Freshly Squeezed

Alright. I admit it. A couple of weeks ago when I wrote that Mark Horne has the IQ of a banana peel, I stole the line from Mike Ditka.

Back in the ’80s, when the Chicago Bears were coached by Iron Mike Ditka, they enjoyed a competitive rivalry with the Washington Redskins, who shored their defensive line with a player named Dexter Manly, a man gifted with exceptional football skills but limited education. The two men occasionally bantered in the media and one time Dexter made some rather aggressive comments about his bad intentions for Chicago’s QB. When the press asked Ditka for a response, he quipped “Dexter Manly has the IQ of a grapefruit.” And when Dexter heard about it, he replied, “Which kind — fresh or squeezed?” And he was serious. Of course, anyone with an IQ greater than Dexter’s realized that, unbeknownst to him, he made Ditka’s point better than Iron Mike himself.

So I lifted the line from Ditka with attribution. I wouldn’t say my offense rises to the level of Steven “Machen” Wilkins’ serial plagiarizing; heck, Ditka didn’t even put it in print, forcing me to recreate the paragraph above from memory. But you get the point.

This brings me back to Mark Horne. He honored April Fools’ Day by posting a comment on Green Baggins that dropped my jaw. The context of the quote was his response to Pastor Lane’s latest installment in his ongoing review of A Faith That Is Never Alone. (By the way, I think the biggest public loser in the Federal Vision controversy is P. Andrew Sandlin. First, the CREC confederates ratified the Fearless Leader’s usurpation of his church’s leadership, then a year later he edited a book that he dedicated to Norm Shepherd (page 3) where Lane caught Shepherd in a Wilson-faced lie. Even worse, no one associated with the book, which appears to be about a grand total of 9 souls plus or minus 3, corrected Lane — they let the lie stand. Sandlin is a talented writer who oftentimes has insightful contributions and I’m sorry to see him continually get shafted by the FV clowns. But I digress.)

The point of my Iron Mike anecdote was to illustrate that some people won’t ever get it, even when it stares them in the face. Mark Horne, for example, blew an incoherent three-point rant at Pastor Lane, which concluded:

Plainly, if your comments are regarded as intelligent criticism, then we have a whole subculture in the PCA who are theologically incompetent and given to making railing accusations against those who are more intelligent and faithful than they are. Pretty tragic.

And suddenly Mark Horne makes Dexter Manly look like genius — fresh or squeezed. He blows as often as the Fearless Leader but with neither the deceptive flair nor the cunning deceit (yes, Mark, I was redundant on purpose). He just blows, like a foghorn sounding for ears to pierce, unaware that his barge has already shipwrecked and his soul is in imminent peril.

Ironically, Horne got it right, however, as usual he misapplied his conclusion. In the words of one critic: “Self-awareness level: Minus zero.” Or as Horne said, “Pretty tragic.”

Thank you.

James Jordan Is Loose!

U P D A T E # 2:
Jimmy took his show on the road, traveling to Green Bagginses territory in order to confirm that he penned the offending comments. And he added a few insults to boot (here).

U P D A T E:
Jimmy returned to pronounce judgment on his readers (here). This guy’s unbelievable!

Well, it looks like the Federal Visionists decided to let James Jordan out of his rubber room again, to see if he could behave himself and not embarrass them too much.

He couldn’t and he did.

The Magister Contradictus Jacobus Jordanius appeared on a blog named Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics to defend the new Reformation called “Federal Vision” and once again the “flumen magnus” demonstrated why the Federal Visionists kept him so well hidden for lo these many years. Here are his unabridged comments in all their glory:

James Jordan said . . .
The actions of the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that is makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison. All Christians in all kinds of churches should be appalled by this tyranny, and it is certainly fine for Armstrong, myself, and others to comment on it.

James Jordan said . . .
If you men cannot recognize the actions of this Star Chamber as tyranny and evil, you are really beyond help. The presbytery has twice examined Wilkins and said he is not out of accord with the Confession. Since this was not the “verdict” desired by the antichrists of the Star Chamber, they threaten the presbytery! I stand by my words. These actions are nothing less than demonic, and evidence that the PCA is being given over. The very fact that the PCA would set up such a Star Chamber, which is beyond appeal, is more evidence. Not even the Papacy has such power, nor claims such power. And you men cannot see this? You are blind, and need to pray for salvation from bondage. Also, the fact that the ignorant PCA GA blindly voted to accept the distortions and downright lies of the FV Report is only evidence that these men are easily misled and are too busy to investigate matters for themselves. The PCA is now virtually a tyranny, and I’m overwhelmingly happy not to be part of it.

James Jordan said . . .
This is a joke, right? The PCA committee, stacked from the start, produces a series of easily-provable lies, allows virtually no time for discussion so that not only FV person even gets to the mike, and you want to defend this? My language is not over the top. It is very mild. And if you are offended, good. Those of you who lie repeatedly about the beliefs of ordained ministers of Christ, and who rape and divide His church, are going to hear far worse in time to come.

James Jordan said . . .
Whenever someone points out liars, he’s obnoxious. Goes with the territory. The PCA committee was a pack of liars. The discussion at GA was a joke. I’m not PCA. I wasn’t there. I saw it online. I saw that clown Sproul lie about the FV, and I saw the cowardly committee try and explain why they did not interview anyone, and I saw them lie and say they had actually read and studied the supposed FV material. All out there for the world to see. No fear of God before their eyes. What I gather bothers you is that people outside the PCA can see this abomination and the tyranny of your evil Star Chamber and can comment on it. Yes, we can. It’s appalling. Luther was treated far better. But I assure you, lying about God’s ministers and tearing up the bride of Christ is far more serious than being seen as obnoxious on some blog.

James Jordan said . . .
Go to www.federal-vision.com and compare the joint FV statement with the report of the PCA committee. Or read the responses there. It was understandable that a bapterian group like the PCA contained men who misunderstood the historical Calvinism of the FV meetings, but after the matter had been explained dozens of time, and the FV people continued to be mischaracterized as undermining justification by faith alone (which we all affirm wholeheartedly), then it becomes a matter of lying.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, this is now just a joke. If you don’t think Sproul is a clown, you obviously did not watch his performance at GA. I don’t need to interview him. He clowned around quite clearly in front of everyone. For the rest, you chaps clearly are not interested in the Bible and the Reformed confessions, so there’s no point in continuing with you. And, you clearly despise Presbyterian church government, since the LA Presbytery has TWICE investigated Wilkins and found no ground for charges. You are not presbyterians at all. I wash my hands of you. Be offended as much as you want. If you wish to be treated with respect, cease your contemptable [sic] behavior.

James Jordan said . . .
The idiocy continues. Justification by faith alone has nothing to do with the FV matter, since all FV exponents affirm completely and wholeheartedly the historic protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. No matter how many times you men repeat your lies, we shall stand up and call you liars and rebuke your wickedness.

As for the Star Chamber, it’s true that the PCA, like a gaggle of fools, set this evil thing in place. It’s the opposite of any kind of Biblical and presbyterian government, as anyone can see, and it’s going to be pointed out as such by many more than Armstrong and myself.

You have to be amazed at the morality of the gods of the PCA. Among normal decent people, if you said I was beating my wife, and I said, “No, I’m not,” that would be it. Innocent until proven guilty. Not in the PCA. No, there has to be an investigation. So, the investigation conducted by those nearest to me comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Among normal decent people that would be enough.

But not for the gods of the PCA. No, they demand another investigation. The second investigation, by people close to me who know me, comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Now among normal decent people that would be more than enough. But not for you evil men, and not for your gods. Your gods come back and say, “Either find this man guilty of beating his wife or we will cut you out of our denomination.” THAT’s the PCA.

You regard your sect as a church of Jesus Christ? It is about like the church of Sardis, and EVERYONE CAN SEE IT!

You should really step back and take a look at your collective appalling behavior — your misrepresentations, your character assassinations, your lies, and your tyrannies — and do something about it; because if you don’t, the Lord of the Church most certainly will do something about it.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, it’s been fun, men. In the Psalm 2 sense. Your history of deliberately misreading and distorting the views of ordained ministers of the Gospel has not gone unnoticed in the wider world, and has not gone unnoticed in heaven. I don’t have to be a prophet to know that. And the viciousness of your Star Chamber has not gone unnoticed either. If there were an ounce of the fear of God before your eyes, you’d know this. Sadly, there is not. I leave you to your fate.

James Jordan said . . .
Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. The hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is worth fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian [sic] blogs hate it.

James Jordan said . . .
The question of why FV mean don’t leave the PCA has another aspect. Mr. Webb and others here assume that THEY speak for the majority of the PCA. That is far from demonstrable. The fact that in a few presbyteries the bullies have gotten false statements about the FV passed, and the fact that the GA was hoodwinked into the doing the same, does not prove that the PCA is in fact hostile to what the FV actually stands for. It’s entirely possible that the antinomians and two-kingdom haters of Jesus’ kingship are the minority in the PCA, and that the FV represents the majority. Why don’t you who deny that faith involves faithfulness leave the PCA? You’ve certainly left the Reformed faith.

James Jordan, you’re not obnoxious, you’re a freak.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part IV: “Anonymous Sources”

Well now I’m really confused. On the one hand, Beelzeblog vouches for the anonymous news site called Reformed News, but on the other he condemns those who rely on fully documented anonymous sources. Read for yourself:

I read on Reformed News that Sam Duncan, former moderator of the PCA, has provided a summary of the FV in preparation for the big doings at the General Assembly of the PCA this week. But before I start in on my war dance, let me just say that you ought to check out Reformed News far more often than you do. (“That He’d Been In His Bunk Below”)

And this controversy has now revealed the fact that, for a number of our Reformed leaders, acceptance of this kind of testimony, taking it at face value, is perfectly fine with them. They might want to put some sort of high bar on this for acceptance, of course, like “it is only acceptable to receive spurious testimony from anonymous sources if you are contending for the gospel.” (“Dead Rat Behind the Fridge”)

I sure wish he’d get his story straight because I don’t know from one day to the next who to believe. In fact, the only way I can harmonize these two quotes is by concluding that Prince Blog is the dead rat behind the fridge. I wonder who holds him accountable for this.

Thank you.

“be sure your sin will find you out”

Let’s see, a man who named his blog after an Old Testament prince and his vast mixed hordes of armies, who armed themselves to the teeth to wage war against God’s people, cited this text to me after his cell group of ecclesiastical terrorists posing as clerics, which meets regularly in a public forum to discuss their tactics, had their cover blown.

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, because notwithstanding Prince Blog’s delusional “I am a prophet” syndrome, I’ll stand on the words of a real prophet: “Behold I am against thee, O Gog” (Ezek. 38:3).

Thank you.

The Great Logic Fraud

Over at Green Bagginses they’re throwing strikes faster than Roger Clemens on steroids; so I figure it’s best to put this here rather than risk a call on the inside corner.

The Great Protector has appealed to his self-published book on logic to suggest that he has actually applied logic in the Federal Vision controversy. Interestingly, Dr. Beisner also appealed to Wilson’s self-published book on logic in his Introduction to Auburn Ave. Theology, concluding that Wilson should practice what he teaches:

Anyone who embraces this historic commitment of the Reformed faith and its great theologians to logic must greet the Federal Visionists’ objections, in principle, to logical critique of their statements with skeptical concern. Wilson, who co-authored an introductory text on logic, (FN: Douglas Wilson and Jim Nance, Introductory Logic, 3d ed. (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1997).) ought to know better. Yet, in his overview paper for this volume, he seeks to shield the Federal Visionists’ inconsistent assertions about how covenant, election, salvation, baptism, and assurance are related from criticism . . . . Wilson’s attempt to justify such inconsistencies by appeal to “levels of discourse” does not suffice. What it really leads to is precisely the sort of upper-story/lower-story dualism against which the late Francis Schaeffer indefatigably warned. Does Wilson, after all, mean to tell us that at one “level of discourse” — whatever that means — all children of believers are saved, while at another “level of discourse” some are not saved? What parents crave regarding their children is not “Well, on this level of discourse, your child is saved, but on another level, he might not be.” What fretting church members crave regarding their own assurance is not “Well, on this level of discourse, your baptism assures you that you’re saved, but on another level it doesn’t.” Such equivocation is not the responsibility of the minister of the Word of God, who is called to sound a clear trumpet (1 Corinthians 14:8), whose “Yes” should be “Yes” and whose “No” should be “No” (Matthew 5:37), whose message is to be ‘not Yes and No, but . . . always Yes” because in Christ “all [not just some!] of the promises of God” are “Yes” and “Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:19–20). No one will spend eternity blessed in heaven in one “level of discourse” and cursed in hell in another. (Cal Beisner, “Introduction,” Auburn Ave. Theology: Pros and Cons, pages xxxi, xxxii)

Thank you.

hatesplotch.net

Please read this comment for the full context.

Monkey boy Gabriel Rench asserts here that “Doug did not start up hatesplotch and never posted on hatesplotch.” Here is a post that Pastor Douglas Wilson uploaded to hatesplotch.net, which is terribly ironic when you remember that he had just pulled Southern Slavery As It Was from the shelf because of “citation problems.” Regardless, as you read this, remember that Wilson did not have a blog at the time and that this post represents his finest contribution to academia:

Additional Footnotes for Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey
Additional Footnotes for Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey A recent critique published of Southern Slavery As It Was was what other scholars call “way scholarly.” This can be seen at a glance by simply counting the footnotes in it — forty-one of them in a mere eleven pages! Our only problem with the piece is that when these distinguished authors spit on their hands, rolled up their sleeves, and really got into the juicy bits, they (when the fever of professional historical scholarship hit) forgot to footnote those really insightful parts. So in a random fit of public spirit, we did some checking and herewith append the following footnotes to the following section, a section desperately in need of a little more scholarly festooning.

“As we see it, Wilson and Wilkins hope to whitewash the legacy of Southern history.(1) They do this, it seems, because they fantasize about a new Southern cause — an evangelical redemption, the creation of a New Jerusalem (2). They believe that the South is historically the locus of Christian regeneration (3). The South is God’s promised land for the chosen white race (4), a race that will redeem all others through blood and fire (5).”

1. As noted by Sami Rami Dumbunni in his seminal article “Great Experiments in Telepathy,” Psychic Friends Network Peer Review (Calcutta, India: Astral Whoosh Press, 1994), pp. 201–254.
2. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great State of Illinois (Carbondale, IL: Chickaboom Press, 2002), p. 62. Lindsey argues for a New Jerusalem that descends from heaven down to the Midwest, as opposed to the South, but he nevertheless gives a fair review of all the positions.
3. Quinlan and Ramsey, writing in “What All Us Scholars Instinctively Know” in Brain Barf Journal (Wouk, IO: Cow Town University Press, 1999), p. 150.
4. Karl Barth addressed this question in excruciating detail in his monumental work. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Riggins, ID: Huckleberry Press, 1988), pp. 201–222. Unfortunately, the great theologian did not come down definitively in favor of Tuscaloosa as the site of the rebuilt Temple, although this appears to be the consensus of most theologians today. See Most Theologians Review, Vol. 17, No. 3., 1998.
5. Johnny Walker Red Blood, Fire, Soil and Thunder (Toad Flats, Arkansas: Fever Pitch Publications, 1999), p. 28. The first chapter of this book is simply outstanding. Unfortunately, the quality declines shortly thereafter and Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey take no position on the alleged conspiracy between International Jewry and the alien microbes of Star System XL001.
Posted by Douglas Wilson — 1/27/2004 5:01:28 PM

In my next post I shall address his other assertion that Wilson did not start up hatesplotch.net.

Thank you.

Self-awareness Level: Minus Zero and Falling

“This sort of thing must be handled by just, calm, deliberate, and honorable men. In short, not the kind of men who specialize in internet vituperation.” — Douglas Wilson (emphasis original)

The CREC Moderator Has Spoken

Except not to those who need to hear it. Randy Booth posted this on the CREC website when they began taking heat for their interference in the RC Jr. scandal. Too bad these men refuse to live by their own principles.

. . . . Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters.

Thank you.

Burke Shade: Proto-Federal Visionist

One of the common denominators of the Federal Vision is confusion — confusion about what they’re saying, confusion about what they’re writing, confusion about what they believe — it’s just plain old confusion. And in this respect, deposed minister Burke Shade represents the quintessential proto-Federal Visionist.

You will recall that the PCA defrocked Shade in April 1999, for “apparently” holding to an erroneous view of baptism, and when you read P & R News’ account of his trial, it’s clear that Frank Smith was skeptical about convicting a man for “apparently” doing something. And in that limited context, Frank had a point. In hindsight, however, Shade was a FV test case demonstrating the FV’s slippery nature. Moreover, Illiana Presbytery was right.

Shade said that he believed X but members of his congregation testified that he taught Y. Hmmmm. . . . does this sounds familiar? Once again a FVist used the English tongue to communicate something that everyone understood in English, but he meant it in FVish.

The Bible requires elders to be “apt to teach.” So if they regularly confuse the flock when they teach, they do not satisfy this requirement. Unfortunately, this is not the case with FVists. Everyone understands exactly what they’re saying; they simply won’t admit it.

Tortured Churchmen

Every time I tried posting this on Green Baggins it gives me an error message. But since Jeffrey Meyers is dialed into Google, I’m sure he’ll catch it and I’ll keep trying.

Dr. Meyers,

I sincerely apologized to you for misrepresenting your behavior because I hold the Ninth Commandment dearly. And in my apology I made clear that I believe you misrepresented the truth with your self-righteous, self-serving indignation. You see, I can’t bring myself to believe that words such as “injustice,” “irresponsible scholarship,” “the mob,” “lame,” “climate of suspicion that is being cultivated,” “star chamber-like trial,” and “committee was stacked” reflect the heart of a true churchman. To be sure, elsewhere you described your brethren in the PCA as “a Reformed inquisition” who “are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails.” If I’m not mistaken, this casts you as a martyr/victim suffering at the wicked hands of your brethren, the evil persecutors.

Consequently, I believe these accusations betray more than you know, because if the PCA was a corrupt as your describe, then you have an absolute obligation to reform it from within or leave it. Instead, you have chosen to pelt it with insults on the Internet and, incredibly, you describe your behavior (in between torture sessions, I presume) as that of a “good churchman” — “the farthest thing from an individualist.”

Perhaps you think this kind of loaded rhetoric honors your promise of “subjection to the brethren.” I do not. Or maybe you think your incendiary language upholds your vow “to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the . . . purity and peace and unity of the Church.” I do not.

In fact, I think that your conduct represents the complete opposite of the spirit and intent of your vows. You are free to disagree with me, but I don’t know how you account for your “subjection to the brethren” when you gnash your teeth at them. And I don’t know why you think your incessant boohooing advances purity, peace, and unity. As I wrote here, if you were a minister in the CREC and you criticized those ministerial rejects the way you criticize the PCA, they would call a “council” of churches together to oversee your immediate dismissal, in bad standing, from the confederation, for violation of your vows — i.e. “covenant breaking.”

So please don’t let my apology confuse you, Dr. Meyers. Yes, I misrepresented your actions based upon my false assumptions. I am responsible for this and I am truly sorry for it. But don’t think that in apologizing I must vindicate your irresponsible language and behavior. They are two separate issues. And just as I am accountable for my words, so you are accountable for yours.

Thank you.

Federal Question for Mike Lawyer

A couple of days ago Mike Lawyer commented here that the Federal Vision covenant breakers in the PCA have broken their vows because the findings of the 35th General Assembly of the PCA were “errant.”

Given Lawyer’s supposition, I wonder if Wilson’s monkey boy would explain to us why Peter Leithart honored his vow by informing his presbytery of his differences with the Westminster Standards.

Thank you.

Federal Gratitude

According to page 2 of the official minutes of the “First Triennial General Council Meeting of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches,” dated October 14, 2005, the “General Council” unanimously resolved to officially honor the Orthodox Presbyterian Church on June 11, 2006, with “a day of celebration and prayer . . . for the OPC’s seventy years of confessional adherence to the Reformed faith,” yada, yada, yada. The resolution states:

Honoring the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
The Following Resolution was Passed at the 2005 CREC Council Meeting:

In celebration and grateful acknowledgment of the seventieth anniversary of the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [OPC] at its First General Assembly in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 11–14 June 1936, the first General Council meeting of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches hereby resolves:

That 11 June 2006 shall be proclaimed a day of celebration and prayer in our various churches; that we thank God for the OPC’s seventy years of confessional adherence to the Reformed faith, and for that body’s steady witness of the Gospel against unbiblical pietism and liberalism; that we thank God for the many faithful teachers and pastors of that body from whom we in the CREC have learned so much; and that we petition God for his continued protection and blessing upon our brethren in the OPC — for their continued peace, reformation, and faithfulness to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ for generations to come.

Accordingly, the CREC published this resolution on its website and the membership spent June 11, 2006, celebrating the OPC’s faithful testimony. But the celebration didn’t last long. One week later, in a post titled “The OPC Report on the Federal Vision,” the CREC’s chief spokesman cut loose (mildly by his standards) on the OPC’s integrity, by giving the faithful teachers and pastors from that body a score of “thirty-five percent out of a possible one hundred” on a report they wrote criticizing Federal Vision.

Unmoved by this irresponsible rant, one week later, on June 27, 2006, the 73rd General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church adopted a “Report on the Doctrine of Justification” that contained this recommendation:

That the General Assembly recommend that presbyteries, sessions, and pastors be proactive in addressing teaching of the New Perspective on Paul and of the Federal Vision and other like teachings that compromise the purity of the gospel. (page 93, emphasis added)

In other words, God heard the prayers of the CREC, and the OPC continued its “seventy years of confessional adherence to the Reformed faith” and its “steady witness of the Gospel” as its “faithful teachers and pastors” repudiated Federal Vision for “compromising the purity of the gospel.”

Now, if only the ministers of the CREC would prove their resolve by submitting to the “many faithful teachers and pastors of that body from whom [they] in the CREC have learned so much,” so that they could help facilitate the answer to their prayer for the OPC’s “continued peace . . . for generations to come.”

Thank you.

Once More With Feeling

Mark Horne has thrown another tantrum, this time at Lane Keister (again) for a post he wrote on Green Baggins. And, as usual, Horne got his facts wrong, pitching a fit for no apparent reason. But you have to read Lane’s response to Horne and notice how he patiently instructs his fellow PCA minister, fulfilling the apostolic command: “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Then notice that Mark Horne says nothing.

Regarding the Knox–Gage matter, Bob Mattes shows why this situation arose, by outlining the tension between the seminary’s board and the church’s session — a conflict of authority — which culminated in this embarrassing situation.

Flower Power

We have to score one for William Chellis over at De Regno Christi, who inserted his serrated edge into James Jordan and slowly turned it. Jordan wrote, “I’m justified because Jesus died for me,” to which Chellis replied, “James . . . according to FV doctrine, you cannot know that. You might commit apostasy and be separated from Christ.” And the only thing funnier than this zinger is the strong likelihood that Jordan won’t get it.

This reminds me of a joke a Calvinist told me when I was an Arminian. He said, “If the TULIP is the flower for the Calvinist, do you know what flower the Arminians have adopted?” I replied, “No,” not knowing that I walked into it. He said, “The DAISY! — ‘He loves me; He loves me not; He loves me; He loves me not.’” Get it? The daisy!

Of course, the punch line as it relates to the Federal Vision is that their take on election is identical to the Arminians, even though they won’t admit it.

Federal Vision: “Let It Be”

Two days ago, P. Andrew Sandlin made two declarations relative to the Federal Vision on De Regno Christi. First, he declared it “a movement”:

Darryl, it’s a movement, like the Charismatic Movement, Reconstructionist Movement, Emergent Movement and so on. . . . In all of these ways, the FV is a classic movement.

And second, Sandlin declared James Jordan the Godfather of Federal Vision:

If anybody has a right to claim godfather status of this movement, it’s Jim J. Why nobody acknowledges this publicly mystifies me, and since I’m not part of the movement, it doesn’t cost me anything to say it. Almost everything the FV guys are saying today, Jim was saying (and I was reading) 20–25 years ago. He is the proximate theological fountainhead of this movement.

These two declarations are noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Federal Visionists have recently denied — rather vehemently — that they are “a movement,” affirming instead that they are “a conversation.” You can confirm this fact here. And of course, this isn’t particularly noteworthy except for one fact — moments after Sandlin declared FV “a movement,” Douglas Wilson immediately agreed with him, writing:

Andrew offered the observation that FV is a classic movement — and he is exactly right. As a movement, it will suffer the temptations that movements do and exhibit the strengths that movements do. As it happens, one of the tenets of this movement is the need for a higher ecclesiology. (“Was the Reformation a Church?”)

Amazingly, this quote contradicts this statement by Wilson:

Just a quick point for the record. . . . The FV guys have been maintaining that the FV is a conversation, a shared set of questions, not a movement, and so on. Some of the critics have insisted on the opposite — that we are a well-oiled, deeply-funded machine, set to infiltrate and take over the federated Reformed witness in North America. . . . Once it becomes obvious that the FV is not the movement that it was claimed to be. . . . (“FV As the Death Star”)

Accordingly, we may conclude that words, and the ideas they communicate, are only a means to an end for Wilson, and he does not really believe what he says (or writes) from one day to the next, unless it serves his best interest at that point in time. Furthermore, he doesn’t appear to care whether he contradicts himself at all, presumably because he only needs a few more meaningless words to correct himself.

The second noteworthy point relates to this because right before Sandlin made his “Godfather” statement, James Jordan continued his worldwide meltdown by sinking further into denial and introducing yet another comment on De Regno Christi trying to reframe the Federal Vision “movement” as a mere “conversation.” Jordan wrote, “That what’s called FV is just a conversation is what we’ve been saying for five years,” contrary to Wilson’s revelation. (These guys really need to get their talking points together.)

I note this because, in addition to being downright nasty to some of the participants in this so-called “conversation,” James Jordan appears somewhat bent and quite a bit unstable, which leads me to think that we should not apply “Godfather” status to him. Rather, we should think of him as Federal Vision’s Yoko Ono — the twisted sister who threw a fly in the Beatles’ ointment, forcing their breakup. I suggest this because just as John Lennon attributed his (late) creativity to Yoko Ono despite her tin ear, shrill vocals, and hostile demeanor, so the Federal Visionists appear happy to own James Jordan as their creative genius despite his mean-spirited and utterly vacuous comments.

However, unlike the Beatles who chose to dissolve rather than let Yoko call the shots, I suspect that the Federal Visionists will refuse to throw Jordan overboard, which will result in their continued marginalization because the man appears resolved to discredit the “movement” he godfathered with his incredibly stupid comments. It’s just my hunch; I could be wrong. But if I’m not, then as Paul McCartney said, “Let It Be.”

Federal Ignorance, Part 2

Yesterday we considered the reason that Jeff Meyers gave for rejecting TRs and, with them, the Westminster Confession of Faith, at least by implication. Meyers wrote:

There was a time in my ministry when I believe that I encouraged Reformed snobbery. Many years ago, after an evening service, I walked out to the parking lot and joined a group of men who were talking about our church. They were praising our worship and our doctrine. At first I felt proud. Then they started to belittle the Lutheran church down the road. Crypto Arminians. They turned to the generic evangelical congregation in our neighborhood. Idiots. Dumb evangelicals. Before long it was, “I thank God that our church has such pure doctrine and preaches the Word so faithfully and that we are not like those stupid Lutherans and crazy evangelicals.” Well, I didn’t go home that night feeling all that justified.

That was something of a turning point in my ministry. I realized that I was a big part of the problem. My TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF had led to this.

I guess I don’t have a problem with Presbyterian laymen and women being a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations. In truth, I probably encourage it. It keeps us humble about our own theological tradition. It leads us to better behavior, too. Less sectarian and more catholic.

Today, let’s examine the fruit of Meyers’ conversion from Westminster to Federal Vision. More specifically, I want to consider whether his rejection of TR theology has produced any more humility in his church, whether it has encouraged “better behavior” within his congregation, and if the fruit of his ministry is “less sectarian and more catholic.” And to answer this question, I introduce one exhibit — Mr. Mark Horne — Meyers’ fellow minister in the PCA. Therefore, please take into account the following posts and ask yourself if abandoning the WCF has produced more humility, improved his behavior, and made him less sectarian and more catholic:

In “Dealing with MARS, part 3,” Mr. Horne wrote,

Who are these evil people? Where are they found? What presbytery or classis examined them and allowed them into our midst? What study committees have been erected to expose such error? Where do I sign up to do my part to rid the church of them?

Please bear in mind that Mr. Horne framed these rhetorical question to describe esteemed professors — Christian brothers — from a reputable seminary, who adopted a position opposing the Federal Vision. Also note that, later the same day, Mr. Horne took time to libel another Christian brother, writing, “Andy, you continue to show that you are of the Father of Lies.” Now, I may be wrong, but in both instances Mr. Horne’s choice of words seem slightly stronger than merely calling someone “idiots” or “dumb evangelicals.”

If I read Lane Keister correctly, Mr. Horne used this post (which he has since removed) to call his fellow PCA minister “a Satanic, non-sanctified, non-academic, non-intellectual, discipline-averting (internet vs. church courts), wickedly insinuating troubler of the PCA.” You have to read about it here. Of course, the point is that, hopefully, Pastor Jeff Meyers has trouble sleeping because of Mr. Horne’s rhetoric; but I doubt it.

“Classic mob justice” isn’t much better. Here Mr. Horne impugned the integrity of the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee with belittling, disrespectful language, something condemned, or at least strongly discouraged, by Jeffrey Meyers.

The post titled “The committee biased? No, all the people who matter were included.” is a good example of Mr. Horne thumbing his nose at his fathers and brothers in the faith, as well as his denomination, and it illustrates the absence of submission and humility in a minister of the gospel. Notice Mr. Horne’s “me first” point of view:

No one counts but the groups represented on the committee. No one else matters. We have no need to include anyone, to recognize their years of service, to regard them in any way as brothers, except in acknowledging the need to condemn and marginalize them by this stacked committee — which isn’t stacked because no one else counts.”

The title of this entry, “Humbly do it because we say so,” represents Mr. Horne’s sarcastic attempt to heap disdain on humility in order to maintain sectarian defiance. Perhaps this constitutes Meyers’ idea of “a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations.”

Mr. Horne titled this post with a question, “Does Clark know what it means to have a conscience?” which he answered in the opening line: “I see no evidence that he does.” He may think himself humble and catholic, but I am confident that most people would disagree.

The post titled “Look how cute I am standing next to the PCA study committee!” plays off of Doug Wilson’s “stacked committee” tirade and once again demonstrates Mr. Horne’s contempt for his fathers and brothers in the faith (as well as his preference of Wilson over communion).

The innuendo in “Normally I would want to hide this for the sake of the guy’s reputation” is a pathetic ad hominem and a disgraceful attempt to exemplify humility and good behavior, if that’s what Mr. Horne intended.

I could cite many other examples of shameful conduct by Mr. Horne, but these should suffice. And please note that he wrote all of these posts during a 30-day stretch in May and June of this year, when providence afforded him (and Meyers) an opportunity to exhibit their commitment to humility and good behavior. Unfortunately, Mr. Horne went to great lengths to document in writing that he is an absolute embarrassment to the Christian ministry — a man completely oblivious to his petulant outbursts and childish behavior that would shame any normal person, let alone a true ambassador for Christ.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot understand why Jeffrey Meyers could not countenance “Reformed snobbery” while he apparently approves Federal Vision rancor. I believe, therefore, that Meyers’ pretext for ditching TR theology, i.e. the prideful snobbery it bred in his congregation, is a pile of baloney simple because the immediate fruit of his ministry — Mark Horne — is actually worse than any kind of “Reformed snobbery” (whatever that is), which supposedly pushed him away from Westminster.

Jeffrey, I have one word for you: Visionist, see thyself.

Federal Ignorance

Last week, during the so-called discussion of the Federal Vision controversy at De Regno Christi, Pastor Jeff Meyers of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, MO, wrote:

There was a time in my ministry when I believe that I encouraged Reformed snobbery. Many years ago, after an evening service, I walked out to the parking lot and joined a group of men who were talking about our church. They were praising our worship and our doctrine. At first I felt proud. Then they started to belittle the Lutheran church down the road. Crypto Arminians. They turned to the generic evangelical congregation in our neighborhood. Idiots. Dumb evangelicals. Before long it was, “I thank God that our church has such pure doctrine and preaches the Word so faithfully and that we are not like those stupid Lutherans and crazy evangelicals.” Well, I didn’t go home that night feeling all that justified.

These words convey a commendable attitude that all Christians should strive to maintain. If your faith breeds pride, contempt for the brethren, or any kind of strife, then be sure that it descends not from above. Pastor Meyers had good cause to lament this sin in his congregation and he had better cause to examine his own heart and repent of the haughtiness that spawned this outbreak of arrogance. Sadly, Pastor Meyers informs us that his improper understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith fostered the problem and, even sadder, he appears oblivious to his ignorance:

That was something of a turning point in my ministry. I realized that I was a big part of the problem. My TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF had led to this.

Here we see that Meyers had “a turning point in his ministry” when he realized his “TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF” was “a big part of the problem.” Unfortunately, Meyers’ “turning point” turned him the wrong way, demonstrating that he really does not understand the truths communicated by the WCF. For example, Chapter VI, “Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof,” sections III–VI should not incite pride in anyone who grasps the import of these words:

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Pastor Meyers, if the words “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” stir you to get puffed, then you are twisted. And if “made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal” inflames you to strut before the congregation, then there is something terribly wrong with you.

But let’s move to election, which is usually the stumbler for Arminians, because it, like the fall, gives no cause for anyone to bluster, though those who don’t grasp it tend to act special, i.e. arrogant.

Years ago, while migrating from Dispensationalism to the Reformed faith, I read Lewis Sperry Chafer on election (for all his downsides, his presentation of Calvinism served as a great primer for me, for which I am grateful), and he wrote an outstanding rebuttal to the specious argument that states election breeds pride and arrogance in the elect because they deem themselves special in the eyes of God. Chafer quoted Augustus Strong, who wrote:

It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect. — Answer: this is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites of God, have reason to question their election. . . . It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether on their own part or on the part of others. — Answer: Since it is a secret decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without election, it is certain that all would be lost (cf. Acts 18:10). While it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to cry for mercy, it encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he will only believe. While it makes the Christian feel entirely dependent on God’s power, in his efforts for the impenitent, it leads him to say with Paul that he “endures all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may attain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). (Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907] 788, 789).

I am TR, which instills humility rather than conceit because, in the end, the Reformed faith accentuates the wonders of Christ’s glory at the expense of man’s total depravity more than any other Christian system, whatever Jeff Meyers may say about it. And he may attribute the pride of his heart to the WCF, but I suggest he reread Mark 10:44, because somewhere along the line he missed this Sunday school lesson — “Whoever of you desires to be first shall be the servant of all.”

Memo to Jimmy Jordan

I realize that at various times you deny the existence of the “Federal Vision” and you have even gone so far as to declare, “I have no idea what the ‘whole FV thing’ is.” So consider this memo a small reminder to jar your memory.

On July 30, 2007, less than three months ago, you signed your name to a document entitled “A Joint Federal Vision Statement,” which affirms, “Any doctrine mentioned in the sections before this one can be fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision.”

Therefore, I suggest that you reread this statement to clarify for yourself what “the whole FV thing is.” You can find it at the website called Federal Vision. It is subtitled “resources for understanding the controversy.”

Thank you.

Federal Schizophrenia

If you haven’t heard, the folks at De Regno Christi are hosting a virtual discussion on the Federal Vision. Thus far (and as expected) no one has achieved anything; however, someone from the Federal Vision camp needs to explain their talking points to James Jordan. Either that or he’s is in the middle of an identity crisis. Witness his own testimony regarding the Federal Vision faction:

First, on Monday, he alluded to the “so-called FVers” and implied that they don’t exist as a sect, group, or faction:

That and that alone is what was controversial about the original conference at Auburn Avenue called “Federal Vision.” . . When the Bible says “washing of regeneration,” so-called FVers say. . . . (9-17-07, 3:36 pm)

Two hours later, he reiterated his implication by referring to the “so-called FV business”:

And I think reducing the faith from confession to ideology (which is how our broad confessions are being treated in conservative circles these days) is a grave evil, tantamount to operating by intellectual sight rather than submissive faith — though this evil is one that the so-called FV business has exposed. My point was that the original FV conference was not a response to some crisis. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

But in the same comment, he acknowledged the existence of “people involved in FV.” And please notice his appeal to certainty:

But to be sure: The people involved in FV were involved in Christian Reconstruction 25 years ago. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

On Tuesday, however, his certainty waned and he denied both their existence as a group and their agenda:

Perhaps it’s worth remembering that those of us being grouped as “FV” by others (and we never grouped ourselves that way, nor had we any agenda as such). . . Perhaps some of the fuss over the so-called “FV” lies in. . . (9-18-07, 1:54 pm)

Exactly eight minutes later, Jordan had a moment of clarity and realized that “there is no such thing as Federal Vision”:

I have no idea what the “whole FV thing” is. I and everyone else has said for half a decade that there is no such thing as the FV. . . . (9-18-07, 2:02 pm)

However, this morning Mr. Jordan acknowledged that he contributed a long essay to the book titled The Federal Vision, which was written by a group of men without an agenda about a subject that they cannot identify because neither it nor they exist in any form or fashion.

I have a long essay on this in the book The Federal Vision. Most of us [FVers] believe in . . . (9-19-07, 9:41 am)

Jim Jordan, call a doctor. You need a reality check.

Thank you.