One way I agree with the Federal Vision proponents

One of the controversies brewing in the ranks of the PCA is concerning a theological perspective now known as "Federal Vision". Many will be aware that the PCA's General Assembly appointed a study committee in 2006 to examine Federal Vision theology, and that committee returned in 2007 with their report which was received by the Assembly (though not without some controversy).

This issue is an incredibly difficult one to understand; this is partly because, until very recently, there has not been any clear statement of exactly what it means to adhere to a Federal Vision position-- and, in some people's view, the study committee report mentioned above did not solve this problem, because there were no members of the committee that actually held the position. Others claimed that the committee's report made equivocations between the Federal Vision and other controversial perspectives that are not necessarily associated with Federal Vision. Our own Covenant Presbytery recently bumped into this as an ordained PCA Pastor, in good standing with another presbytery, met significant resistance to his transfer into Covenant Presbytery because of his sympathy toward paedocommunion (offering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to any baptized child of any age); there seemed to be some concern among a few members of presbytery that his sympathy toward the one (Paedocommunion) automatically cast him in the category of the other (Federal Vision sympathizers). (Thankfully, there has been a document released, called "A Joint Federal Vision Statement," that summarizes their perspective.)

But I digress. In a recent dialogue with others on the blog that a friend of mine writes, I learned a good deal about the structure of the arguments that the Federal Vision (or FV) proponents bring to the table. What I believe many do not realize is that they actually make TWO arguments:

First, they assert that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as helpful as it is, does not offer exhaustive definitions for the terms that it uses to categorize theological concepts. In other words, just as there are often several ways (or definitions) that a word may be used, though we only mean one of those at any particular moment-- so it is with theological terms. They claim that the Bible itself makes use of many terms in broader ways than the Westminster Confession does; thus, they say, the terminology of the Confession is useful, but it isn't exhaustive or comprehensive.

Second, they stipulate that there are other uses for certain terms, and that these other uses could (and, if they are correct, should) change the way that we understand things like church membership, practices of the sacraments, and even how we judge whether someone is justified before Christ.

It is the second argument that has gotten all of the press and attention-- but the first argument has mostly been ignored! This has led to inevitable confusion, because without the first argument then the FV proponents appear to be making all sorts of logical errors and fallacies (when, in fact, they are not).

As far as I have read and learned, I cannot agree with the FV positions on the second argument. However, as far as the first argument goes, I wholeheartedly agree. I love the Westminster Confession, and agree with it almost completely (and Covenant Presbytery has indicated that the ways that I disagree are not even substantial enough to be considered exceptions). But I do not believe it is a sufficient and comprehensive measure of truth; in fact, the Confession itself claims that it is not so. We need the Bible for many reasons-- and one of them is that it presents us with a richer, fuller sense of what theological concepts mean than what any systematic theology can offer.

Wildlife Watch, 12/27/07

As I was walking out to the mailbox, about half-way up the sidewalk, a large doe jumped out of the thicket behind the big oak. She stopped and I stopped. We stood there, looking at each other, for a few minutes-- then she jumped off into the woods without looking back. She showed no signs of fear or alert-- I guess the HWPC grounds truly are a sanctuary!

I also saw a grey fox cross the field out back.

Theological worldview quiz

I took a quiz today on "what is your theological worldview?" I'd be interested to know: how did you score on this quiz? If you would, take the quiz and list the top three, including percentages. Thanks!

The results, for me at least, are not very surprising:

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Reformed Evangelical You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 71% Fundamentalist 64% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 57% Neo orthodox 50% Roman Catholic 46% Emergent/Postmodern 43% Classical Liberal 29% Charismatic/Pentecostal 25% Modern Liberal 18%

Wildlife Watch, 12/26/07

I literally just watched six does playing tag in the field behind the church. It was quite a sight.

Merry Christmastide

Merry Christmastide!

What is Christmastide, perhaps you are wondering? In most protestant churches, we tend to ignore the "seasons" of the church that have historically been set apart as the flow of the calendar for Christians, but in some Christian churches (protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic alike) a liturgical calendar guides how the different seasons of the Christian year are distinguished. Christmastide is the brief season from Christmas Day to January 5.

Also called Yuletide or simply the Twelve Days of Christmas, Christmastide marks the season during which the church has historically reflected on the significance of the incarnation. If Advent is a season of anticipation, then Christmastide is a season of fulfillment and a beginning awareness of what that fulfillment means.

Christmastide includes consideration of the various early events of Christ's life, including visitation from the shepherds, the visitation and gifts of the Magi, and the circumcision of Jesus. It ends on what has traditionally been called Twelfth Night, which is the eve of the day of Epiphany (which is sometimes called Three Kings' Day). Just as Advent is a season that culminates with Christmas Eve, Christmastide also culminates with the eve of the next season.

I think it is very helpful to observe the seasons, rather than simply celebrating the days and having a gap of time in between. For me, all that happens in anticipation of Advent is more than I want to contemplate all at once, so I'm thankful for a season of four weeks or so to consider it. Likewise, the significance of the incarnation is more than I want to try to think through on just one day (Christmas Day), so I appreciate having a season for reflection on that.

Electability and the 2008 Presidential race

We're a long way from the 2008 presidential election-- indeed, we're still a good ways off from many primaries. Right now, it's anyone's guess who will emerge as the final set of candidates a little under a year from now. Based on the way things appear now, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Montgomery Brewster's "None of the Above" campaign could gain some serious momentum over the next 11 months.

That said, here's an early read on the status of the current leaders. [Disclaimer: This is IN NO WAY an endorsement of any candidate, personally or as an organization. I certainly do NOT speak on behalf of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church in this assessment, and even personally this is not a claim of how I will vote or even my inclinations. This is merely an assessment of how I see the race taking shape.]

The candidate that will win the 2008 election must find a way to appeal to the all-important middle-ground moderates-- a growing segment of our population. At the same time, they must strike certain chords with either politically conservative or progressive voters on certain issues; ideally, the candidate would be able to appeal to both extremes on some issues. I think it's safe to say that no Americans (or at least, very few) want to see the country divided as strongly as the 2000 Bush vs. Gore race.

Right now, the front-runners of the Democratic Party-- Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards-- are not leaning enough toward the center to woo as many moderates as they will eventually need to court. This is probably because they are (smartly) thinking primarily about the next vote only: they realize that they must win the nomination of their party in order to move ahead. (I recall hearing President Bill Clinton making this argument at some point-- maybe on David Letterman?)

But many voters from all points on the political spectrum are paying attention to both sides. Perhaps more than ever, the claims made during Primary campaigns will matter throughout the general election. Thus, any of these Democratic front-runners are in danger of marginalizing themselves with general election voters, or appearing to waffle on important issues down the line.

On the Republican side, many of the candidates are doing the same thing, in a slightly different way: some are following the same path and skewing too far to the right for a lot of moderates (I think Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson fit this category), while others (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain?) have moved to the middle so much that they have made a lot of the "far-right" conservatives uncomfortable.

Mike Huckabee, however, seems to have found a bit of balance here: he resonates with the conservatives on a handful of key issues, but appeals to moderates (and even some of the more "liberal" voters) on others.

Huckabee still has a long way to go. If he continues to succeed in his campaign, however, it may prove interesting to see if my read on this is accurate. Back in 2000, I thought a really interesting race would have been John McCain vs. Bill Bradley-- both were moderate enough to pose a significant "threat" to the other in the middle-ground. Will we see the same thing this year? Maybe Mike Huckabee vs. Bill Richardson...

Keep in mind, I'm not talking who should win, but who could. Often, "should" and "could" are different, at least in politics. Why? Because "should" is inherently subjective; my idea of "should" is inevitably different from yours. So the only way that "should" will win (or become "could") is if enough people generally agree with me (of course, that may mean that "should" doesn't win from your vantage point).

So why does this matter? To begin with, Americans-- and especially Christians-- tend to think far too individualistically about the world, including politics. I've heard too many times from Christians, "if so-and-so is elected President, I'm moving to Canada." Why is that? Aside from the fact that these Christians may not like Canada's leadership any more than the U.S.'s, perhaps they need to ask why they believe the election is all about them.

In fact, elections aren't about anyone in particular-- they are about all of us together. Sometimes what is best for a community is not what is necessarily best for any particular individual member of that community. So it is with a nation, as well. I'm all for contributing to the costs of paving roads I'll never use, and police and fire services I hope I won't have to use, because those roads, policemen, and fire fighters keep other people safe. And I need to realize that the best man-- or woman-- for President of the United States may not be the one among all candidates who will "benefit" me the most.

So "could" matters, even if the pundits tell us that we shouldn't vote based on electability. Rather than a "take my marbles and go home" attitude, Christians should lead the charge in supporting electable candidates who are good for the nation, state, and local community-- even if their worldviews differ somewhat from ours.

Wildlife Watch, 12/19/07

I saw a doe this morning. It was sort of cheating on my wildlife log, because it was just inside the edge of the woods as I was walking out. I've started being extra-quiet as I leave, so that I don't spook any critters that are about, and I was able to watch her walk for a few minutes as I walked down the sidewalk.

How Christians view marriage, part 1

...Protestants traditionally have interpreted marriage as a necessary way to quell the temptations of the flesh or as a natural union that will be dissolved in the afterlife...

Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, in "A Mormon President? The LDS Difference" from The Christian Century, August 21, 2007.

While I'll admit that this statement is not intended to be comprehensive-- and, in context, emphasizes an important difference between Protestant Christian views on marriage from Mormon views-- I would argue that Ms. Maffly-Kipp misses much of the core meaning of marriage for Christians, and thus misrepresents marriage entirely.

The view espoused by Ms. Maffly-Kipp is taken primarily from a single verse, 1 Corinthians 7:9, wherein Paul is discussing how unmarried and widowed believers should approach singleness. Paul says, simply, that for the service of the Lord it is better to remain single (v.8)-- this removes the divided focus of attention that marriage and family inevitably brings. Paul says, though, that if self-control is an issue (and here he means, subtly, sexual control) then they should marry, for it is "better to marry than to burn with passion."

Thus, one can argue that the above claim about the Protestant view of marriage is biblical. Why do I claim it to be inaccurate?

If for no other reason, than this is a chief concern: we should be very cautious (as in, I'll stop just short of saying "never do it") about deriving doctrines and positions from single verses. One of the key principles to understanding the Bible that we should all regularly employ is to let Scripture interpret Scripture-- in other words, the Bible, collectively and in context of itself, will instruct us on how to understand the meaning of texts.

In this case, one could argue that 1 Timothy 5:11 supports this claim of doctrine or position-- thus letting Scripture interpret Scripture. But in the whole context of the New Testament (and, indeed, the whole Bible) a much bigger and fuller sense of how and why Christians should marry emerges. In fact, a more comprehensive-- and I would say healthier-- view of sex emerges, as well.

Perhaps that's what bothers me the most about this quote: it seems to take a fairly cynical view of both sex and marriage, neither of which are portrayed in the Bible as the sort of annoyances that Ms. Maffly-Kipp seems to imply.

In a future post, I'll work through what I see as the "fuller sense" of how the Bible portrays marriage. Meanwhile, what are your thoughts?

Wildlife Watch, 12/17/07

Six does this afternoon. You might think that all six were moving together-- but you would be mistaken. They met up for a little mid-field frolicking, then the pair (maybe a mother/daughter pair?) that move together went their way while the others went theirs.

I've been watching these groups of does all fall-- the larger group was a group of five; I wonder if one met an early end. All of them are fairly young and pretty small, though there is one doe that is much bigger than the rest.

Every now and then, the bucks that hanker after them show up-- but these bucks are quite young, too; you can tell by the spread of their antlers they aren't but a year or so old. One buck, though, will be huge when he matures: his antlers are very narrow, but he's already a six-point.

Haiku #6 (Advent Haiku #2)

The Incarnation
an amazing and awesome
truth for God's people