I read an interesting letter written by John Armstrong entitled “A Prayer for the PCA with Hope That It Will Thrive in the Next Generation” Armstrong expresses his concern for a great denomination like the PCA. His concern is about the PCA's continual focus on doctrinal hair splitting.
I cringe when I read accounts like this :
But the PCA seems conflicted about which conflicts truly matter. Just a few days ago a brother told me of an interview he had with a PCA search committee. The very first question they asked him was: “What is your position on the six literal days of Genesis?”
I love the PCA. However, Armstong's concerns are well founded. There are people within the PCA that love a good theological dust-up ... and they seem to thrive on conflict.
I also read an interesting response from World Magazine blogger Arch Van Devender. Van Devender points out the dilemma faced by those who oppose polemicists -- they often engage in the very thing they hate : polemics. He defends why the debates are necessary, but I cannot help by find myself sympathetic to Armstrong's views and sentiments.
I think Armstrong and Van Devender both have good points. We need doctrine police. We need gospel cowboys. We need them both. They are both God's gift to the church. There will always be a tension in the PCA as some want to focus on mission and others want to focus on reforming and policing.
I personally find my gifts are more oriented toward being a gospel cowboy than a doctrine policeman. However, I recognize the value of the policemen in battling against heresy and guarding against error. The key is in being able to love and accept each other's gifting and calling with a gospel love.
Interestingly, Ed preached on gospel love this past Sunday at Christ The King Presbyterian (PCA) in Roanoke. It is described by Paul in his prayer for the Phillipians in Phil 1:8-11. Paul's love involves deep affection. His prayer is that the Philippians love may abound in knowledge and discernment. Wow! Love abounding from knowledge!? Isn't that counter intuitive? I love how Paul shatters our paradigms of love being pure emotion and connects the head and the heart together. And that love is pure. The term Paul uses for pure is an economic one. It was used to describe pottery that was authentic and genuine, even when held up to the sun. You see, dishonest merchants used to use wax to conceal defects in the pottery. Holding the pottery up to the sun revealed the cracks, however. Paul is saying that gospel love is not phony ... it has no wax. And, it is filled with all of the fruits of righteousness (all nine of them). Ayiyi. That is challenging for a gospel cowboy to hear, folks. Very challenging. I need to love the doctrine policeman with the gospel love -- even the polemicists in the PCA.
Lord, increase my faith!
I think we need to all have a "theological dustup" and get ready for lots of polemics in the coming months. With The Davinci Code coming our way I have already been asked "what is Gnosticism?" "Why is it bad" How do you know your Jesus is the real Jesus and so on.
The writer in Ecclesiastes was so right when he said "There is nothing new under the sun". Satan will be vanquished and we are going to steal souls from the very depths of sheol because of this. But we all need to be ready. I think it is time to dust off the C.S. Lewis and get ready to start dusting. To God be all the glory.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 03, 2006 at 07:40
I am okay with the kind of dust ups you are talking about, Carl. Not a problem.
The dust ups that get people in the PCA fired up about are should we refrain from doing anything but going to church on Sunday ... or, should women really be allowed to take the offering ... or, should women be allowed to speak in church after the morning announcements are done ... or, what did the Westminster divines think about the length of a day in Genesis.
Perhaps that gives you a better flavor for the kind of wrangling I am talking about.
Make sense?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 03, 2006 at 07:55
We need doctrine police.
You need... Jesuits? :)
Posted by: carlaviii | May 03, 2006 at 12:42
Sorry to get off topic. Again I think that it is more of a divider then a unifier though. I am not all familliar with the PCA other then a short stent at a seminary that was alligned with them.
I just wish we would all stop worrying so much about it and spend more time in the gospel and sharing the gospel. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I know who does and how to reach him.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 04, 2006 at 21:32
Sorry to get off topic.
IMO, it's always a relevant topic: how much difference of opinion is allowable, and at what point are the "doctrine police" needed?
It would be nice to not have to worry about it, but not everybody agrees on what the gospels are or how they should be applied. As a person who is often on the fringes of "acceptability", I'm in favor of tolerating a variety of opinions... but there are many people who don't feel the same way.
Posted by: carlaviii | May 05, 2006 at 15:59
"I'm in favor of tolerating a variety of opinions... "
As am I. How a man or woman finds there way to the gospel truth is not set in stone, and akin to the creativity of the Holy Spirit. If you tolerate a lot of opinions, the time comes that you have to make your own judgement. When you do that, and you are honest with yourself, you will find that Christianity is the truth, and it is the truth my friend, that will set you free.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 06, 2006 at 08:18
Re: tolerating opinions
To tolerate means to respectfully disagree. I agree we ought to disagree respectfully (i.e. civilly) when we do disagree about things which are not essential.
Ironically, in order to tolerate someone, you have to disagree with them -- iow, if you agree with them, there is nothing to tolerate. ;)
The reason I say we need the doctrine police, of course, is to guard the bride of Christ (the church) from error. It is called the gift of discernment and is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If we didn't have people with the gift of discernment, then all sorts of error would creep into the church and would tear it apart. Hint: if you are having a small group Bible study, it is especially good to have someone with the gift of discernment in your group to make sure comments don't get too far afield.
That said, Carl, I am also like you and think that a denomination can become overly obsessed with looking in the minutae of church life for issues to fight about -- instead of paying attention to the other work of the kingdom.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 07, 2006 at 08:04
I have been easily frustrated because I have been asking myself what makes a good evangelical and beginning to figure out how I am going to allign myself doctrinally when I graduate from Bible College. I am called into ministy for sure, but every one I have been serious about seems to value it's creed almost above the gospel. The creed was written by a human, the Bible is the divine and inspired word of God. I guess this is the theological wrestling match that many, if not all leaders have at one time or another.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | May 07, 2006 at 18:43
It is called the gift of discernment and is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
And who decides how to tell who has this gift? Just go by what "resonates" as correct?
Posted by: carlaviii | May 09, 2006 at 13:10
The Holy Spirit decides. The gift emerges in use. There are ways to inwardly confirm your gifting and outward ways. Since all gifts were meant for the building up of the body, the only way that a gift can be confirmed is through use -- which means one would have to be active in the body of believers.
I am not big on filling out questionnaires to determine if you have gift such and such. Gifts are meant for the building up of the body -- and they emerge during use.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 10, 2006 at 09:05