No Roman Catholic of any real sincerity would consider mere disillusionment with that denomination to be grounds for leaving it. Yet, mere disillusionment with Protestantism is often treated by Roman Catholics as if it were grounds for defection. Protestants find out that they’ve been taught a bunch of phobia-driven revisionist nonsense about Church History, or that their denominational leaders are not what they thought, and suddenly it is okay to talk to dead people and bow to things.
And then, on the other side, there is a whole industry claiming that all is rosy since everything important to ever think about was settled a few centuries ago by a Protestant document, and that anyone who says otherwise is really trying to recruit for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or the “emergent church” or whatever. One almost wonders sometimes if some Protestant apologists wouldn’t prefer to lose more Evangelicals to Rome if they could just make sure that the rest who stayed were more reactionary and more nostalgic for some special period of alleged Protestant prosperity and for some utopian Presbyterian homeland of that age.
Your last sentence would explain, though, why rather than trying to “win back” those who are feared to be headed toward Rome or the East because of some departure from received Reformed tradition, there are those who are very quick to anathematize, accuse, and write off. So what if our reactions drive people away — the people drive away by our reactions weren’t really “of us” anyway, right?
In reacting against perceived threats to one’s theology, it is necessary to maintain a non-reactionary response, is it not, Mark? Fears of Romanism are real. I know of a particular church in the PCA, where the elders have exultingly declared, “Yay, we’re back to Rome!”
I know of a particular church in the PCA where the elders have accused (without evidence, counter to strenuous anti-icon rehtoric of FV proponents, and without response for an explanation when asked) that “many proponents of FV theology have logically moved into the realm of using icons in their worship.”
That’s an exact quote and you can check the context. I’m not so sure about the Rome quote.
Lane,
is that quote supposed to reflect the unsubstantiated rumor from axe grinder Lauren Kuo (http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=38&comment_ID=1881). In that version, “Even in a prayer meeting, a PCA ruling elder proudly stated, ‘Now we are back to Rome.’ ”
Is it a whole session now?
I apprecite Jeff Meyers’ words on his blog on the phenomenon of parishoners needing to come up with heavier-duty accusations than “we don’t like it” when they decide to leave. I commend it to you.
On a different point than the other comments, I think one of the things that happens for RC’s is they get disillusioned with their parish and just transfer to another. They view it all as the one, true church, so other than breaking fellowhip with the local saints in the old parish, they haven’t gone anywhere, so to speak.
Presbys and other protestants normally don’t have this option.
To pduggie (for whom I have much respect. I am Lane Keister, and you know me from your great Bible studies), I am afraid that you do not know of what you speak. I am intimately acquainted with the whole situation. That is my brother’s church (of which he was an elder: he has filled me in *at length*). My brother is no axe-grinder, either.
What is the distinction between “axe-grinder” and eye-witness testimony? She claims to be an eye-witness to this. Reporting on that fact therefore cannot be mere “axe-grinding.” Have you considered the possibility that her eye-witness testimony might be true? I am not at liberty to speak about this situation in depth.
Then we can’t have a fruitful discussion of it.
My questions about it whether you can answer them or not are
1. What was the context of the remark? In what way did the elder (is it one now, or a whole church) feel that the church was ‘back to rome’?
2. What actual kind of theology does this PCA elder refer to? Is he someone who throws Scott Hahn into a mix that includes Jordan, Leithart, and Shepherd?
3. Does the elder use icons in worship?
4. What actual practice that Kuo refered to did she think constituted a ‘roman practice’? A creed? A monstrance? Kneeling? a prayer book? Wafers? Wine in communion? weekly communion? Paedo communion? (which isn’t permitted in the PCA *OR* rome, so how is paedo ‘back to rome?)
I consider using anecdotal accusations that must remain ‘secret’ as a complately unfair debating tactic if we’re trying to establish that the “FV” is actually leading to. We have no way of knowing WHAT the man’s theology is actually like, and what parts of it a run-of the-mill FV advocate would tear their hair out over.
It would be like me saying that we have to be careful about puritans who favor male headship and homeschooling because I could claim to know of a puritan church where the minster beats his wife. Totally out-of bounds.
I don’t feel that I can talk about the context, as my brother has not given me permission to talk about it in public. But to assume that she is an axe-grinder is going a bit far, don’t you think? If she were saying something going in a different theological direction, would you still think she was an axe-grinder, if the rhetoric were the same? The example about the puritans is not relevant. She was not trying to explicitly name the church in question. It was more a case of “the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” Just because someone says that a church is going in a Romanish direction doesn’t mean that they are axe-grinding. That is my only point. They could be telling the truth. Without knowing the particulars of the situation, shouldn’t you judge more kindly?
Who knows, maybe the church was more Anabaptist-like. Then going in a “Romanish” direction would be a good thing. 🙂
I didn’t charcaterize her as an aze grider solely on the basis of her citation of the incident.
It was more on her general tone and use of a comment that was out of content and could not be substantiated. I felt in a fairly perjortive mood about her post as a whole and used a perjorative term.
It was too severe for me to have done so, so withdraw the vague charge of axe-grinding. I don’t think her reporting of that claim was fruitful to the discussion, however.
That’s ‘so I withdraw the charge of axe-grinding’
If there is a controversey, does it really help the controversey to make claims that have to be held as secrets?
Kuo is trying to say that the FV is causing people to go roman catholic. She makes charges where SHE gets to charcaterise who is FV/NPP and she gets to claim sole interpretive power over how FV/NPP led to their change in views. She offers no EVIDENCE for her interpretation of the events. She is not giving eyewitness testimony in most cases, just telling what she thinks are people’s motivations.
“A young couple who both graduated from an evangelical Bible college attended a PCA Bible study and under the influence of the NPP/FV/AAT views left the PCA and joined the Roman Catholic church.”
1. How “reformed” were they before attending the study?
2. How can we be sure that NPP/FV/AAT (which are not the same thing) influenced them? What particular views? How were they expressed in the study?
3. Are there any other factors that may have led to them to the RCC?
“An unwed mother-to-be, convinced that the church is her salvation, has returned to her Roman Catholic roots after attending the same Bible study.”
1. Did the study teach that? How?
2. So an RC went back to RC. oooh, scary. That happens in alot of contexts.
“A PCA teaching elder has incorporated Roman Catholic liturgy into the worship service.”
1. What elements? Is Kuo fairly charcaterizing those elements as Roman Catholic? This claim is unhelpful.
“Now some members who were once Roman Catholic are confused and wonder why their PCA worship service is replete with Roman Catholic liturgy.”
1. Have they asked anyone?
2. What answer did they get?
3. replete?
” Even in a prayer meeting, a PCA ruling elder proudly stated, “Now we are back to Rome.” ”
1. This is a very odd thing to say. Why did he say they were back to rome, when in fact the church is not in the RC communion?
Without this information, Kuo’s complaint is unspecified and doesn’t help anyone evaluate FV fairly. Its poisoning the well. It was ill advised of her to state things thusly.
“Look how bad calvinism is. Someone I know read Pink, and now refuses to do evangelism”
“Look how bad Bahsnen is. Someone I know read a Rushdoony, and now won’t eat cheeseburgers”
“Look how bad the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is. Someone I know listened to Mohler, and joined a baptist church”
“Look how bad ACE is: why a PCA pastor became lutheran after involving himself with them (real account: Leonard Payton IIRC)”
All of these are INVALID arguments that are identical in form to Kuo’s
Of course, you make good points, Paul, and I appreciate your willingness to give the benefit of the doubt here. She is severely limited by the context in which she is writing. She cannot name the church explicitly, since this is not a charge brought before presbytery. It is probable that this was not the best context for her to bring up these statements, since specificity is pretty well denied her. It is also likely that she did not state her position well. These are things I can easily grant. But since you have already granted that she isn’t necessarily a trouble-maker for trouble’s sake, I don’t feel the need to say more. Time only will tell what impact the FV will have in the PCA, whether for good or ill.
As one who lives in the ‘MVP’ your words definately resonate. I pray that some of the discussions in our cirles will lead to a more ‘historical’ reading of our own traditions, and grace to those who differ in opinion. Appreciate the comments.
AH
Hi Mark,
im not going to comment your writing. I just wanted you to know that my name is Marc Horne and I’m from spain.. nothing else… i just wanted you to know that you are not the unique Mark Horne around the world.