The church administers both law and gospel.

Also I said that my view on abortion was not distinctively Christian.

I also explained the difference between abortion and “labor laws”. On the latter, Scripture is silent.

Believers who think that abortion can be legal apparently either don’t understand the law, our law, God’s law, or are antinomian for some reason or other.

I have plenty of room for unbelievers that are against abortion. I said it’s about natural law.

Natural law.

General revelation.

E

Ordination: OK.

The rest: the problem as I see it is fairly simple. Your argument is really one that comports under the category of law (creation, etc.) Yet you blur the lines and force it under that category of gospel. You seem to think the gospel implies something specific about this particular issue. You don’t seem to allow that there are various answers to that which happens in the cultural realm. What about labor laws? What about international trade policy? Are these things somehow less obvious or less important than the issue of reproductive non/rights? Where are the church issued fatwas on worker compensation or trade embargo’s?

The OPC comports under “church,” which itself comports under gospel. The church is an agent of gospel. Therefore, it has no business at all dispensing any sort of views on anything that is taken care of by the category of law. Jesus is sovereign over both spheres but rules over both differently: one by law, one by gospel. Agents of law have no business dispensing with grace, and agents of gospel have no business dispensing with law. Why is that so complicated?

Another problem is that you seem to assume that only believers know how to do law right. But there are plenty of unbelievers who think about this social and political issue called abortion the same way you do. And there are believers who disagree with you. Yet you seem unable to compute either of those realities. Why are you so quick to say what a “Christian in good conscience can or cannot vote for”?

“But I grew up in a household in which Sunday afternoons were spent with our Dad explaining to us how this or that was wrong or disagreeable or even of the devil. I can tell you that the effect it had on me was detrimental.”

I think this actually explains a lot, Echo. It seems you come by much of your disposition and views fairly honestly. This must be why I always feel like I am spending all Sunday afternoon being told how this or that is wrong or of the devil or why the “disagreeable” factor is through the roof with you. When I say you are a Fundamentalist learning to be Presbyterian, now I know why that vibe was spot on. And now I know why that can be so frustrating for you.

I was trying to make the case, apparently unsuccessfully, that leaving now or leaving after your term amounts to the same thing. I was trying to communicate that I view it that way because I view ordinations as inherently lifetime ordinations. In other words, even when your term is up, in my opinion, you still hold the office. That was my point. Not a big deal. I was just attempting to help you feel less…trapped.

Now, about this abortion business. I get that you think that my opinionated stance on abortion is due to the influence of fundamentalists and dispensationalists and theonomists and transformationalists, even if I am unaware of those influences.

But I’d like to argue that my position does not stem from their influence.

Consider the typical Pentecostal who believes that justification is somehow by faith and works. Now, Rome is highly influential, and has been around a long time. Should we then necessarily conclude that the Pentecostal believes in faith and works for justification because of Rome’s influence? Maybe, but not necessarily. I think that’d be giving Rome too much credit. Why not credit the Jewish influence going back all the way to the first century? After all, I distinctly remember as a child growing up Pentecostal that the Pharisees had gotten Judaism RIGHT, and Jesus came along and told them that they were stupid anyway. I secretly thought Jesus had been sort of hard on them. I couldn’t figure out why he was berating them for what they believe, when that was what God had told them to believe. I was apparently the worst kind of Scofield dispensationalist.

Or maybe it’s not the influence of the Jews either or the Pharisees I should say, who misunderstood Judaism.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s something inherent in man, something about being made in the image of God, that drives us to find a way to earn our salvation. Maybe the law (covenant of works) written on our hearts drives us to like what we hear when people tell us we can earn our own salvation, regardless of whose mouth it is that speaks it.

So maybe if we say that the Pentecostal believes in faith and works for justification that it’s because of Rome, then we are giving Rome far more credit than they deserve. Maybe Rome is just a manifestation of those things we intuitively understand as creatures made in the image of God to imitate God, and maybe that understanding is the natural thing to believe if you don’t believe the gospel, or if you’ve never heard it.

And lo and behold, we look at Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and all sorts of other -isms, and it turns out that they all believe in earning your salvation by works. So maybe Rome just appears influential because what they’re saying is the same thing the devil’s been saying from the beginning, that you can earn your own salvation, when he began to say, “Go ahead, eat the fruit, and it’ll make you like God.”

My analogy only serves to make the point that perhaps you give the so called religious right too much credit. Maybe there’s some law written on our hearts that gives rise to a natural tendency to speak out against abortion as such an abomination against the natural law, against justice, that one cannot be silent.

I do not care if every single baby that is murdered by his mother is a reprobate and destined for hell anyway. That makes no difference. I really don’t care about the increase in irresponsible sex in our society that much. It’s a shame, but that’s the world for ya. But making murder legal, that’s a real sorry state of affairs. The basic principles of justice have been thrown out.

Look, the difference between me and the religious right is stark. They want to go to rallies. I’ve never been and am not interested in going. They see it as a moral obligation to go to rallies, I don’t. They think that if abortion is outlawed, progress will be made toward the return of Christ, I don’t. They think it’s the church’s job to transform culture, I think it’s the church’s job to be separate from the culture. They want to see the church rule over the state, I want to see their powers remain distinct.

My point has always been, and remains, a reaction against you saying that as a Christian going to the polls that it doesn’t matter if a candidate is pro-abortion. It is irrelevant, you say. I say it’s self contradictory to elect a man to uphold and administer justice when that man fundamentally misunderstands justice. My point is a VERY reasonable one, and not even distinctly Christian. It’s an argument from natural law.

The OPC’s statement to the state, its plea to keep abortion illegal is debatable. I don’t think the OPC was obligated to do that. I think it was her prerogative. For the most part, I agree with you. I don’t support the church telling the state that they should keep women out of combat or gays out of the military. My stance on those issues is irrelevant. The church shouldn’t be talking about those things.

But what makes abortion unique is that it is such a monstrous abomination of justice. It is utterly contrary to the mandate of the state. Some mishandlings of matters of justice can be overlooked, but this one, in my opinion, is so vast and so horrible, that I think that the church can speak up. Well, the OPC spoke. It does not go on speaking, it does not pass an annual plea. It said it once, it did it once, and that’s it.

Now, I’d be a fool if I said that transformationalist/theonomist tendencies didn’t have a role to play in getting that passed through the General Assembly. But it did pass, even though the OPC is not made up of transformationalists. It wasn’t then, it isn’t now. Is our denomination perfect? No, far from it. Has it gotten better since then? Yes, there has been vast improvement. Look at the justification report. What a great victory for the gospel! There’s still a long way to go in some key places, but the OPC by and large is not a postmill, transforming, theonomic denomination. And there are plenty of people in the W2K camp who admit that there can possibly come a time when it is appropriate for the church to plea with or speak to the state. When that time comes is certainly a matter of debate and of wisdom, but I personally believe in this the OPC did not err. But I’ve already said that in the other issues, it did.

That is, however, a completely different issue than the point that originally spawned our discussion on the matter. The point that I’m really trying to advocate is that no, I see no way for a Christian in good conscience to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. It just makes no sense to me. I mean, don’t we, as Christians, have an obligation to be good citizens? Certainly, when we pursue justice in the civil realm, we don’t do so according to different rules than non-believers, right? But as Christians, aren’t we committed to the rules, since they’ve been given by God? Don’t we, as Christian participants in the state want to see the state uphold justice?

My desire for the state to uphold justice is not a transformationalist desire. If there were a candidate from the religious right that wanted to make Islam illegal, I’d have just as much to say about that as well. I’d be arguing that a Christian cannot in good conscience vote for such a man, because his ideas are inherently unjust. Certainly it’s not transformationalist ideas that would make me say that, right? But I think that is consistent with my position on abortion, isn’t it?

I only want justice in the civil sphere: blood for blood, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

That entails that I’m just as pro-death penalty as I am anti-abortion. In fact, I think the death penalty ought to be assigned to abortion. Blood for blood, just like Gen 9 says, the common grace institution with Noah.

Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, I think, is advocating the same principles I’m advocating here. You don’t get much more W2K than that, do you?

E is for Enough.

…is drifting from the broader Reformed tradition. Your question seems to assume some of that which I am criticizing, that it is impossible to leave a denomination. As members of a Dutch Reformed church, we took vows to the 3 forms of unity, etc., not the CRC. My point about serving in office is simply that I see myself as having a duty to carry out. Once a regular member again, I don’t perceive that I am somehow unable to leave without thinking I have broken an unbreakable vow.

It is hard and frustrating and angering and confusing and saddening and all the things that come along with what it means to be complicated.

Echo,

So far you seem to be the only one who disagrees. I am not sure what hounding the gentleman you suggest above would achieve, since I am not much of a hound. Plus, even if they disagree, then it would seem… they’d disagree. Speaking of central dogma, I would say your represent a view that only helps make my point that the strangle hold of the religious right afflicts even the best of Reformed confessionalists, that is, the social and political issues surrounding abortion are some sort of very odd litmust test of orthodoxy.

The FOS thing is only being proposed at the moment, so much of your questioning seems sort of moot. But your “lifetime” understanding seems to get to part of my point about conflating denom with church: I am willing to break my vows if it is to a denom that

Your views put you in a very strange place where there are few that agree with you. You seem to have made W2K into a central dogma. You draw inferences from it that aren’t warranted.

CRC: while I wouldn’t see you take your vows of ordination as a deacon lightly, isn’t that a lifetime ordination, so aren’t you breaking that vow when you leave regardless of whether you’re actively serving or not? And anyway, with the new FOS, wouldn’t your vow in some way become invalid, since those currently being ordained no longer take the same vow? How could it be that you who are an ordained deacon could remain ordained if the requirements for ordination are changed?

Maybe the ordination of women isn’t enough to push you away, but certainly the FOS issue is a good opportunity to part company.

E

True, “forever” is something of an overstatement, though I am sure at times it might feel like, or at least it would to me. But I wonder about the binding nature of vows to a true Church who then ceases to display one or more of the three marks. Of course this would have to be taken on a church by church basis, in the way it must be taken in places like the PCA. My personal concern is how hard it must be for someone who is committed to reformed confessionalism to watch his denomination cast it aside so cavalierly.

But it is complicated, I don’t deny that.

Sure seems like what you mean to say is that the Gospel ought to be relevant. Seems like the rules that deny things like theonomy and “the doctrines of relevancy” get dropped like hot potatoes when it comes to particular issues. Why is “relevance” another story when it comes to social and political policy? You seem to think the Gospel still implies certain things, but I say it transcends all man deems as relevant, from how to be happy to how to govern.

I have never said I don’t care. What it seems like you mean to say is that if I don’t care the way you or others do that I don’t care. I don’t get that, but then again, I am not an activist.

It’s complicated. I am sure a quiet divorce on our parts is looming and inevitable. So, “forever” is overstated, if you ask me. I do have to finish my term of office before contemplating drastic actions. I like what Father Jape at DRC once said:
“One should contemplate leaving his church the way he should leaving his spouse, with great care and sobriety.”

My beef with theonomy is that it undermines the gospel. Same with transformationism. They think that by improving outward morality that they make progress for the kingdom of God. It’s nonsense.

I have no idea why you have to be a theonomist or transformationalist to think that the murder of babies being legal in our country is a bad thing. This continues to result in my incredulity.

Babies should not be murdered by their parents. There is no institution that is not entitled to acknowledge this.

The OPC is not about trying to improve the culture as the church. It is well aware that that is not its mission. Theonomists and transformationalists are seeking to better the culture, as if that is the work of the kingdom. There are perhaps some in the OPC that are theonomists/transformationalists, but the bulk of the OPC is not, certainly the bulk of its ministers are not.

But just because we don’t see the improvement of the culture as the mission of the church, doesn’t mean we can’t say that babies shouldn’t be murdered.

Abortion is not a political issue only.

There is a gigantic difference between saying that babies shouldn’t be murdered, and calling for transformation of the culture as the mission of the church.

I do not cherish any dreams of abortion being made illegal and it bringing about the eschaton. I just don’t want to see babies murdered.

The mandate for the state comes from God. The state is under God. God invented the state, as a common grace institution. The church, meanwhile, is the expert on what God says. Why shouldn’t the church be able to periodically advise the state on what its obligations are?

God ordained the state to administer justice. “He who sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” God invented the state. The state exists only because of God’s mandate. Can’t the church remind the state of its mandate to uphold justice? The church should not be pressuring the state to make Sabbath laws or something, but the murder of babies? Why should the church be silent?

The Bible doesn’t only speak to the people of God. Much of it does speak to the people of God, and most of it speaks only to the people of God. But the Bible also has something to say to those outside the church. For example, Ps 82. Periodically, the prophets of the OT would go outside Israel. Even Christ told the apostles that they would testify before kings.

This doesn’t mean that I want the church to rule over the state. But the church can certainly advise the state at the church’s disgression. Not on all matters, not on matters on which the Bible is silent. But in the matter of the murder of babies, the Bible very clearly has something to say, and the church’s job is, in part, to bear witness to what God says. Sure, it’s job is to nurture its own, but it’s also to bear witness to the world. Salt and light and all that, right?

So the OPC, when speaking about abortion, is not telling the state who they should appoint as ambassador to the UN. They were pleading with the state not to allow mothers to murder their babies.

I’m just astonished at your having any problem with this. It wasn’t only theonomists and transformationalists that voted for it. There were plenty of solid, 2 kingdom ministers that voted for it.

Why don’t you ask Scott Clark for his opinion, or Godfrey or Vandrunen on what Lee Irons said? See what they say. See if they agree if 2 kingdoms means that you don’t care about abortion. I’ve talked to them. Godfrey even said in class that a reformed minister once said that he didn’t care about abortion, because most of the aborted kids were reprobate anyway. Godfrey thought this was profoundly misguided. And I’ve quoted Vandrunen in Ordained Servant as saying that he’d much rather people become Christians, but that even if they don’t, he’d still prefer that they don’t kill their children. So why don’t you ask around a little bit, and see if Lee Irons isn’t in a minority on this opinion among W2K’s. Ask Clark what he thinks about it. He loves you, so I’m sure he’d tell you. Ask around and see if you can find some people that aren’t appalled by what Irons said.

E

Are you willing to be apart of the ever increasing marginalized confessionalits in a sea of confusion that calls itself the CRC forever. I can understand the desire to stay and see what can be salvaged is noble, but when a denomination as a whole begins jettisoning that which makes it both true and confessional, I think that they have broken your vows and no loyalty is owed them, only loyalty to the Gospel.

Just my perspective though.

I have no idea what your beef is with theonomy or transformationalism.

Rick,

But they conjure up so many good memories. What’s a sentimentalist to do?

What I mean is that it seems quite misguided for a church to issue statements on women in combat, abortion policy and homosexuals in the military. I find this to be an indication of rightist cultural influences the way there are leftist cultural influences (and rightist) in the CRC. It appears the CRC is not the only denomination ill-influenced by broad evangelicalism and one form or another of Constantinianism.