Are we losing them? Gage Browning believes we might be. I think Gage is right.
First, the PCA will deal with an overture this summer at General Assembly asking for a study committee to deal with the ordination of women to the office of deacon. You can read the overture here. I do hope and pray that the GA study committee will uphold the biblical position which reserves the office of deacon to men only. Unfortunately, however, I have my doubts that our PCA will take such a bold and biblical stand (sigh!).
Second, as to Gage’s concerns, he raises even broader questions. Gage cites an interview with Tim Keller of Redeemer PCA in New York where Rev. Keller seems to somewhat reluctantly be PCA and in fact has helped start many non-PCA churches. In response to a question about why Redeemer remains PCA and after stating that they “just put up with it,” the interviewer asks, “Even though you’re helping plant non-PCA churches?”, Rev. Keller says,
Yes, because I don’t believe you can reach New York with the gospel if you only plant Presbyterian churches. There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them. Some people are going to be Pentecostals, some people are going to be Catholics. I mean, I know that sounds—I’m not talking about that certain cultures reach certain people. It’s much more complicated than that. Even though there’s something to that. We all know that certain cultures seem to have more of an affinity toward a certain kind of Christian tradition than others, but I wouldn’t want to reduce it to that at all. I would just say that I only know that God seems to use all these kinds of churches to reach the whole breadth of humanity, and so that’s why we give money to start churches of other denominations, and give free training to it. And we’ve done about a hundred in the New York area, where we’ve helped people. It’s very important to us.
Gage wonders (as do I) where our standards come in. Do they matter? Does it matter if we are PCA? Apparently not.
Read Gage’s post here.
-
1
Pingback on May 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
[...] are several posts on this blog on the subject here and here for example. My views are no secret. The offices of elder and deacon are reserved for [...]
April 24, 2008 at 11:26 am
If I read this right, Rev. Keller doesn’t think that the Word of God, in it’s truth, can do it’s job to reach those that it needs to reach, so he wants to add some seeker sensitive things to it to draw the people in. What’s the use in bringing all those people into a place where they won’t be taught the truth?
Marie
April 24, 2008 at 11:37 am
I think Keller is being misunderstood here. The Redeemer Church Planting center is planting a lot of PCA churches, but they also work with non-PCA church planters in training them and providing them with resources to plant church all over New York City. They are providing biblical training for church planters from other denominations, serving the larger body of Christ. This is little of the explanation from their website: (http://www.redeemer2.com/rcpc/index.cfm)
3. What is Redeemer’s Church Planting Center?
The Center will coordinate Redeemer’s effort in church planting in New York and other major urban centers of the world. The Center will also encourage many other churches in Greater New York to start new gospel-centered churches. This will be done by lending expertise and support to other churches and networks of congregations in New York.
In doing this, they focus on all of the following in Greater New York:
* Redeemer Daughters
* Redeemer Pioneer works
* Cooperative Efforts with other PCA churches
* Partnerships with churches of other denominations
I think this is admirable, and does not automatically mean that Keller or Redeemer downplays truth or mean they do not love or appreciate the PCA.
April 24, 2008 at 11:53 am
I can only go by what he said–and this part troubles me:
“…because I don’t believe you can reach New York with the gospel if you only plant Presbyterian churches. There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them.”
I ask why not? If we don’t think the Prsbyterian expression is the best biblical expression of “church” then why be Presbyterian. If we do think it is, then plant Presbyterian churches. Seems pretty simple to me.
My thoughts do not mean that I believe that other churches are not also going to plant churches and see God bless them. That will surely happen. But we are Presbyterian and we should not be apologetic about it and we should seek to reproduce ourselves.
Just my thoughts.
April 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think that this is merely another instance of Postmodernism rearing its ugly, multi-faceted, hard to distinguish and define (sounds kind of like the ECM) head. By the mere fact that one is affiliated to a denomination through a leadership position suggests that one also thinks that the denomination in question provides the best and most accurate desription of God’s Truth, plain and simple. If that denomination happens to be the PCA, then you should hold the PCA doctrinal standards to be true, and find yourself in agreement with them. If not, find a new denomination. It’s the simple law of non-contradiction.
Les, I harken back to your post entitled “Iain Murray on Unity”. I think that post captures how as a denomination we should interact with others. Sure there’s interaction, but there are fences as well. It think Keller wants to, and sees it as his goal to have as many different parts of himself in as many different areas as possible, all at the same time–like some weird version of denominational twister.
April 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Here’s Keller’s response to some further questioning about this interview at First Things:
“I love the PCA and have no intention of leaving. Everyone who knows me knows that. The PCA is a confessional Presbyterian denomination and I love that. I never said I was ‘putting up’ with Presbyterianism. In fact–if you look–when I was asked if I was hampered by being in a denomination, my point was ‘only a little.’ I explained that in some minor ways being in a denomination is always an inconvenience, because no constitution fits all sizes of churches equally well. But ‘we put up’ with those minor inconveniences (I said originally) because of our commitment to being in a connectional, confessional body.
We have never, ever financed or planted Roman Catholic churches. And we never will nor would want to. I didn’t say that in the interview, of course. But my sentence–that I’ve seen God bring people to Christian faith in prosperity-gospel churches and in Catholic churches–came close to my sentences about how we give money to plant non-Presbyterian churches. If you already are suspicious of me, I suppose you might want to believe we plant Catholic churches, but of course we don’t. And we never would. (I don’t know of anyone who has preached the Luther-Calvin doctrine of justification of faith alone more often over the years. ) We do, however, support churches that are Reformed but charismatic (e.g. like C.J. Mahaney’s churches or other similar churches) and other non-Presbyterian churches that we train and we feel are on the same page with us about gospel theology. There are plenty of Baptist, charismatic, churches etc etc that are similar to us in soteriology–are moving toward us. But we put far, far more money into Presbyterian church plants. That keeps us from on the one hand, being sectarian and thinking God only blesses Presbyterian government, but it means on the other hand we give pride of place to our own tradition, which we love. We’ve always identified as ‘Presbyterian’ in our name, as one example.”
April 24, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Thanks Wes. Sounds like he cleared up some of the earlier comments.
April 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm
For having such a reputation as a good communicator, he certainly communicates poorly in interviews–those two snippets are worlds apart in meaning.
April 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I would also find it hard to believe if Tim Keller planted a Roman Catholic Church. The issue is not that he’s planting a particular denomination, but that he is planting churches outside his denomination. In my mind that is out of accord with the BCO as is his stance on women in the diaconate. Are we distinctive if we pick and choose sections of the BCO to adhere to? That was my argument. I personally don’t care if he thinks he should plant Sovereign Grace Churches or Reformed Baptist Churches…just leave the PCA or follow the BCO. IMOP
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
April 24, 2008 at 7:21 pm
What other distinctives of the PCA do you think are being compromised? You mentioned on the blogger’s site, “I think I really sense a bad drift in the PCA.” In regards to women as deacons or with other distinctives as well? Just wondering…considering the recent controversy in the past few years with the NPP and FV.
April 24, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Danny, I met you once in Quarterlife sunday school, it’s good to see you on the blog. I’m unsure why Keller would go outside the denomination to plant churches when there is already such a wide variety of styles within the PCA. So, if he’s not trying to appeal to stylistic preferences, he must be trying to appeal to theological differences, which does not seem consistent with statements like “I love the PCA”…unless he is using love in the modern usage: love=like, eg, I love chocolate chip cookies.
April 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“What other distinctives of the PCA do you think are being compromised?”
Other than women in the diaconate which violates BCO 17-2, 9-3, 9-7 and now planting churches outside of his own confessional denomination… this is enough for me. How many exceptions does it take to no longer be distinctive?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
April 24, 2008 at 10:49 pm
In my view, other distinctives would include a loss of distinctive reformed worship. There are many PCA churches where one might never know they have walked into a Presbyterian church. Seeker sensitive is written all over it.
Additionally, the subscription issue debated a few years ago. Our distinctiveness in subscription to the standards has eroded.
I agree with gage that the two mentioned in the post are quite enough. But generally, we’re much like any old run of the mill broadly evangelical church in some corners of the denomination.
April 25, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“Seeker sensitive is written all over it.”
Not to knock on CTS by any means, but from hearing some student preaching @ Covenant and talking with friends who are now alumni, another thing that I’ve found a bit unsettling is what seems to be (in my opinion) an increasing attraction to lacing sermons with long stories, excessive illustrations, over-use of humor, etc. instead of sticking to the biblical text. I haven’t taken any preaching classes yet, so I wouldn’t know from a personal experience in the classroom…
…I guess when you listen to preaching from guys like Lawson and Steel week in and week out, it kind of spoils you, and it definitely sets a high standard for an preacher in the pulpit.
Les or Wes, did you sense any of that @ Covenant?
April 25, 2008 at 4:38 pm
*any preacher in the pulpit.
April 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Danny, great question. I cannot speak about CTS at the present, but I share your concern about stories, excessive illustrations, etc. I remember a few years ago when a preacher who is known for his extreme eloquence and incredible illustrations preached at church. They were recounting in great detail each and every illustration. Later I overheard people raving about the message and what a great sermon it was. I perked up and asked what the main message was. They ALL looked bewildered and stammered and stuttered. No one could remember the main point of the message or what the text was. Therein lies the problem.
The following quote from an article in Banner of Truth speaks to this. It is long, but worth it.
April 25, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Next Lord’s day you could walk into a PCA Church and see a solidly reformed service that will have a few hymns, confession of faith, confession of sin, a psalm, a sermon (exposition) and the sacraments. Or you could walk into one where the music is led by a woman fronting a rock band, and a preacher who may use the stool instead of the pulpit. There is great diversity to be sure.
Danny’s point about the preaching is spot on. Like a box of chocolate’s…you never know.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
April 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Les, great quote on Lloyd-Jones! We need more guys like the Doctor. I’ve read Lawson’s book called “Famine in the Land: A Passionate Call to Expository Preaching”. It is a quick read, but an excellent book and strong challenge. http://www.amazon.com/Famine-Land-Steven-Lawson/dp/0802411215 . I’ve read a bit of Lloyd-Jones book “Preaching and Preachers” and that is excellent as well.
The trend that I’m noticing in preaching concerns me, because I find it a bit ironic that we in the PCA pride ourselves in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, yet in many pulpits, the feeling is that the best way people will be reached is through stories, humor, video clips, dramas, etc.
April 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm
On the topic of PCA distinctives….I’ve wondered about this for a while, and Les, maybe you can help me out. The PCA has stuck to the original WCF of 1646 with a few modifications. Here is the one modification that I’ve been scratching my head about:
WCF XXV vi (1646):
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.”
WCF XXV vi (PCA):
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.”
Why the removal of the last phrase? Is it in order to promote ecumenicism between the PCA and Rome (like the ECT document 10 years ago)? Is it merely in relation to eschatology (the Antichrist vs. an antichrist)? If so, what about 1 John 2:18-26?
I think most, if not all, of the reformers came to that conclusion that the Pope was none other than Antichrist.
April 26, 2008 at 7:27 am
Danny, great question, and one which might deserve a separate post. I think they the idea that the pope is the antichrist was very popular in the Middle Ages and by the time of the reformers most of them thought he was, or that the papacy represented antichrist.
The American adoption of the WCF deleted that portion most likely recognizing that this may have been an overreaction and/or due to eschatalogical views. I don’t think it is necessarily a softening on the differences between the Roman church and protestants as much as changing views on the identity of antichrist.
That said, it seems to me that there has indeed been a softening in the 20th century on those differences which led to the reformation, much to protestants discredit and to my chagrin.
April 26, 2008 at 7:42 am
Les,
I think the Scripture talks about the Spirit of the Antichrist, which would be anyone who teaching a gospel that is different and/or doesn’t recognize that Jesus is the Son or God. I would think that there are many who are in the spirit of the antichrist. As for one antchrist, there have been many who have been given that distinction through the years. The Pope is just one of the many who is teaching in the spirit of the antichrist because he is teaching another gospel.
Marie
May 16, 2008 at 12:53 am
I happened to come across this blog and noticed the references to Dr. Tim Keller, a fellow minister with whom I ministered years ago in Northeast Presbytery (PCA). For the benefit of your readers, let me share his message which he delivered at an interfaith 9-11 observance in 2006 (see below). I submit it without comment.
Cordially,
Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D.
Pastor, Reformation Presbyterian Church, Oostburg, Wisconsin
Stated Clerk, Reformation Presbytery of the Midwest
Editor, Presbyterian International News Service
(920)564-6501
[from Michael Keller, Tim's son]
Below is a speech that particularly resonates with me on multiple levels. First, it was a talk delivered by dad to 9/11 victims’ families and national dignitaries (Bush, H. Clinton, Bloomberg, Pataki, Giuliani, etc) about suffering and what they can do with their very personal suffering that still exists. It impacted me because I saw concisely in the sermon the power the resurrection has to those suffering. Secondly, it was a talk given at an interfaith memorial (8min long) and therefore as a student currently studying presentation to multiple audiences, I was impacted at both the kindness he had towards the “resources” of other faiths, but also the honesty and clarity that he still spoke from his own convictions. This is the way, to affirm others, and still not lose the distinct Gospel voice that we deem so powerful in today’s society. Lastly, while many others would have used the pulpit in front of so many political figures to espouse either their own political views, or some well meaning yet ill-timed alter call type message- dad focused on those suffering and in pain and tried to speak to them in their loss of their loved ones with the message that there is a God, the God, who knows exactly what it feels like and can therefore relate to them in their pain. Way to go dad.
Below is the transcribed version of the sermon done by individuals at the White House who also apparently liked it.
-Michael
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SERVICE OF REMEMBRANCE AND PEACE
FOR 9-11 VICTIMS’ FAMILIES
Ground Zero/St Paul’s Chapel Tim Keller
Sep 10, 2006
As a minister, of course, I’ve spent countless hours with people who are struggling and wrestling with the biggest question - the WHY question in the face of relentless tragedies and injustices. And like all ministers or any spiritual guides of any sort, I scramble to try to say something to respond and I always come away feeling inadequate and that’s not going to be any different today. But we can’t shrink from the task of responding to that question. Because the very best way to honor the memories of the ones we’ve lost and love is to live confident, productive lives. And the only way to do that is to actually be able to face that question. We have to have the strength to face a world filled with constant devastation and loss. So where do we get that strength? How do we deal with that question? I would like to propose that, though we won’t get all of what we need, we may get some of what we need 3 ways: by recognizing the problem for what it is, and then by grasping both an empowering hint from the past and an empowering hope from the future.
First, we have to recognize that the problem of tragedy, injustice and suffering is a problem for everyone no matter what their beliefs are. Now, if you believe in God and for the first time experience or see horrendous evil, you rightly believe that that is a problem for your belief in God, and you’re right – and you say, “How could a good and powerful God allow something like this to happen?”
But it’s a mistake (though a very understandable mistake) to think that if you abandon your belief in God it somehow is going to make the problem easier to handle. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from Birmingham Jail says that if there was no higher divine Law, there would be no way to tell if a particular human law was unjust or not. So think. If there is no God or higher divine Law and the material universe is all there is, then violence is perfectly natural—the strong eating the weak! And yet somehow, we still feel this isn’t the way things ought to be. Why not? Now I’m not going to get philosophical at a time like this. I’m just trying to make the point that the problem of injustice and suffering is a problem for belief in God but it is also a problem for disbelief in God—for any set of beliefs. So abandoning belief in God does not really help in the face of it. OK, then what will?
Second, I believe we need to grasp an empowering hint from the past. Now at this point, I’d like to freely acknowledge that every faith - and we are an interfaith gathering today – every faith has great resources for dealing with suffering and injustice in the world. But as a Christian minister I know my own faith’s resources the best, so let me simply share with you what I’ve got. When people ask the big question, “Why would God allow this or that to happen?” There are almost always two answers. The one answer is: Don’t question God! He has reasons beyond your finite little mind. And therefore, just accept everything. Don’t question. The other answer is: I don’t know what God’s up to – I have no idea at all about why these things are happening. There’s no way to make any sense of it at all. Now I’d like to respectfully suggest the first of these answers is too hard and the second is too weak. The second is too weak because, though of course we don’t have the full answer, we do have an idea, an incredibly powerful idea.
One of the great themes of the Hebrew Scriptures is that God identifies with the suffering. There are all these great texts that say things like this: If you oppress the poor, you oppress to me. I am a husband to the widow. I am father to the fatherless. I think the texts are saying God binds up his heart so closely with suffering people that he interprets any move against them as a move against him. This is powerful stuff! But Christianity says he goes even beyond that. Christians believe that in Jesus, God’s son, divinity became vulnerable to and involved in - suffering and death! He didn’t come as a general or emperor. He came as a carpenter. He was born in a manger, no room in the inn.
But it is on the Cross that we see the ultimate wonder. On the cross we sufferers finally see, to our shock that God now knows too what it is to lose a loved one in an unjust attack. And so you see what this means? John Stott puts it this way. John Stott wrote: “I could never myself believe in God if it were not for the Cross. In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it?” Do you see what this means? Yes, we don’t know the reason God allows evil and suffering to continue, but we know what the reason isn’t, what it can’t be. It can’t be that he doesn’t love us! It can’t be that he doesn’t care. God so loved us and hates suffering that he was willing to come down and get involved in it. And therefore the Cross is an incredibly empowering hint. Ok, it’s only a hint, but if you grasp it, it can transform you. It can give you strength.
And lastly, we have to grasp an empowering hope for the future. In both the Hebrew Scriptures and even more explicitly in the Christian Scriptures we have the promise of resurrection. In Daniel 12:2-3 we read: Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake….[They]… will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and…like the stars for ever and ever. And in John 11 we hear Jesus say: I am the resurrection and the life! Now this is what the claim is: That God is not preparing for us merely some ethereal, abstract spiritual existence that is just a kind of compensation for the life we lost. Resurrection means the restoration to us of the life we lost. New heavens and new earth means this body, this world! Our bodies, our homes, our loved ones—restored, returned, perfected and beautified! Given back to us!
In the year after 9-11 I was diagnosed with cancer, and I was treated successfully. But during that whole time I read about the future resurrection and that was my real medicine. In the last book of The Lord of the Rings, Sam Gamgee wakes up, thinking everything is lost and discovering instead that all his friends were around him, he cries out: “Gandalf! I thought you were dead! But then I thought I was dead! Is everything sad going to come untrue?”
The answer is YES. And the answer of the Bible is YES. If the resurrection is true, then the answer is yes. Everything sad is going TO COME UNTRUE.
Oh, I know many of you are saying, “I wish I could believe that.” And guess what? This idea is so potent that you can go forward with that. To even want the resurrection, to love the idea of the resurrection, long for the promise of the resurrection even though you are unsure of it, is strengthening. I John 3:2-3. Beloved, now we are children of God and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope purify themselves as he is pure.” Even to have a hope in this is purifying.
Listen to how Dostoevsky puts it in Brothers Karamazov: “I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, of the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood that they’ve shed; and it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify what has happened.”
That is strong and that last sentence is particularly strong…but if the resurrection is true, it’s absolutely right. Amen.
September 29, 2008 at 10:38 am
This is an old blog, so you may not get this post, but I have read it with great interest. Our PCA church is the kind of rock band coffee shop style you mention. Sadly, the church just voted to leave the PCA. I was one of literally a handful to vote against the leave. And yet, it was PCA in name only before. After being members at an incredible Reformed PCA church in TX and moving to the southeast, I am incredibly saddened to find the lack of true reformed churches here. It seems to us to be a regional thing, I had never heard of such relaxed, casual PCA church atmosphere before moving here.
September 29, 2008 at 10:44 am
khaki,
Thanks for commenting. I am saddened to hear that another congregation has left the PCA. And yet, I am heartened that if they could or would not be a truly reformed Presbyterian church, they moved on.
If you would, I would like to hear from you via my email about your situation.
prouty dot les at gmail dot com
Thanks,
Les
September 29, 2008 at 11:05 am
Is the trend toward this pomo, emer**** presbyterian style geographic or is it nation-wide?
September 29, 2008 at 11:06 am
Another thought, is the OPC facing issues like this? If not, what are some of the major issues in the OPC?