Biblical Bickering (?)

A friend of mine just sent me "a prayer for the PCA" by John Armstrong.  In this article Armstrong deplores the "bickering" about the strains of conservative theological positions raised by the "barking critics" from the "vocal minority who just can't stop arguing" and who "thrive on polemics."  He further characterizes these folk as those holding "strange interpretations of ecclesial trivia that are clearly out of the main stream of historic Reformed life, and ... pastors and elders who regularly attack one another in broad daylight."

Pretty strong words.  One wonders if Armstrong has decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least in the use of emotional invectives and raw opinion divorced from any supporting argumentation.

Here's my point:  If Armstrong is correct, that the kind of "bickering" that is going on is counterproductive to the health and prosperity of God's Kingdom, and that it poses a danger to the PCA denomination - then on what authority do we discover him to be correct?  He offers an opinion that he assumes is so clearly established as to not need warrant.   But what of those who are involved in this bickering?  Do they not have some reason for their vehemence?  Where does Armstrong demonstrate any greater charity with regard to their opinions than he decries in their activities?  If it is there, I don't see it.

Consider the well known and worked passage, Acts 15:6,7.  I won't take the time to go into details.  The Jerusalem council, made up of apostles and elders, came together to figure out what to do about this man, Paul, and all those unwashed and uncircumcised Gentile converts he was making.  In vs. 6, the NKJV says that after "there had been MUCH dispute" (emphasis added), that Peter got up and spoke and a basis for agreement started forming.

Now what can we infer from this?  The passage cannot be pushed too far, I admit.  But it does say, that in the early church, as one would expect in a gathering of Jews, that there was a lot of discussion and there was, no doubt, plenty of passion behind the expressions, and I don't nearly 'bout believe that everyone went away giddy with delight at how it ended.  The Jerusalem council was only the opening skirmish in a long, sustained debate about the nature of the new work that Jesus had instituted and how disciples of Christ were to be distinguished and cultivated in the world.

God didn't settle the matter there and then.   If He had, then the only thing we would be teaching and preaching today, as far as ethics of the Kingdom go, is that our converts need not be "burdened" with anything greater than "abstaining from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."  I doubt seriously that John Armstrong would be content with that degree of simplicity in the Church's proclamation.

So, what  is left?  It is only this:  that theological nit-pickers are just as necessary for the advancement of the Gospel as broad-minded, open-hearted, generous evangelists who only want to "tell people about Jesus." 

If you read Armstrong's piece you will see there that the kind of nit-picking, theologically trivial, discussions which he believes is stripping the PCA of its vitality are: "justification and the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision (with related debates about baptism and the Lord’s Supper), Norman Shepherd’s misunderstood views on justification and sanctification, the place of liturgy (including weekly communion, forms of worship expression, ministerial robes and clerical collars), the role of women (including women serving as ordained deacons and women serving in the military), paedocommunion, Bible translations, etc."

Now, I sincerely and humbly ask, are not these the very kind of things that the highest court in the PCA ought to be considering?  Contrary to what seems to be Armstrong's opinion, a court of the church is supposed to debate difficult issues.  It is not a gathering whose sole intention is to slap each other on the back and tell each other how great our churches are doing (serious problems with the 9th commandment here).  Certainly we are to meet and encourage one another, pray for one another, do the administrative business necessary for the denomination to exist, but what is the court's major role?  It is to decide questions so as to provide a basis for unity. 

The Jerusalem council is a precious precedent to Presbyterians.  We look to it as the theological cornerstone on which our whole idea of collegiate authority is built.  If so, then we must give credence to its purpose.  It was called to decide how to deal with tough, nuanced, multi-layered theological questions - the very type of questions which Armstrong lists. 

Can divisiveness creep into these kind of discussions?  Certainly, name a gathering of sinners that is not open to sin creeping in one way or another.  Are some people overly zealous for some positions, even, in their own lives and possibly in their influence, to the detriment of others?  Sure.  The same can be said, probably with greater impact in the current cultural environment, about those who are not sufficiently zealous for theological positions.  If there is anything worse that being stuck in the 16th century theologically it is being theologically adrift in the 21rst.  And it is this last which I fear is more a threat to the PCA and every other strongly Biblical denomination today.

As with the ruling of the Jerusalem council, all of the previous rulings of the various assemblies and synods of the Church through the years, have been skirmishes or set piece battles in a continuing war.  There is no such thing as settled doctrine.  There is doctrine that must be relearned, rehashed, renewed, rediscovered, re-evaluated and re-loved in every generation.  This  process will necessarily involve strenuous, vehement debate that can sometimes ruffle feathers, step on toes, lead to sinful personality attacks and other such uncomfortable and sometimes sinful circumstances.  But, until the Lord comes back and enables us to see clearly, face to face, rather than through a glass darkly, it is necessary for the church not to diminish nor devalue the necessity of the work, painful though it may be.

Armstrong ought to know better and I am disappointed in his tone and his opinion.

Comments

[Doug Johnson]

Amen!