PCUSA Moderator Goes Awry in Her Claims of a "Deeply Pernicious Heresy"

Below is a selection of the response by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D, Associate Professor of New Testament at my Seminary (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) posted on Aug. 10, 2007 to Moderator Joan Gray on her recent letter.

When Rev. Joan Gray was elected Moderator of the PCUSA at the last General Assembly I, as a voting delegate, felt that, though we could done better (had one of the other candidates been elected), we also could have done far worse (had either of two other "Covenant Network" candidates been chosen). She is certainly a much better moderator than a couple of recent ones. However, recent remarks by Joan Gray should be filed under the "we could have done better" category—unless, of course, she has the courage and humility to acknowledge publicly her error.

Moderator Rev. Joan Gray has declared that anyone who believes that impenitent, homosexually active persons should not be granted church membership is guilty of "a deeply pernicious heresy" (so the title given to an Aug. 4, 2007 editorial in www.presbyweb.com found here). These are very strong words, which I take to heart since I hold the view to which she is referring. She even goes so far as to cite the apostle Paul in support of her position, claiming that such a view is "a form of works righteousness" that "leads us back into the bondage Paul rails against in Galatians."

As a scholar of Paul who has worked heavily on sexuality issues for a decade, and is nearly finished a 100+ page annotated translation of Galatians for future publication, I must say that her announcement about Paul in particular and Scripture in general is 'news to me.' If there is "a deeply pernicious heresy" here, it is the position that no repetitive, unrepentant behavior of any sort, no matter how extreme the departure from Jesus' teaching, can have any relevance for membership status in the church, much less for inheritance in God's kingdom....

See here for the rest:

http://www.robgagnon.net/JoanGrayResponse.htm

Understanding Adam's Rebellion

To continue the conversation about a literal Adam a little further let us examine how not having a "real" Adam destroys the need for an actual Christ. Those of you who do not believe in a physical Adam as expressed in the beginning chapters of Genesis need to reconcile how Christ, who Paul explicitly says in 1st Corinthians 15:42-49 is the second Adam, can be the so-called second of something that did not previously exist? Or put in other words how Adam being a metaphor calls for a Christ to die for a fake rebellion.

I think those of you who deny Adam's reality do not truly comprehend how much the idea of there being no Adam affects the rest of Scripture. It would be like taking away the opening chapter of a novel and expecting to be able to understand the rest of the story. Someone who describes the creation text as myth or folklore must analyze what this does not only to the history of God's relationship to Israel but to their Christology. Because not only does the non-existence of Adam necessitate that God created the world sinful and evil but it requires that Jesus' death on the cross is an action that resolves God's mistake in making an already fallen creation to himself. Not that Jesus was reconciling us, who share in Adam's rebellion, to God but that God was reconciling his own blunder with himself. Michal Horton in his work Putting Amazing Back Into Grace quotes John Calvin who says,"The depravity and malice both of men and of the devil, or the sins that arise therefrom, do not spring from nature, but rather from the corruption of nature." In other words it is not that nature itself was created evil but that nature had to of its own accord fall from the perfection in which it was formed to begin with. This has to mean that at some point in the past an "Adam" was given the free will to sin or as the Second Chapter of the Scots Confession defines it:

"We confess and acknowledge that our God has created man, i.e., our first father, Adam, after his own image and likeness, to whom he gave wisdom, lordship, justice, free will, and self-consciousness, so that in the whole nature of man no imperfection could be found. From this dignity and perfection man and woman both fell; the woman being deceived by the serpent and man obeying the voice of the woman, both conspiring against the sovereign majesty of God, who in clear words had previously threatened death if they presumed to eat of the forbidden tree."

For Jesus' death on the cross to be as Scripture says it to be necessitates a literal Adam who fell from God's grace. A fake Adam creates a Christ who has failed and is a liar. For what need do we have of a Savior that saves us from a death that was his fault to begin with? What do we say when we know that Christ did not die because of our own rebellion but because of his own mistake? How can we say that the literally hundreds of times Adam's sin is called upon by the writers of the Old Testament to show forth the sin of Israel is mere allegory? How can we say Christ died for an allegory or a metaphor and be taken seriously? Adam's reality is VITAL for the gospel to be real. Without an actual Adam our faith is in vain because Christ's atonement is nothing more than a big "sorry about that". This is not the message of the gospel.

Was Adam Real?

After a little frivolity that is the beginning of the Soccer season in Europe (an event I look forward to with almost as much passion as the dawn of American Football, College as much as Pro, Go Marshall!!!) I thought a nice meaty topic would be in order so I want to discuss an issue that is bearing its head among colleagues and friends here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. That issue, as one can tell from the title, is whether or not Adam and Eve were actual beings, the Garden ever actually existed, and does "Original Sin" necessitate an "Original Sinner"? These are of course not new topics and though at first glance may seem to be third order worries I however take the position that without an actual Adam there would be no need for an actual Christ. So one could say that I hold this argument to be much more than a simple third order concern.

Why may you ask are people even doubting Adam's reality? Does not Paul in Romans 5:12 say that all sin came into the world through one man? Jesus himself refers to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4,5 not to mention Luke 3 records Adam as being in his geneology. Calvin in his commentary on the Pentateuch recalls that:

So God created man The reiterated mention of the image of God is not a vain repetition. For it is a remarkable instance of the Divine goodness which can never be sufficiently proclaimed. And, at the same time, he admonishes us from what excellence we have fallen, that he may excite in us the desire of its recovery.*

Or Abraham Kuyper:

Like Job, we ought to feel and to acknowledge that in Adam you and I are created; when God created Adam He created us; in Adam’s nature He called forth the nature wherein we now live. Gen. i. and ii. is not the record of aliens, but of ourselves—concerning the flesh and blood which we carry with us, the human nature in which we sit down to read the Word of God.

Or A.W. Pink:

Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last Adam's. The responsibility of each of the rational descendants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them accountable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall.

Or Charles Hodge:

We are inherently depraved, and therefore we are involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin.

So here we have Scripture, greats of the Reformation, and contemporary scholars all pointing to a real Adam. So why do Orthodox people seem inclined to accept that Adam was a real being but we of 2007 seem not to think it either necessary or true? Is it because these old white men did not have access to "knowledge" that we have today and if they just knew about textual criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism, grammatical criticism, and J, E, P, and D then they would also see the "mythical" properties of the creation text? Well would Calvin change his mind on the necessity of Adam's fall for the reality of Christ's death if he knew of the Yahwist? The easy answer is to say that proponents of the allegory hypothesis are so taken by accommodation with the sciences that their theistic evolutionary stance forces them to concede that no "Adam" ever existed, regardless of what this position does to their theology, because science has proved Homo Sapiens developed independently. But is this answer sufficient? Is it just simple to say that those who hold there is no Adam because of the supposed inconsistencies in the Hebrew and the alleged "two creations" are "wrong" without delving deeper into the questions behind this stance?

What do you think? Does a Christ automatically support an Adam? Or do we think that the story of Creation, without an actual Adam, is a proper myth that helps us and the early Israelites, Jesus, and the Apostles understand our current predicament and that an actual Adam is not required for the Cross?

*-All quotes taken from www.ccel.org

Glory Glory to the Hibees!!!

Update:

Hibs 1
Hearts 0


My Favorite Soccer club, Hibernian FC opens their League play today verses hated rivals Heart of Midlothian at 2:45pm EST. It is a particularly nasty derby match so I am looking forward to it with much excitement.

So here is a little ditty for you to sing:

There is a bonnie fitba' team at Easter Road they play i go along to see them every other Saturday in colours green and white the finest in the land today the Hibs go marching on, Glory glory to the Hibees glory glory to the Hibees glory glory to the Hibees, the Hibs go marching on.

More on the Continuation vs Cessation Front...

Tim Challies about two years ago brought together Dr. Samuel E. Waldron and Dr. Wayne Grudem to discuss the Cessationist and Continuationist position from a Reformed perspective. I think a more Academic discussion may help those who fall on either side of the issue to better understand how the other feels. Feel free to discuss the merits of either position.

Pro-Cessationist: Dr. Samuel E. Waldron

Pro-Continuation: Dr. Wayne Grudem

Jack Haberer? You Have Got To Be Kidding Me.

As with the usual trepidation, I opened my new Presbyterian Outlook to find everybody's favorite editor Jack Haberer had written his usual "Editor's Outlook", his commentary on the major article of the paper. This month's issue happens to be concerning "retirement" and the Christian Pastor. Rev. Haberer chooses an obscure passage from the Book of Numbers to highlight that, yes, the word "Retire" does appear in Scripture. Specifically the Scripture is Numbers 8:23-26 which says:

Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
"This is what applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall enter to perform service in the work of the tent of meeting.
"But at the age of fifty years they shall retire from service in the work and not work any more. "They may, however, assist their brothers in the tent of meeting, to keep an obligation, but they themselves shall do no work. Thus you shall deal with the Levites concerning their obligations."

Now we may be wondering why when Jack seems to dismiss the sexual codes of Leviticus almost completely as being out-of-date and not applicable to today's Christian he delves into a passage that not only refers to LEVITES (which I know of no Pastor who is one) and if you look at the greater context, which is usually not helpful when conducting eisegesis, of the passage it sets up the setting apart of the Levites from the rest of the Nation of Israel so that Israel may have a clean and pure class of priests. Also mentioned in this passage is that the new class of Levite priests should be shaved from Head-to-Toe (Num. 8:7). (Insert hairy man joke here). Now not only does Rev. Haberer's "exegesis" fail the sniff test but he then goes on to cite the establishment of the Sabbath as a reason for otherwise reasonably healthy Sexagenarians and Septuagenarians to retire from the mission field of Christ because as Jack quoting from Jack Stotts' book,Aging Well: Theological Reflections on the Call and Retirement, "We [should] move from glorifying God to enjoying God forever, from usefulness to enjoyment". What exactly do Levites retiring have to do with the Modern Pastor? Well as we know with the history of the Levites in Israel Jack may be more right in selecting them as an example of the Modern Pastor than he realizes.

What this signifies to me is the full movement of the modern Pastor from a person CALLED to ministry for the purpose of spreading the Gospel to the visible Church and saving souls to a person who sees ministry as a nice job option that seeks for them to raise Church attendance, move the budget to the Black, be a good CEO, try not to ruffle too many feathers, and has a pretty good pension plan for later use in playing 18-Holes at The Villages, Florida's Friendliest Hometown(tm). Of course as my generation of Pastors graduates from Seminaries have our Seminaries done enough to guarantee we will serving Pastorates and saving souls into our 60's, 70's, 80's, ad infinitum? I think we all know the answer to that.

Quick Questions on Seminaries

I am looking to work on a Th.M degree after I finish seminary and have narrowed down my choices (for various reasons) to three seminaries.

(In no particular order)

Covenant Theological Seminary
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Erskine Theological Seminary


Any information anyone has on these schools (I have already visited their websites. I am looking for personal interaction) would be greatly appreciated.

Must Read Letter to the Editor

This is a letter to the editor in the Layman that struck me as being not only spot on but a great summary of my feelings as well.


Beginnings of revival?
July 18, 2007
I am very pleased with the level of discourse I am seeing in the "Letters" section of The Layman Online. I left ("was told to leave" would be more accurate) the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the Presbyterian Church in America in 2002. I am now a PCA pastor in Sturgis, S.D.

One of my great concerns was that there seemed to be very little theological acuity among the conservatives in the PCUSA, and certainly very little awareness of the historic Reformed orthodoxy as expressed by the PCUSA's Book of Confessions. A broad evangelicalism was certainly professed and held to, but robust Reformed theology is much more than just the puddle we call contemporary evangelicalism. I remember being called a "hyper-Calvinist" by another pastor at a PCUSA conference in Indianapolis because I believed in limited atonement. I can assure you that the dear man never met a real hyper-Calvinist in his life, and seemed not to know the true definition of the term. It was obvious that he had never read the Canons of Dordt.

It particularly bothered me that we were so up in arms about the gay marriage and gay ordination issues when hardly a peep has been heard concerning the century of apostasy from the Scriptures that led directly to the gay ordination issue. But the one surely led to the other.

Nor was there much of a desire to address the sin issues that the conservatives seemed to make an easy peace with – namely: inappropriate divorce, adultery, fornication, lack of church discipline, materialism and a love of money, and a lackadaisical approach to the sacraments and the Lord's worship.

My reluctant conclusion was that many of the conservatives were simply culturally conservative, and not really Biblically conservative. I suspected what many on the theological left must suspect – that, given enough time and enough pro-gay propaganda from the culture around us, the conservatives would settle down on the gay issue as well. How well I remember "Rev." Steven Van Kuiken of Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church standing on the floor of Cincinnati Presbytery during the debates on Amendment O saying, "The conservatives are just being hypocrites. They capitulated to us on women's ordination and they capitulated to us on divorce and now they're fighting us on gay marriage?" That man is an apostate, but he understood his hermeneutics and he understood his opponents better than his opponents understood themselves.

Today, however, when I read the letters to the editor, I find links to an article by Al Mohler. I find a letter from a gentleman articulating the marks of the true visible church and saying that neither Rome nor the PCUSA fulfill the requirements. I find in another letter a very adequate defense of the Reformed understanding of the interplay between saving faith and the good works which must proceed from saving faith. I find R.C. Sproul's Tabletalk magazine quoted to good effect, and a clear understanding that deviating from the revealed names of the three persons of the Trinity is the sin of idolatry, not simply an issue of semantics. I even find a tolerable (though roundabout) explanation of the difference between the visible and the invisible church. This is a very good thing!

My brothers and sisters, I want to encourage you. In our congregational prayers here at Foothills PCA, we frequently pray for you. You need to know that you have been cut off from a glorious theological heritage, not only by theological liberalism, but also by many well-meaning evangelical leaders who are more familiar with Bill Hybels and Chuck Swindoll than they are with the Westminster Divines and Calvin. I think it would be a very good idea if every reader of The Layman would purchase a copy of the PCUSA's Book of Confessions and read it from cover to cover.

If you don't want to give money to those who are responsible for the new Babylonian captivity of the church, you can find them all online. But read the Scots Confession. Read the Second Helvetic and the Belgic Confessions. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Even the Barmen Declaration and the Confession of 1967 have some value. Read the Scripture references contained in them and carefully compare all these things with the Scriptures. It is the Scripture, after all, that is the only infallible rule of faith and life. But these guys were really, really good at exegeting the Scriptures! Think carefully for yourselves, and trust the Spirit of God to do what He promises He will do when God's people get serious about God's Word.

A.W. Tozer once said that when the Church behaves badly, it's on account of the fact that the Church believes wrongly. True revival in the Church must begin with recovery of the truth. Historic Reformed theology is, in my opinion, the most thorough and careful exposition of the truths of the Scriptures that ever existed in the Church Militant.

It is my fervent prayer that these developments portend a new Great Awakening among God's elect in the PCUSA, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, or whatever visible organizations result from the gyrations of the next few years. Tolle lege! Take up and read!
Rev. Brian Carpenter
Foothills Community Church (PCA)
Sturgis, S.D.

3) A Free and Unordered Worship Service

This is the third part of a 5-part essay on why I will not be (and you should not be either) joining the Evangelical Presbyterian Church any time soon.


3) A Free and Unordered Worship Service


While this critique is probably the weakest and most contingent on a church-by-church and locational motivations it is still the one I notice most when attending services at an Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

One of the hallmarks of Reformed Orthodoxy is the presentation during worship of a standard and ordered worship service. This critique along with the criticisms of the EPC's views on the charismata arise primarily from personal experience with EPC Churches I have attended and/or had friends who attended them. I'll deal more in depth with this critique in the next bullet point dealing with the passe nature of "Reformed" theology in the EPC.

Backyard News

Presbyterians agree on split process

Washington Presbytery plan termed 'a way of doing church together'

Thursday, July 12, 2007

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Washington Presbytery has adopted a plan that could allow congregations that leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) for another Presbyterian denomination to keep their property, but it is unclear if that will affect a Peters church that is already in a more contentious process with the presbytery.

The vote was 56-18 Tuesday night at Chartiers Hill Presbyterian Church, North Strabane, to require at least four months of formal discussion between a "pastoral team" appointed by the presbytery and a congregation that proposes leaving. The congregation must also propose a mission plan for how it will continue serving its community and make pastoral provision for any members who choose to stay with the Presbyterian Church (USA).

At that juncture, if at least half of the church's active members attend a meeting at which 75 percent of them vote to leave, the pastoral team will recommend to the presbytery that they be allowed to do so and keep their property, which church law says would otherwise stay with the congregation. The final decision is up to the presbytery.

A lengthy debate Tuesday centered on whether the presbytery had a right to devise its own separation plan instead of appointing a powerful "administrative commission," the denomination's constitutional provision for dealing with such congregations. Most congregations fear administrative commissions because of their authority to replace the pastor and the lay governing board of the church.

The Rev. Linda Jaberg, chairman of the presbytery's council, said the plan was an effort to "flesh out a new way of doing church together, to be more pastoral and to listen to each other."

Unlike a similar plan in Pittsburgh Presbytery, Washington's does not require the departing congregation to leave some money with the presbytery, although the plan's sponsors said it doesn't prevent the presbytery from making that requirement.

Both plans have resulted from efforts of some conservative congregations in the denomination to leave for the smaller Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Two churches in Pittsburgh Presbytery have already voted to do so, although the presbytery has not yet taken final action on them.

Because no plan for Washington Presbytery was in place on May 6, when the lay governing board of Peters Creek Presbyterian Church called for a congregational vote on moving to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the presbytery appointed an administrative commission.

Peters Creek then obtained a temporary injunction from Washington County Common Pleas Court, forbidding the commission from seizing control of the church.

The congregation has not yet voted on whether to leave the denomination.

The Rev. Richard Noftzger, chairman of the group that wrote the separation plan and of the administrative commission for Peters Creek, said the commission has met with representatives of the church.

It was "an honest and sincere exchange" about how the congregation came to consider leaving, he said.

He said the new plan was "a separate issue" from Peters Creek because the church initiated its effort prior to the plan's adoption. The document may "provide some guidance and insight, but it is not binding" with regard to Peters Creek, he said.

Ray Peterson, a Peters Creek elder and designated spokesman for the congregation, would not comment on the presbytery's plan or how it might affect his congregation.

The Rev. Jeffrey Kisner, professor of biblical and ministry studies at Waynesburg College, was one of several opponents. He said the Presbyterian Church (USA) constitution intended administrative commissions to deal with such situations. His effort to amend the document to require an administrative commission for any negotiation was defeated, as was an effort to change the 75 percent congregational vote to a simple majority.

The Rev. David Bleivik, executive presbyter of Washington Presbytery, said the top expert on church law at Presbyterian Church (USA) headquarters had reviewed the plan and deemed it acceptable "as long as it's not a guarantee that someone can leave."

"What is required by the constitution is that the presbytery makes the final decision," he said.

---

(Ann Rodgers can be reached at arodgers@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1416. )