Peter Leithart and the Pacific Northwest Presbytery

[NaphtaliPress]

Our Reformed musings has his take here. Classic line (remind me never to get in the way of your pen Bob; or keyboard!):

One Federal Visionist has declared this a witch hunt. As TE Stellman points out in great detail, TE Leithart set this process in motion himself and even jointly asked for the study committee. So, is it still a witch hunt if the individual involved requests the hunt? If a Federal Visionist whines in the woods, does anyone still care?

​

 

[Reformed Musings]

Hi Chris,

I don't think that will ever be an issue.

I tried to tie the whole issue together in that post with links to all the pertinent parts that had links on the net. The two book essays do not as far as I know. I hope that some find it helpful. Sometimes it's frustrating searching the net for background on issues. I happened to have a bunch handy, and of course the great folks on this board provide great insights as well.

 

[G.Wetmore]

Hey,


The presbytery meeting was a shame, and if I had somewhere else to go at this moment I would leave the PacNW presbytery without much of a second thought. I have never seen such theological ineptitude, and or intentional smokescreens being thrown up by the guilty parties (and accepted by the majority) as I did there yesterday. My session officially knows my displeasure.

Stellman did an excellent job presenting the minority report. Rayburn, speaking for the majority report, did nothing but dismiss the conclusions of the minority out of hand, and then went on to monologue for about 40min using red-herrings and threats to the effect of "if we prosecute Leithart on this issue, we'll end up destroying our denomination and becoming completely irrelevant, just like denomination "X". All the while receiving various "amens" from the puppets in the presbytery.

...

Thoughts on the meeting in no particular order:


1. The PCA (in as much as she is represented in the Pacific NW) is much, much, much more concerned about image, influence, and the golden calf of "relevance" than she is about being a confessional church. That was the common note throughout the whole debate. God forbid that the PCA should ever be seen as narrow, irrelevant, intolerant, bigoted, rigid, mean, "not nice", or anything else that might slow our growth - no matter how serious a theological error others in confessional churches might deem it to be.


2. A majority of the presbyters in attendance seemed neither to care about, nor even engage, the basic theological and exegetical points that were being raised by the minority. Basic, basic exegetical fallacies were being made in defense of Leithart's theology, and were left almost completely unchallenged. I'm talking about all of the fallacies that WSC drilled out of us as first year students - that basic.

...

4. In light of the fact that the committee was tasked to compare the views of Leithart with the nine points put out by last years GA, and to see whether or not he was out of accord with them, my presbytery failed miserably. In fact, it wasn't until about 2/3 of the way through the debate that someone actually noticed that the presbytery wasn't even quite sure what we were supposed to be debating. The continued conversation by most of the men did anything but evaluate the confessional fidelity of Leithart's views. It was all red-herrings and smoke screens.


5. John Frame's theology has had a very detrimental impact on the PCA, and his denigration of the confessions, false positing of ST against BT, and "multi-perspectival approach" were all specifically and repeatedly invoked (Frame's name even being brought up several times) against sane, confessional theological debate. It was astounding how many times the "bible vs. the confessions" was bandied about, and how many times the threat of becoming a "dead and rigid confessional church" was seen as the end of the argument. I did not see any difference whatsoever between a broad-evangelical disregard of confessions, and what went on in the PacNW presbytery yesterday.


6. Rayburn continued to argue (adopting Frame's perspectival approach to theology) that even if we use the confessions as a standard, we can never really get to the bottom of the issue, because there are so many "perspectives" and "paradigms" for interpreting the confessions - even "competing paradigms within paradigms". It was very post-modern of him. The confessions then become completely useless, because they cease to have any intelligible and authoritative voice, since, as Rayburn would emphasize, "We all read the confessions in different ways." He never proved it, just asserted it. It was really nothing less than a post-modern hermeneutic being applied to the undermining of confessional orthodoxy.


7. It was amazing to me that Rayburn and others were still trying to defend "final justification", and do so by using repeatedly discredited exegetical foundations (like invoking Romans 2:13 without finishing Paul's line of thought through the end of Romans chapter 3).


8. Others can call it what they'd like, but there is no doubt in my mind that Leithart's theology is nothing less than an RCC/Arminian approach to sacramental efficacy/election, respectively, (although RCC sacramentology also includes a semi-pelagian soteriology) being slipped under the door in a pretty, new envelope. "But remember, we in the PCA want to be innovative and vital in our theologizing!" If that is the case, why are we just repristinating old errors?


Our brothers out there in broader PCA-land need to take this presbytery to task, and get things cleaned up out here with Leithart in a decisive way (and, I would also argue that this will need to be the case eventually with Rayburn, if he continues on his trajectory) before things get anymore out of hand. This presbytery is a zoo right now.

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshipping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

 

[Christusregnat]

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshipping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Gabriel,

From previous posts, you appear to have an affinity or actually believe in some of the FV or NPP (?) (or it sounded as such in the Galatians thread; and, no, Schlissel hasn't gotten a "bum rap"). That is sad, but I will not touch in that in detail.

Slander requires speaking specifically against a person. The fact that Adam identified "puppets", a "majority" is not slander. That would be if he said, "Rev. Dr. Soandso is a rascal", or "the session of GraceandPeace church is a bunch of cowards." Adam didn't identify names, and it behooves you to take care to not allow your affinity for NPPers to blur your vision (pun intended).

Was it a sin for Jesus to say "woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!"? Weren't there any good scribes? Any godly pharisees? The gospel records make it clear that there were good scribes and godly pharisees. If you want to follow your misreading of what Adam said, many innocent men would be found guilty of "slander". Perhaps it might be a good idea to consider that you have specifically identified a man as committing slander who has done nothing more than speak in generalities.

If you want to take him to task for his comments about Rayburn, go ahead; but you didn't do that. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your earlier comments, and reframe them with a little less zeal.

Cheers,

 

[Archlute]

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshipping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Hey friend, if you have a problem with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to "repent". For one, I'm not an intern, I became an ordinand in the PCA after ministering in an independent congregation, but since there is no option in the profile box for a man in between calls (and who ministered outside of the PCA before seeking a call within) I entered "pastoral intern". Not that it should matter one way or the other, if interns/pastors cannot speak their mind in a way that is anything other than the bland, PC manner that most FV folk would like to see being ineffectually tossed their way, then the church is the sorrier for it.

Btw, I guess I should ask, are you angry because your sense of piety has been sincerely violated, or are you angry because you are an FV supporter who hates seeing anyone point out the obvious?

If the former is the case, then I apologize to you that, being my weaker brother, you have been offended by my strong opinion. If the latter, well then, you should go back to seminary (assuming that you have begun your studies), and have a little more righteous indignation issuing forth from your own heart when you see a nearby region in your denomination biting the lure of "popular approval", and allowing some in their circle of influence to continue inculcating a false Gospel into the hearts of those in some of their congregations. I have had personal experience in debating and counseling some of the folk who have had their understanding of the Gospel destroyed because of these teachings (one of them from Rayburn's own congregation), and I can tell you that I would rather have some one steamed at my lack of "Southern manners" in addressing these issues, than I would have them be pleased at my falsely held opinions of piety.

I guess that's all that I have to say about it.

 

[Scott1]

We all fall short of God’s commandments and constantly need his grace.

Somehow, we are called to contend for the truth, reprove error, abhor sin and at the same time, love our enemies and especially those of the household of faith. I sense and can understand the frustration in seeing what one sees as serious error being accepted and even promoted. I understand the passion for truth and respect those who contend for it, particularly those who have the integrity to do it alone, if necessary.

In fact, I am grateful for the comprehensive information in Mr Archlute’s post. Let me say I also believe “federal vision” is serious error, spreads confusion, and because it harms the peace and purity of the church, must be removed.

Having said all that, we must find a way to do it with the right words. Our contention for the truth must not overwhelm what God requires of us.

Stellman did an excellent job presenting the minority report. Rayburn, speaking for the majority report, did nothing but dismiss the conclusions of the minority out of hand, and then went on to monologue for about 40min using red-herrings and threats to the effect of "if we prosecute Leithart on this issue, we'll end up destroying our denomination and becoming completely irrelevant, just like denomination "X". All the while receiving various "amens" from the puppets in the presbytery.
This presbytery is a zoo right now.

If I was a member of this presbytery, I would be offended being described like this, or hearing my bretheren described in these terms, whichever side I was on.

Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

We cannot have “a charitable esteem of our neighbors,” or believe the best in them when we say they are “puppets,” or that an entire presbytery is a “zoo.” Even those who are wrong in this presbytery should not be linked to animals, let alone implying that even those who are right are the same.

Please understand I am not trying to take sides in the matter being discussed or to leverage a spiritual argument to discount another side of an argument.

Ask ourselves, how would someone in the presbytery view being written about in this manner? How does this sound to an unbeliever hearing believers describe one another in this way? How does this sound to someone who is trying to understand the underlying issue?

I only ask, in fear and trembling, knowing my own sin, that we, by God’s grace, try to honor one another, presbyteries, as befits the household of faith for God’s Honor and God’s Glory. Not that we stop contending passionately for truth, only that we season our conversation with grace, as God requires of us.

 

[G.Wetmore]

Brother, you need to repent. According to your profile, you are a church intern that is training to be a minister; so act like one. What gives you the right to post, over a public forum, comments like this about your brothers in Christ. You are to uphold the peace and unity of the Church, not insight people to scoff at the government of the Christ's Church. You may completely disagree with the decision of presbytery, but you have no right to act like they are a bunch of "puppet" morons, who have no idea what they are doing, and spread the slander to the world over the web. If you want to be upset, fine, but you ought to use better judgment about where you vent your anger. It is one thing to offer a critique, it is quite another to call them "puppets," saying they are theologically inept, accusing them of intentional deception, and worshipping the "golden calf of relevance." If Peter Leithart posted something this inflammatory, tomorrow there would be a 100 blogs commenting on what a horrible Christian he was. You need to think about the wisdom of posting things like this, and stop.

Hey friend, if you have a problem with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to "repent". For one, I'm not an intern, I became an ordinand in the PCA after ministering in an independent congregation, but since there is no option in the profile box for a man in between calls (and who ministered outside of the PCA before seeking a call within) I entered "pastoral intern". Not that it should matter one way or the other, if interns/pastors cannot speak their mind in a way that is anything other than the bland, PC manner that most FV folk would like to see being ineffectually tossed their way, then the church is the sorrier for it.

Btw, I guess I should ask, are you angry because your sense of piety has been sincerely violated, or are you angry because you are an FV supporter who hates seeing anyone point out the obvious?

If the former is the case, then I apologize to you that, being my weaker brother, you have been offended by my strong opinion. If the latter, well then, you should go back to seminary (assuming that you have begun your studies), and have a little more righteous indignation issuing forth from your own heart when you see a nearby region in your denomination biting the lure of "popular approval", and allowing some in their circle of influence to continue inculcating a false Gospel into the hearts of those in some of their congregations. I have had personal experience in debating and counseling some of the folk who have had their understanding of the Gospel destroyed because of these teachings (one of them from Rayburn's own congregation), and I can tell you that I would rather have some one steamed at my lack of "Southern manners" in addressing these issues, than I would have them be pleased at my falsely held opinions of piety.

I guess that's all that I have to say about it.

No, I did not think that what you did was wrong because of any other reason than I think it is wrong for you to do it in this forum. It would be one thing if you were speaking in your session or in a private forum, but this is a public forum. There are many PCA members in this forum. I think that posting comments in the manner you did will cause those members to begin to grumble and possibly refuse to submit to the government of the Church. Why would you want to spread that kind of dissension? In my mind that is like a pastor who is annoyed at the rest of the session, so he goes home and tells his wife, kids, and close friends from the congregation how stupid the rest of the session is. All that I am saying is that this is not the forum for comments like this.

 

[Davidius]

There's a difference between saying that people did something wrong, and saying that they were puppets and zoo animals. The latter imputes all kinds of motivation which may or may not exist, not to mention general ignorance and foolishness. Reformed folk often err in thinking that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or consciously deceitful, and it's just not the case.

What is the case, however, is that certain people on this board are allowed to speak however they wish with impunity, whereas others, past and present, are immediately jumped on by the moderators for the same kinds of infractions.

 

[TimV]

There are many PCA members in this forum. I think that posting comments in the manner you did will cause those members to begin to grumble and possibly refuse to submit to the government of the Church. Why would you want to spread that kind of dissension?

Or it could help wake up pew potatoes who are just sitting there grinning as very dangerous elements in the church take over whole Presbyteries without opposition.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK Gentlemen. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Opinions have been expressed about the propriety/impropriety of the comments.

Let's give it a rest.

 

[turmeric]

Speaking as a PCA member who disbelieves in the Federal Vision and all its works, I am not leaving or refusing to obey the PCA hierarchy. I'm sure, if NWP persists in this wrong direction, the PCA will deal with it. However, as this is technically a church-court case which isn't over till it's over, we might want to speak circumspectly, as I did not do earlier, pray and await the next development.

 

[DMcFadden]

There's a difference between saying that people did something wrong, and saying that they were puppets and zoo animals. The latter imputes all kinds of motivation which may or may not exist, not to mention general ignorance and foolishness. Reformed folk often err in thinking that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or consciously deceitful, and it's just not the case.

What is the case, however, is that certain people on this board are allowed to speak however they wish with impunity, whereas others, past and present, are immediately jumped on by the moderators for the same kinds of infractions.

Moderator Note: David, being privy to the off line communications between the mods, I can say that a good bit of agonizing goes into the moderation process. Some of those who seem to "get away with it" are precisely the ones who are admonished repeatedly in PMs, etc. I cannot think of a single post (let alone a thread) that has not been talked to death in a moderator only forum when the language gets rough. Personally, most of my younger years were spent tilting at windmills and agitating in my mainline denomination. It took me decades to learn to curb my tongue (even this much - ) and try to shine more light and create less heat from the friction of my factious personality. Usually, the people who appear to "get away with it" are special cases where insider insight into the person's situation mititgates a heavy handed moderation.

That being said, this is the PB and we DO take Ninth Commandment violations seriously. Everyone, please take that into account when characterizing the positions and motives of others. But, David, as Rich pointed out recently, iron-sharpening-iron can be expected to throw off a few sparks.