Category: ecclesiology

Embarrassing the PCA By Applying Their Own Reasoning

“Nevertheless, we deny that the ordo amoris provides a warrant for the preferential treatment of one’s own ethnic group ahead of any other. We further deny the assumption that our natural preferences are the same as rightly ordered loves, or that race or ethnicity may, in any way, function as a moral norm directing or defining love for neighbor.”

From the PCA report on Christian Nationalism

1.) Very well then, if the ordo amoris doesn’t provide warrant for what these idiots say it doesn’t provide warrant for just exactly what does the ordo amoris provide a warrant for, in terms of properly ordering our loves?

2.) So, what they’re saying is if Jose from Mexico City moves to Sturgis, Michigan (where a large community of Hispanics exist) while simultaneously Hahn Lee from Peking moves to Sturgis it would be un-Christ like for the Mexican church to help Jose over Hahn Lee because natural preferences may “not function as a moral norm directing or defining love for Jose as neighbor?” Have I got that right?

3.) If natural preferences are not the same as rightly ordered loves than what exactly are natural preferences in distinction from rightly ordered loves?

4.) Are these idiots saying that my natural preference for my wife and children is not the same as my rightly ordered love for my wife and children? If they are saying that does that mean it is sin for me to naturally prefer my own wife and children as opposed to my best friend’s wife and children?

5.) If I don’t practice a preferential treatment for my own ethnic group, it stands to reason that I will practice preferential treatment for some other ethnic group. This stands because as everyone knows, there is no such thing as neutrality. Now, if I practice preferential treatment for those who are not my own ethnic group haven’t I made my natural in group to be my out group?

6.) The fact that I am told here that I must not practice preferential treatment of my own ethnic group over other ethnic groups is the very substance of egalitarianism. What we are being told here is that all ethnic groups are equal and must be treated the same. Someone had better tell Paul this given his outburst in Romans 9:1-3.

7.) If our natural preferences may not, IN ANY WAY, function as a moral norm directing or defining love for neighbor then all that is left to function as a moral norm directing or defining love for neighbor is our un-natural preferences. The standard here, given by the PCA report, for a moral norm directing or defining love for neighbor is to embrace the natural out-group as our in-group. This means in order to show neighbor love to its maximum degree I must find a Witch-doctor from Haiti who hates Christianity or a Chad Lubavitcher who teaches that Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell above my natural instinct to help out my ethnic/racial kin.

Do these people think about what they are saying before they write stuff on paper?

Bishop Ray Sutton on Why Calvin Robinson was Tossed From the REC

“Calvin Robinson has to decide whether or not he wants to be a prophet or a priest.”

Bishop Ray Sutton
When Asked why Sutton ran Robinson out of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC)

Heidelberg Catechism

Question 32: But why art thou called a Christian?

Answer: Because I am a member of Christ by faith,7 and thus am partaker of His anointing;8 that so I may confess His name (prophet),9 and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him (priest);10 and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life,11 and afterwards reign with Him eternally, over all creatures. (King)12

Throughout history the church has taught, following the Scripture, that all believers are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God. Indeed, contrary to Sutton, it is not possible for a faithful member of the clergy to not embrace being both priest and prophet.

Clearly, Bishop Sutton is not the sharpest spoon in the knife drawer. Now, as Robinson has embraced Trent, he was properly forbidden from staying with the REC, but the idea that one can’t be clergy in the REC because they want to be both prophet and priest is just an example of either low IQ, or a faulty education.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon Insistence That All Local Churches Must be Willing to be Polyglot – Part I

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon writes (Hereafter RJS)

“Michael Spangler (whose ordination was revoked by his former Presbyterian denomination) and his followers argue that the error of Peter in Galatians 2 was only about Judaizing and therefore has nothing to do with ethnicity. They argue that because the underlying heresy was justification by works, Paul’s rebuke has no application to modern attempts to divide Christians along racial or ethnic lines.

But this misses the point entirely.”

Bret responds,

1.) Note how RJS seeks to poison the well by going out of his way to mention that Spangler’s was ordination was revoked without also telling us that on this point Spangler’s denomination formed a Kangaroo court in order to revoke his ordination.

2.) We should remember here that Spurgeon is not only arguing against Spangler but he is arguing against long recognized reformed theologian Dr. John Frame who wrote,

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

3.) That the Church may indeed be divided along ethnic lines is clearly taught in Scripture in Revelation 21,

22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it.

Here we see that it is the nations by nations that come into the new Jerusalem. The church is constituted as a nation of nations. One body… any member nations.

RJS writes,

No one denies that the Judaizers were teaching a false gospel. The question is how Peter participated in that error. Peter did not deny justification by faith with his mouth. Peter did not begin preaching salvation by circumcision. Peter’s sin was his conduct. He withdrew from Gentile believers and separated himself from them.

Why did Paul rebuke him so publicly?

Because Peter’s actions communicated something false about the nature of Christ’s church. His separation suggested that faith in Christ was not enough for full fellowship among God’s people. A dividing wall had been rebuilt where Christ had torn one down.

Bret responds,

Pretend that Peter and Paul had been eating with a bunch of converted Jews who were no longer trying to keep the ceremonial law in order to be justified, before the Judaizers arrived. Pretend that Peter pulled away when the Judaizers showed up and Paul spoke harshly to Peter for pulling away from the Jewish non ceremonial law table arrangements.  The issue for Paul was NOT ethnicity. Paul would have been just as upset with Peter if Peter had pulled away from eating with converted Jews  by the self righteous Judaizers. Spurgeon has misunderstood Galatians 2.

RJS,

In his article on race realism, Spangler spends much of his time defending propositions that are not actually in dispute. Churches are often homogeneous. Churches are often shaped by language, nation, culture, and providence.

Different peoples have different histories, customs, and strengths. None of that proves his point.

The issue is not whether churches are often homogeneous. The issue is whether race and ancestry may become a principle of ecclesiastical separation.

A church that happens to be predominantly one ethnicity is one thing. A church that is intentionally organized around ethnicity, and which directs otherwise qualified Christians elsewhere because of their race, is something very different.

Bret responds

Quoting from a source that wishes to remain anonymous,

What Spangler et al are pushing back against is NOT the occasional exception or visitor but what is tantamount to ethnic invasion and replacement attempting to seek legitimacy in local churches whose foremost duty is to its own people and their God-given covenants of blood and kin.

Once again, Spurgeon is engaging in categorical conflation. A right to the general church doesn’t mean a right to all individual chapters and iterations of said church. An ancillary situation brings this into greater clarity: a stranger may be invited to family worship but cannot demand admittance. National and ethnic considerations clearly intersect with church worship. A Japanese Christian could not simply fly to Germany and demand membership and voting rights in a German church. He could visit or become a non-voting member who submits himself to the local customs and habits but his foreign expression of being mediated by his racial and cultural identity make him incompatible with the duties and privileges of full membership.

RJS writes,

Spangler appeals repeatedly to prudence. He argues that separation may be justified by social tensions, cultural differences, immigration, national concerns, or the preservation of a people. But the Judaizers also had prudential arguments. They wanted peace between Jews and Gentiles. They wanted continuity with ancient customs. They wanted to avoid scandal among conservative Jews. They wanted to preserve a distinct people.
Paul did not deny that tensions existed. He did not deny that practical concerns were real. He asked a different question: Was Peter’s conduct in step with the truth of the gospel?

Bret responds,

This is an untrue observation on Spurgeon’s part.

The prudential reasons that Spangler has for distinct bodies of people never excludes the doctrine of Justification by faith alone from any of the distinct bodies that might form, whereas the putatively prudential reason the Judaizers had for distinct bodies was the denial and elimination of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That can hardly be considered a valid prudential reason. Spurgeon error here is monumental.

I would also doubt that the Judaizers ever wanted peace with Christians, except on the terms of denying the faith. Nothing Spangler writes denies the faith.

RJS writes

That is still the question.

A nation may have concerns about preserving its culture, customs, language, and people. Families certainly have an interest in preserving their own heritage and lineage. But the church is not a nation, and it is not an ethnic association. The church is the assembly of those united to Christ by faith.

Bret responds

The church universal certainly is not a single nation but the church is a nation of nations. We see that throughout scripture. We have already mentioned the Revelation 21 passage earlier. Here we quote from NT theologian Martin Wyngaarden,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

Spurgeon isn’t escaping this “nationing” of the church. Spurgeon merely desires each individual church to be able to be a polyglot national church.

The missing context to a whites’ only church, that RJS seems to miss is that it should be normative on a national scale that immigration is so vanishingly small that in a white country whites only is the default. The current social order of racial and ethnic leveling and forced integration is itself illegitimate and so forces white churches into making choices that they should not have to make in the first place.

RJS writes,

The New Testament recognizes nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. It does not make ancestry a term of communion.

Bret responds,

Again, Spurgeon misses the point. The Church universal is a nation of nations but not all local churches must turn themselves into outposts of the United Nations.

We repeat what Frame offered earlier,

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Observations on the Ecclesiastical Regnant Follies

I’ve been out of town visiting family and so haven’t been able to write on the whole Rev. Zach Garris imbroglio. However, I wanted to add my two cents worth. Jon Harris, on his substack page, has done a fine job giving the timeline of the whole Garris travesty. I’d recommend reading that to get the context of the whole injustice leading up to yet another NAPARC Kangaroo court.

1.) Denominationalism

Denominations are akin to political parties. As such a denomination – any denomination – is only as good as the faction running the political party/ denomination. This already teaches us that there is nothing automatically sacrosanct about a denomination or any denomination’s “decisions.” A denomination is only as good as the faction successfully whipping the vote.

Keeping the above in mind we must remember that most political machines from Tammany Hall, to Daley’s Chicago, to the Kansas City Pendergrass machine are thoroughly corrupt and exist to serve the interest of the political machine. Denominations are no different. I’ve been around them whether Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed my whole life and I can tell you that the best of men who run them are at best men. At best. At worst, which is more common, they are oft times absolutely clueless. (This is itself an improvement on the many times I’ve seen and experienced the absolutely wicked.)

Denominations exist, like political machines, first and foremost, to continue to exist. Anything that threatens the political faction that is operating the controls of the denomination is going to be squelched. These people, one had to understand, are not about truth. They are about power and control.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen discovered this in 1936 when he (like Garris) was suspended and deposed from the ministry of the PCUSA. Machen’s sin was touching the denominational money source by starting his own Mission agency. Another Machen sin was his constant harping on how Liberalism (actually neo-orthodoxy) had entered into the denominational. Machen was challenging the political faction in control of the denomination and they bounced him for doing so.

Much the same is true of the whole Rev. Zach Garris case. This isn’t about truth. This isn’t about unwholesome speech. This is about a particular political faction (Kellerites?) exercising raw power.

Lyndon B. Johnson, while Majority leader of the US House once told someone lobbying him that the person could get anything he wanted in the US House of Representatives as long as he had the votes. The question was only whether or not he had the votes. Garris didn’t have the votes. The issue was irrelevant. Garris was found guilty for being Garris and not belonging to the political faction in control of the Rio Grande Presbytery.

2.) Political Correctness 

Rev. Garris had the courage and misfortune to lay his metaphorical hand upon one of the PCA’s “magic negros,” who can do no wrong precisely because they are black. Rev. Garris dared to suggest that Dr. Anthony Bradley could not only be in error but danced with disaster by telling Dr. Bradley that “sometimes thing are too complex for a PhD  to understand,” and “arrogance can’t stand banter.” These two quotes are why Garris was indefinitely suspended by the Rio Grande Presbytery. Together these two comments constituted “unwholesome speech.” Imagine all the smelling salts that would have been needed for these lady Presbyters if they had been alive when Luther and Calvin were alive. The speech those men sometimes used could fry bacon to a crisp.

But Bradley is black. If Garris had said the above to a white man everybody would have yawned and moved on. The facts have it that Bradley himself has spoken in rather low and base ways to Meg Basham but has anyone brought Dr. Bradley up on charges? Certainly not and that is because in politically correct PCA poker a black Marxist male (Bradley) trumps a mildly conservative white female (Basham). However, a white male (Garris) is always trumped by a black man (Bradley).

The PCA is full on in the WOKE stream. Sure, it’s not as WOKE as the Methodists but it is in the stream and is being carried by the current. This was seen in the support of many of the members of the machine in control giving full throated support to the revoice conference combined with their inability to discipline Rev. Greg Johnson.

Keep in mind though that the PCA is not unique in its being in the WOKE stream. In the last few years the CREC, CRC, OPC, RPCNA, ARP, have all demonstrated that they have been infected by the spirit of the age.

3.) The Harvie Conn & Tim Keller Effect 

Both of these men were influenced by cultural Marxism as a world and live view. Keller was to Conn what Elisha was to Elijah.

Keller became a giant straddling over the PCA. His book “Generous Justice” was a primer teaching the social justice of cultural Marxism. Keller once famously said that,

“You don’t go to hell for being homosexual.”

This is just one example of Keller’s egregious tap dancing.

Conn and Keller come up here because it is the Kellerites who are the political faction who have the muscle in the PCA. To be sure there are those who oppose them in the PCA but at this point their numbers are vastly insufficient to stop the Keller political faction that controls the denomination. Keller’s followers are now to the PCA what the followers of Boss Tweed once were to Tammany Hall.

4.) The Loss of the Seminaries

All these votes in the PCA as coming from ordained men find their genesis in their Seminary training. Men like Sean Michael Lucas stalk the halls of the Seminaries. Men like J. Ligon Duncan say stupid things like,

“In conservative evangelical circles, oftentimes there’ll be a real concern about immigration, and especially, what? Illegal immigration…But here’s the thing. What if that is God’s plan to reverse secularization in the United States?”

 

Ligon Duncan
Chancellor & CEO — Reformed Theological Seminary 

Recently the President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary said, 

“My overall assessment — well let me just say this — I’d say it (Christian Nationalism) is a wrong-headed response to many of the cultural currents.”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid-America Podcast

Recently it was reported to me that a chap, just graduated from Seminary, admitted he was a socialist during his ordination exam and when that matter began to draw attention the moderator made known that the issue of socialism was “adiaphora.” The chap was ordained as a socialist. My money is that this chap learned his socialism in Seminary. Maybe we should ask Dr. Carl Trueman about that?

Near the end of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield’s life, Warfield was having a conversation with Dr. J. Gresham Machen. Machen expressed the conviction that “there might be a split in the denomination,” Warfield replied, “No. You can’t split rotten wood,”

The NAPARC denominations have become rotten wood. The Garris expulsion demonstrates that once again. Even if Rev. Garris wins on appeal the die is cast.