may best be described as experimental and open; the leaders are committed to the search for the appropriate words and vehicles to present the person and message of Jesus Christ within their cultural context and language. This may include drama, art, various musical styles and performances (though never classical), and innovative preaching and teaching presentations, often involving multi-media displays with power point and move clips. They are gladly open to work with Christians from other groups, and they tend to not be self-consciously catechetical and confessional, seeking to keep the doctrinal and dogmatic end of the Faith somewhat underground and on a very short leash.

Running throughout the PCA are fault lines around these theological and ecclesiastical tectonic plates. They await the one issue that will unleash the kind of energy that causes a massive shift, with the plates moving away from one another, causing a new alignment to occur. That issue is now on the horizon, and the low rumblings from deep beneath the surface can be heard as that issue moves closer to consideration. That issue is the role of women in the Church.

More on 2008 Conference

In addition to the information on the right side of this page, I shall be teaching on church music and we shall be singing various kinds of things. Also, I plan to have a workshop or two on how to play piano/organ for worship, and if some of you would like to try your hand at playing for the conference singing, there will be an opportunity to do so. So, some of you might want to bring your pianist/musicians along this year. We will use the traditional Biblical Horizons Vesper service in the morning this year, as Matins.

A Truly Christo-Centric Church

The book of Acts presents an informative view of the Church, as well as an informative view of the way in which the Church read the Scriptures. As they saw that all things spoke of Jesus Christ, they also went on to apply those things to themselves. They lived the life of Christ.

This can be seen in Acts 4. Peter and John get in trouble for healing a lame man and preaching on the resurrection at Solomon’s portico, and so they are hauled before the Sanhedrin. When they return to the fellowship of the believers and relay their story, the group begins to pray Psalm 2 (vs. 23-31). They explicitly connect the characters in Psalm 2 to the characters at Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus is the Annointed. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles are the heathens, nations, and kings and rulers. This much is clear.

What is often missed, however, is that the actual application of this Psalm is not simply to the death of Christ, but to the events that just occurred. The ones gathered against were Peter and John. The “threats” which the Church calls for the Lord to look on in vs. 29 are those threats of vs. 21.

Thus it is quite appropriate for this incident to be followed with the description of the believers holding all things in common. They are of one heart and one soul precisely because they are the one Body of Christ. The giving of the land is the inheritance of the nations, and that they are laid at the apostles’ feet is Christological imagery (Gen. 3:15, Psalm 110).

So the anointed who was conspired against by the rulers and the nations was indeed Jesus, but it is also the Church. We, as the baptized, are all anointed ones, and as we dwell together, we are the one Body of Christ. Our life is Christ’s life, and what is done to us, and in turn what we do to one another, is done to Jesus.

How TR ultras promote Roman Catholicism in their urge to purge

The machine works mechanically and it is flawless.

1. Slander/libel a group of Presbyterian ministers as “Romanist” because robes and James 2 are no worse than praying to Mary or relying on purgatory to pay for unconfessed sins.
2. Drive off anyone who disagrees
3. Of that number, there may be a tiny minority of lost souls who have actually begun praying to Mary or deciding that the Pope must be submitted to–souls whom you have, in fact, encouraged to believe they might as well do so if they are going to allow for robes in worship leadership or regard James 2 as inspired.
4. Watch with self-gratification the ones you have driven off gravitate to the Presbyterian ministers you have slandered/libeled–including the ones that have indeed broken away from the true Protestant faith.
5. Watch those who the slandered/libeled Presbyterians are unable to bring to repentance go on to Rome or Byzantium
6. Boast at your further proof that the ministers are “leading to Rome.”  Trot out testimonies from some people who were headed to Rome long before they ever heard of the “Federal Vision” as if they are exemplars of it.

Of course, no one is actually leading anyone to Rome.  A few are being driven there.

The Squirmtrap E-mails: Calvinist Question

From: “Squirmtrap” Squirmtrap@wormneverdies.org
To: “Bitternell” Bitternell@wormneverdies.org
Date: April 21, 2008
Subject: Re: Calvinist Question

My Dear Bitternell,

I note with some amusement your alarm over your patient’s new-found friendship with a young, fervent servant of the Enemy–a Calvinist, I believe he calls himself. You fear that your patient’s theological knowledge and maturity may flourish under such an association. While there is a possibility of the first, the second seems rather unlikely.

Maturity, indeed! What do we know of this particular friend? That he is arrogant, close-minded, and zealously opposed to all traditions outside his own rather narrow one. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all, or even most, of those who claim the tradition of the late Jean Cauvin, that formidable opponent of our Father Below.

I cringe whenever I recall Grimewad’s rather severe chastisement after he failed to keep Monseiur Cauvin from taking on pastoral duties at Geneva, a position he was at first reluctant to accept. As a matter of fact, Grimewad thought he had the matter well in hand and decided to take a brief holiday to attend the Annual Temptor’s Convention. That was a grievous mistake. During Grimewad’s absence, Cauvin (or Calvin, as your patient’s friend knows him) received a visit from one William Farel, whose entreaties convinced him to stay in Geneva. Calvin’s skills were then put directly to use in the Enemy’s camp, rather than confined to a secluded scholar’s retreat where they would likely have caused little harm.

Pseudo Sacrifice

We at Biblical Horizons have been interested in understanding the biblical texts on “sacrifice” for at least a couple of decades. There are a number of excellent tape sets from past BH conferences with great lectures on this topic. This morning one of the seminary students in my church forwarded me a link to a video of a “Jewish Priestly Passover Sacrifice.”

Unfortunately, I cannot embed it, so you’ll have to trust me that this link won’t take you to something inappropriate. Make sure you heed the warnings before you watch the video. If you are not a farmer or a hunter or used to killing and preparing game to eat, you might be grossed out.

Empire & University

By Rich Bledsoe

If we take as a starting point the Tribal / Monarchical / Empire model, we can then add to it the Late Empire Phase. The particular ‘marker sin’ of Empire is false intermarriage, which signifies pluralism and syncretism. Empires by definition are “cosmopolitan” dominated by cities, high culture, many cultures, and many languages. There is more immediate contact with at least the high points of many civilizations and people groupings than any other form. But, with the corruption of Empire, any recognizable center drops out and agreed upon Truth is lost, and it is replaced by very vague and empty universalisms, and a lot of mush.In the Late Empire phase, the marker sin is the homoerotic.

Exile or Ark?

In the Fall 2007 issue of JBL is an essay “Jonah Read Intertextually” by Hyun Chul Paul Kim of Methodist Theological School in Delaware, Ohio. The first section of the essay points to numerous linguistic and conceptual parallels between Jonah (”Dove”) and the Noah narrative: Destruction of the earth, including animals; but in this case, the world (Nineveh) is saved along with its animals (note last verse of Jonah). Jonah as dove sent out from ark of the prepared fish. The wind over the earth. The forty days. God “regrets/changes” (Gen. 6:6-7; Jonah 3:10). And more.

It’s clear enough that the Fish that protects Jonah in the literal sea is parallel to Assyria, which is being specially prepared to protect Israel during their time in the gentile sea. The Noah parallels enable us to link the gentile ship of Jonah 1 as well. Jonah is protected in that ship from God’s storm-wind, but that wind is against him. The world is okay, but now Jonah/Noah is in sin and must be hurled into the Flood. The gentiles are saved and turn to Yahweh.

Music and Hermeneutics

Biblical Horizons 89, November, 1996

From time to time, when I’ve lectured on how to read the Bible, I’ve used art-music as one example thereof. When we listen to a simple folk song, we hear the same melody over and over again, but this is not how composers write “high” music. Let me amplify.

A composer will put out a theme (melody) clearly and forthrightly. You can hear it without difficulty. And, from time to time that melody will come back, and without difficulty you will hear it again. But what you probably won’t hear, unless you are trained to listen to music, is that the melody is being used in more ways. It may be broken down, and parts of it used in various ways in the overall piece. It may be played in the bass line, or in an alto line, underneath a more prominent second melody or theme. You’ll hear the new melody, and not notice that the old melody is being used underneath. The melody may be stretched out into slower notes (augmented), or played twice as fast (diminished). It may be used like a round (canon; ricercar; fugue), coming in over and over again on top of itself. It may be inverted (switching high and low notes), or played cancrizans (backwards). (A good listener can hear an inversion, but it takes a really good one to notice when the melody runs backwards.) The melody may be taken from a minor key to a major one, or vice versa. A composer will introduce one theme, and then another, and then play them at the same time.

Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, which starts with the famous four note theme (motif) “da-da-da-DAHHH,” actually uses that four-note motif and its inherent possibilities as the foundation for virtually everything in all four movements. We don’t notice it, however, until someone points it out to us, and shows us how it happens. And that’s okay. The symphony can be enjoyed either “naively” or “maturely.”