The Book the PCA Study Committee Needed to Read:
The Saving Righteousness of God by Michael Bird


Michael Bird has done a wonderful and fair job sifting through the data on the New Perspective on Paul. Moreover (and for some strange reason) he has an interest in the debates inside the PCA (why? I don't quite know!). So, if you want a solid treatment of the issues pertaining to the debate within the PCA, PLEASE READ THIS BOOK!

At this point I'm only about halfway through the book, so to review it would be unfair. But I will say that it is the single best treatment of all the issues that I have read to date. Bird reminds us and demonstrates that Richard B. Gaffin (my former professor) has been more aligned with the NPP than he cares to admit! He also does a fine job of dealing with, dikaiosune theou; pistis Christou; and the biblical texts surrounding these issues and others related to justification by faith. Lastly, he grounds his work historically when necessary.

A MUST READ!

The Wishy Washy PCA!


I think that it's about time for me to chime in with my two cents (sorry for the mixed metaphor) on the happenings at the PCA General Assembly. For the most part, I'm discouraged by the outcome and here's the reason why.

The adoption of the FV/NPP study committee's report has and will complicate matters more. It adds another layer of hermeneutical confusion to the discussion. That is to say (and following David Coffin), we already have a Confession to lead us through matters of controversy. We don't need another document thrown in the mix. Moreover, how the document is handled and interpreted (from this point forward) will become a matter of debate in the coming months. Take the first recommendation for example:

"That the General Assembly commend to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study" (my italics).

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this: whose idea of "careful consideration and study" are we following? Some presbyteries and pastors could respond, "We considered it, thank you, but no thank you." Why is this a fair response? (1) Because the document is NOT constitutionally binding; and (2) Because as the study report even reminds us, it is still up to the presbyteries to decipher the document and apply it.

All this document did was make our denominational stance on the issue more WISHY WASHY! We should have followed the lead of Joe Novenson and added a year and exegetical teeth to the paper.

Not a Shoe-In:
Proponents of the NPP and FV Study Report Respond with Their Own Open Letter


Probably fueled by the fear that the PCA's study report on the New Perspective and the Federal Vision was loosing steam and not gaining momentum among commissioners in the denomination, eight ministers and one ruling elder have responded to a handful of open letters with their own open letter. The initial open letters (one which is published on this blog and another which is published here) which caused this reaction reminded their readers of the necessity of fairness with regard to committee member selection, timeliness in handling sensitive matters such as these, and previously established norms (i.e., good faith subscription).

What may have caused the elevated anxiety of those associated with the newest open letter which supports the committee's report might be the outcry of injustice that many moderate commissioners have voiced in the blog-o-sphere. Furthermore, a recent poll has suggested that the vast majority of people tracking along with this issue DO NOT support the paper's adoption this year on the floor of GA. Lastly, Joel Garver has chimed in with a handful of thoughtful concerns about the committee's report on his blog.

A Brief Open Letter to Moderate TEs and REs in the PCA:
Vote "NO" on the New Perspective and Federal Vision Study Report!


There is little doubt in my mind that the report issued by the PCA's study committee on the New Perspective and Federal Vision attempts to sneak the strict subscription issue in the back door. (And let's not forget that that issue was settled three years ago. We have already decided that we are a "good faith subscription" denomination.) I saw this in the Soiuxland Presbytery commttiee report and I see it here too. Let's not be fooled by this move by the "Far-Right."

VOTE NO!

A War of Narratives: What the PCA Can Learn from NY Times Columnist David Brooks


David Brooks, an Op-Ed writer for the New York Times, has put his finger on what I believe is the problem with most disagreements today, especially those within the PCA. While at a conference that brought together Americans and moderate Arab reformers, Brooks recognized that the two groups just "passed each other without touching." That is to say, one group was talking about X, while the other group was talking about Y, and "never the twain met or shall meet." Why? Brooks noticed that each side "had a different narrative." That is, they told themselves different stories to make sense of the data.

Now, narratives make sense of reality for human-beings. We use them all the time to make sense of the data that life throws at us, especially the data that we don't quite have categories for. Thus, we tell ourselves stories in order to fit the data into categories so we can understand the world.

Within the current debates in the PCA on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and the Federal Vision (FV), each side of the debate has its own narrative to make sense of the data; and if each side has its own narrative, then it also has different vocabulary; and if different vocabulary, then, never the twain shall meet!

Therefore, if we (in the PCA) first recognize that we're talking beyond each other and that each group makes sense of what's going on by telling itself a different story, then we might (and I say, "might") make it beyond the (narratival) impasse.

"Slipping in the Back Door"
(Some Random Thoughts on the Siouxland Presbytery Report)



The Siouxlands Presbytery of the PCA recently adopted a report by a study committee it had erected to deal with the so-called New Perspective on Paul, the so-called Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd's theology. Now, whether or not I agree with (all of some of) its findings is besides the point. The point of this post is to highlight a few random thoughts.


1. At a time when a lot ministers in the PCA are becoming increasingly frustrated with the denomination's current trajectory--a trajectory that is anti-ecumenical and increasingly uncharitable--and a few churches have withdrawn from the denomination, I'm thankful that the PCA is the kind of place that allows each presbytery the freedom to decide matters like these on their own. Moreover, the Siouxlands Presbytery document carries little if no weight in other presbyteries and in the denomination as a whole (thankfully!).

2. The document itself is far from nuanced. The conclusion reads: "The proponents of these views are outside the system of doctrine of the Westminster standards and do contradict the Scriptural teaching."

Therefore...

3. I believe that the good majority of people who are gearing up to fight this particular battle also support (or have supported) strict subscription to the Westminster Standards in the denomination. Therefore, it's another way of getting at the issue of strict subscription adherence (or the need for strict subscription adherence) to the Standards. In other words, I believe that the argument for strict subscription adherence to the Standards is trying to slip into the back door and has found a way to piggyback itself on this issue.

Nick Perrin on Guy Waters in the New WTJ

For those of you who haven't heard, Nick Perrin (Asst. Prof. at Wheaton; formerly at Biblical; and formerly N.T. Wright's research assistant at Westminter Abbey) has just published a book review/critique of Guy Waters' "Justification and the New Perspective."

Perrin is more than fair as he points out Waters' unfairness. He points out that Waters' tone is less than Christian and inflammatory. Here's an excerpt:

First, it goes without saying that the book must be assessed not only for what it says, but for how it says what it says. On this score, even those who are sympathetic to Waters's conclusions would have to concede the book provides an unhelpful model as to how one engages in theological discussion. Inflammatory assertions like, '[I]ronically, it is the ignorance of historical theology on the part of Wright and other scholars that prompts them to make such affirmations...' is simply disrespectful and as such, sub-Christian (1 Peter 3:15-16).

This has always been a major critique of the Reformed critics of the NPP.

Epistemology: Van Til and Wright

This is my third reading of N.T. Wright's New Testament and the People of God. And with this pass I am struck--once again--by the similarities between Van Til and Wright. (1) Both authors argue that there is no such thing as a "brute fact" or "mere history," to use Wright's term; (2) both authors sternly critique the Enlightenment project and reveal its presuppositions and subsequent failures; (3) both authors argue for a way of doing theology and history that, at bottom, is circular (a very "post-modern" way of thinking); and (4) both authors recognize that all "knowing" involves circularity (there's just no ifs, ands, or buts about it!).

So what's all the commotion about? Oh, I get it: Wright is an Anglican and not a Presbyterian. And furthermore, he didn't teach at Westminster Theological Seminary. Therefore, he couldn't be saying anything we could embrace.

N.T. Wright on the Radio in the UK

Listen to N.T. Wright defend the Easter message of the Resurrection of the Son of God on a radio interview from the UK.

Has the New Perspective on Paul Created a New "Left" and/or a New "Right?"

A rather strange thing has occurred in Reformed-Evangelical circles (especially in the PCA). What was once a neatly divided front--conservatives on the right and progressives on the left--is now no longer as neat. The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) has allied these two "old" fronts. Both the old "conservatives" and the old "progressives" see the NPP as a threat. But what does the NPP threaten for each of these groups? On the one hand, the old conservatives believe that the NPP begins with less-than-Christian presuppositions, which can only lead (so they believe) to less-than-Christian results. Moreover, since these old conservatives have a skewed understanding of sola scriptura, they feel that the NPP directly threatens this reformation doctrine since it makes great use of Second Temple literature and history. On the other hand, the old "progressives"--who tend to be Sonship-types--see the NPP as a direct threat to the gospel. This unfortunate reality comes as a direct result of equating justification by faith with the gospel proclamation itself.

So is the NPP creating a new "right" or new "left" in Reformed-Evangelical circles?