Confessions of a former strict Confessionalist (Part 3)

The failure of strict confessionalism: Racism and the failure to love

Racism and the Reformed Tradition

With the main expression of the Reformed tradition currently in North America, the Reformed tradition unfortunately has to struggle with American history, specifically the history of slavery and racism. Americans in the late 19th century fought a civil war to end slavery, but ending racism proved more elusive.

During the American civil war, it is undeniable that Southern Presbyterian theologians like Robert Lewis Dabney promote racism under the Reformed banner. While I am not one of those who will reject everything someone says merely because of gross sin and wickedness, Dabney’s racism still needs to be called out and rejected. Unfortunately, Dabney continues to be promoted without qualification, and his ideas live on in the movement called “Kinism,” mediated by people such as R. J. Rushdoony, the father of the right-wing fringe movement Christian Reconstructionism, with which kinists have a natural affinity to. While not disagreeing with everything that the movement advocates for, the fact of the matter is that the Reformed tradition has a problem with racism from the right.

“Kinism” can be stated as the view that the “races” of the world are ordained by God to be kept separate, and thus the mixing of peoples and most definitely inter-racial marriages (miscegenation) are sinful. Spoken or not, it comes with the view that the “white race” is superior and should not be led by the “lesser races,” a view that permeates parts of Reformed Christianity in the US, even those not overtly kinist, despite it being verbally denied. In my experience, while one can certainly be members of and serve in Reformed churches, if one is not white ‘culturally,’ it is almost impossible to be treated equally and to be taken seriously. The “white man’s burden” continues to be a problem in many American Reformed circles, and the idea that non-whites are to be patronized instead of treated with respect as equals is something I have personally experienced.

American racism from the left

If one thinks right-wing racism is bad, the left-wing version is even worse. After all, society has made right-wing racism unacceptable in much of modern society. Embraced by liberals who believe they are really open-minded, loving and tolerant, and most definitely against racism, left-wing racism became popular as Critical Race Theory erupted into the scene after the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States in 2016. It seems that the key to solving the real problems of racism, the consequences of racism, and the Democrat mismanagement of America’s major cities, was to blame “white supremacy,” attack “whiteness,” demand reparations and affirmative action, and call for all forms of special treatment of “People of Color” (POC), which they interpret through Marxist lens to apply only to non-whites who are “oppressed” (so ‘Asians’ do not qualify). All of a sudden, you have those more liberal-minded Christians in the Reformed camp embracing aspects of Critical Race Theory and calling for the need for “racial justice.”

As with most theories, Critical Race Theory can be critically analyzed and engaged with, not rejected outright. However, the essence of Critical Race Theory is racist and antithetical to biblical Christianity. Critical Race Theory sees everything in racial categories, and attacks the very notion of “color-blindness,” the idea that one should not discriminate on the basis of one’s skin color and thus ethnicity. Many woke advocates see “color-blindness” as a rejection of their innate racial differences, which is a false interpretation of “color-blindness” – a rejection of innate racial differences only in the sense that they should not be used for discriminatory purposes. Color-blindness is a rejection of what racism is – discrimination based on one’s skin color and ethnicity, and thus a focus on our common humanity, all humans being equal in the eyes of God.

In my experience interacting with Americans as wokeness enveloped their nation, I was shocked at how people can be previously outwardly friendly yet react so vehemently when their embrace of left-wing racism was called out. Right-wing racism sees non-whites as “inferior races” to be patronized, as “converted heathen” who should be grateful for the “white man” bringing the Gospel of salvation to them. But if you think left-wing racists treat non-whites with respect, you would be sorely mistaken. In fact, it almost seems that left-wing racism allows one to suddenly vent one’s repressed racism in a socially acceptable way.

For the next section, it will be mostly anecdotal evidence, based on my “lived experience” (to use one of those neologisms), especially since I did not take snapshots of the incidents.

My personal encounters with left-wing racism were certainly eye-opening for me. One such encounter was back in 2018, as the staff at the White Horse Inn veered towards promoting “racial justice” issues. On one tweet on the Modern Reformation Twitter account back then, I had responded to it with a ping to Michael Horton pleading for him to stop promoting such trash. The response from whoever was behind the Modern Reformation Twitter account then was nasty, to say the least. Of course, I unfollowed the account after some attempts at communication.

On another incident on Facebook, I had attempted trying to get a former acquaintance from my seminary to veer away from such nonsense, to no avail. What made it sadder was that of another acquittance who mocked my comments, making it seem I am just calling wolf “to the left.”

That same acquaintance subsequently claimed I am too tightly wound, evidently thinking racism is no big deal and that the correct response was to do “triage” and ignore left-wing racism. He subsequently managed to block me before I could unfriend him, but this episode shows that for many white Americans, even those that call themselves Reformed (or for those who went full steam into the woke movement, “formerly called themselves Reformed”), racism is evidently not a big deal.

The failure to excise racism and American narcissism

What does this mean for Reformed Confessionalism? On the one hand, nothing. The failure of individual Reformed Christians, even Reformed Confessionalists, is the fault of the persons and not any one doctrine or movement. On the other hand, it matters a lot, because Reformed Confessionalism in its strict form claim to move Reformed Christians to being biblical in both faith and life, and to unity in the bond of Christ. For a movement that promised right living, is toleration of various forms of racism acceptable? What is the use of being “Truly Reformed” if one remains a racist? Jesus says that a good tree bears good fruit, and you will know them by their fruits (cf. Matt. 7:17-20).

In R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions, he mentioned Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Herman Bavinck, and J. Gresham Machen, who he claims would be excluded by a boundary marker that makes 6/24 creation necessary for orthodoxy. In his own words, “any boundary marker, however, that includes the Adventist and excludes Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, and Machen should not commend itself to confessional Reformed folk as a way to mark out Reformed identity.” Well, many Reformed pastors and theologians in the past were racists, like RL Dabney, so I guess any boundary marker that includes the liberals and excludes Reformed theologians like Dabney “should not commend itself to confessional Reformed folk as a way to mark out Reformed identity”? Presumably, Reformed Confessionalism according to Dr. Clark can exists side by side with racism, although one can still assert that racism is a sin. But well, so is gluttony, which many Americans are guilty of, so I guess: What’s the big deal anyway? As one liberal I used to interact with (in a different context) used to say with regards to the presence of neo-Nazis, “Well, there are neo-Nazis everywhere, so what?”

The failure to excise racism shows the American captivity of the American Reformed churches, from which strict Reformed Confessionalism has emerged. This American narcissism is seen most clearly in my last experience on this topic I am sharing here. I had a friend who is doing church planting in the Chicago area. For whatever reason, he leans into the social justice movement while claiming that he rejects Critical Race Theory. When he had posted a video promoting the TGC AND campaign trying to seek a “middle way” embracing both Christianity and “social justice” concerns, I responded to it in a blog post. I pleaded with him not to promoted this kind of racist trash, but was rebuffed. One of the points I had conveyed was how promoting such racial stuff would cause problems in other countries including my home country of Singapore. In his response, he essentially told me that what such woke stuff does in other countries is not his concern. In other words, screw the world, as long as ‘Murica has “justice.” The fact that Christina Edmonson, wife of OPC pastor Mika Edmonson, was promoting racist trash without repercussion is indeed a serious point of concern, all while they were at one time serving in the Chicago area, a point I also made in response to him, without avail.

Strict Reformed Confessionalism, or basically Reformed Confessionalism in the hands of white American theologians, has proven itself unable to excise racism from her midst. Strict Reformed Confessionalism is also culturally bound to America, despite its claim to be just Reformed, and partakes of all the malaise infecting American society, including her narcissistic view of the world. In other words, strict Reformed Confessionalism is American, and not truly Reformed.

Confessions of a former strict Confessionalist (Part 2)

Into strict confessionalism

Reformed theology is rigorous, and precisely the type of spiritual food that appeals to one starved of biblical truth. It was not fast before I encountered what I now recognized as strict confessionalism, particularly as mediated by one of its foremost proponent R. Scott Clark.

In his book Recovering the Reformed Confessions, Clark argued for his idea of confessionalism, utilizing his expertise in historical theology to buttress his claims. According to Clark, situating the Reformed churches (in the United States) in the sideline denominations, the divisions in the Reformed churches comes about because people are tempted towards two errant paths: The “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty” or QIRC, and the “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience” or QIRE. QIRC is “the pursuit to know God in ways he has not revealed himself and to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable.” QIRE is the “quest to experience God apart from the mediation of Word and sacrament.” Utilizing these motifs, Clark addressed the issues of 6/24 creationism and theonomy under the motif of QIRC, and revivals and emotive worship under the motif of QIRE. The main point of Clark’s argument against 6/24 creationism is not whether it is right or wrong, but that the issue is not an issue addressed by the Reformed tradition in a way that excludes other views. In other words, with the Reformed confessions as boundary markers, we must not draw boundaries more tightly than them, leaving room for disagreement. Clark points out the diverse ways Reformed theologians have addressed scientific issues in the past, in order to buttress his assertion that 6/24 creationism is not a proper boundary marker but one imported from rationalistic fundamentalism.

Clark’s view of confessionalism, where the Scriptures are foundationally the ultimate source of authority, while the Reformed confessions became the secondary standards norming our faith, practice, and life, sounds indeed like that of confessionalism proper, and indeed it mostly is. Strict confessionalism is however lurking behind the scenes, when one reads between the lines, something I failed in my earlier days. For example, it sounded charitable to not want to draw narrow boundaries on the issue of 6/24 creation, which both the OPC and the PCA Creation Reports agreed upon. It seemed helpful to warn against moralism, and call for Christians to return to historic Reformed worship. The problem comes however when we question the use and breadth of these categorizations (QIRC, QIRE) and how it relates to differences among the Reformed who hold to the Reformed confessions as well.

On the issue of 6/24 creationism for example, Clark gives the impression that those promoting 6/24 creation are using these as boundary markers to throw Christians out of the church if they do not hold to 6/24 creation. There does not seem to be any discussion of the diverse ways one can or cannot hold to a belief in 6/24 creation and its application in the church context. In fact, on this issue, Clark shows a shocking ignorance of the modern creationist movement, citing Ronald L. Numbers’ false history asserting a Seventh-Day Adventist origin for modern day creationism. He then asserts that “proponents of 6/24 interpretation have been unable to explain the theological reason for making the 6/24 interpretation a standard of orthodoxy.” That Clark has not seen even one theological reason for such shows his ignorance of the writings and teachings of Young Earth Creationism. One can agree or disagree with these reasons, but for Clark to claim that there has been no theological reason ever given for making the 6/24 interpretation a standard of orthodoxy is a bad sign.

My focus on 6/24 creation is not to litigate whether 6/24 creation should be placed into the category QIRC per se, but rather to make it clear that there is no real discussion over whether the categories apply to any one thing and thus how one should place anything in any category. In other words, QIRC and QIRE are broad categories that Clark can use to place anything he disagrees with as long as he can link those doctrines or teachings to something resembling “rationalism” or “pietism.” The categories function as a rhetorical sleight-of-hand enabling Clark to discount anything he does not like as either QIRC or QIRE, hoping that the smear or association is enough to tar whatever he dislikes with the label of being contrary to the Reformed Confessions, without any argument over why that is so.

In my time over at Westminster Seminary California, Dr. Clark was a major topic of discussion among the students. While strict confessionalism calls for charity towards others who are Reformed, calling for unity around the Reformed confessions, one starts to suspect unity was not the goal here. Clark had asserted in his book that “it is not a belief that the Bible is true which makes one a fundamentalist; rather it is the belief that one’s interpretation of Scripture is inerrant which qualifies one as a fundamentalist.” Interacting with Dr. Clark, one gets the impression that he views his own interpretation of the Reformed tradition as inerrant, which qualifies him as a “Reformed fundamentalist” I guess. Dr. Clark absolutely detests Douglas Wilson, John Frame, and who knows how many other enemies he has. This is not to say that Wilson or Frame are right or wrong, but I find it really strange that the idea of returning to the Reformed Confessions can go hand in hand with such vitriol and hatred.

The suspicion that strict confessionalism is something separate from and going beyond confessionalism is seen in the book On being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity. In this book, Chris Caughey and Crawford Gribben wrote an essay essentially arguing that there is no such fixed identity of being “Reformed” in such a way that certain “Truly Reformed” (TR) people can use to exclude others from the Reformed tradition. Rather, there is indeed a Reformed tradition, but one that proceeds as branches of a tree throughout history, a “theological family tree” as it were. In their response to Caughey, Gribben [and Matthew Bingham], [R Scott] Clark and [D.G.] Hart argued that there is a real Reformed tradition and identity that is determined not by scholars but by the churches, and therefore Reformed identity is real and what they see as attempts by the other scholars to deconstruct the Reformed tradition have failed.

The problem with reading such a book is that there are valid points all around, and certainly Clark and Hart are correct in claiming the Reformed tradition is real and Reformed churches are the living legacy of what it means to be Reformed. But on the other hand, there is a deeper problem at play here, which ties in with one of Caughey and Gribben’s main point: the diversity among those that call themselves Reformed. If “Reformed” just refer to the body of Reformed teaching in the Reformed tradition, and “Reformed” is determined by the church, why not “Reformed” as defined by the PCUSA? After all, they are a church with a “Reformed” tradition of sorts. Of course, we can assert that the PCUSA has apostatized and so on, but those are not part of the criteria given by Clark and Hart. If the argument is made that they deviate from the “substance” of the Reformed faith, how do we find this substance as a canon within the Reformed “canon” of its own tradition, without at the same time assuming this “substance” to be truly its substance? Clark’s and Hart’s rejection of theocracy as part of the “substance” of the Reformed faith, for example, presupposes that theocracy is part of ethics instead of part of the third mark of the church (right discipline), a position which I personally agree but which has not been proven by either of them. After all, would Calvin or the Magisterial Reformers hold that theocracy is merely an ethical issue? I sincerely doubt it!

All this is to say that arguments for a “Reformed” identity, as defined by Clark and Hart, argue in a circle. Something is or is not “Reformed” because it is or is not part of the substance of the Reformed faith. Something is or is not part of the substance of the Reformed faith because it is traced to the Reformed Confessions. Something in the Reformed Confessions is part of the substance of the Reformed faith because it is traced to the Reformed churches and tradition. Something that is traced to the Reformed churches and tradition is Reformed, but other teachings or practices traced there are not, because … it is or is not “Reformed”? It can be seen here that attempts to claim a “Reformed” identity in the manner Clark and Hart do, even if they are correct, cannot work.

This is not to claim that confessionalism is wrong, but rather that this book makes clear Clark and Hart’s project of strict confessionalism, even if and where they get various things correct, does not work. Strict Confessionalism asserts definite ways of being confessional, promises unity and biblical fidelity around adherence to said principles, yet in the end it does not deliver.

[I have decided to put the footnotes in a consolidated document which will be published after this is done]

On abuse and the responses to the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal and the responses to that scandal from within Evangelicalism, I would like to offer this article as a way to think more about the issue of abuse and Evangelicalism's failure to deal with abuse. An excerpt:

The Ravi Zacharias scandal rocked Evangelicalism, since Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist until his death in 2020. In response to the scandal, Evangelicals reacted with sorrow and grief over the wickedness of Zacharias’ sins. The more common refrain from many leaders however is some variant of “there but for the grace of God go I,” as seen in Michael Brown’s article, and reposted on Charisma News, a leading news source for Charismatics. While they sorrow over the victims of sins, the focus is on “not throwing stones” and empathizing with Ravi Zacharias to some extent. The most egregious piece here can be found in Singapore by Rev. Edmund Chan of CEFC (Covenant Evangelical Free Church), who ended his note with a confidence that Ravi Zacharias is indeed in heaven now, an article which epitomizes a major problem within Evangelicalism

[more]

On the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal, I have written my thoughts on the issue here. An excerpt:

Ravi Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist and founder of the ministry that bore his name (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries – RZIM). His global reach means that his ministry was known worldwide, regardless of the merits or demerits of Zacharias’ apologetics. Zacharias passed away last year in 2020, seemingly a godly man who has reached many people for Christ. However, shocking revelations of sexual abuse have surfaced, and an investigation that has just been completed by Miller — Martin was shocking in its validation of the credible nature of many of these accusations. RZIM has in turn wrote an open letter apologizing for the misconduct of its founder, promising restitution and reform. These revelations have troubled many Evangelicals. With Zacharias’ reach being global in nature, the revelations of his immorality have resonated around the world.

[more]

Book Review: Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd

The book review that many may dread has arrived. I have finally managed to read and review the book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Aimee Byrd, and it can be found here. Byrd wants equality as a woman, and thus she is given fair treatment in my review, with no holds barred, as if she were a man. It should be obvious that I am not a fan of her conduct, and most definitely not of her social egalitarianism. But I am fair in my review. An excerpt:

2016 marked the year of the ESS (Eternal submission of the Son) controversy. For various reasons, ESS is somehow linked to CBMW. Certain people within the Reformed camp who were chafing at what they had decided were foreign to the Bible broke away from complementarianism altogether, including Rachel Green Miller and Aimee Byrd. Miller had written a book earlier entitled Beyond Authority and Submission, and Byrd now entitled hers Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The not so subtle dig at CBMW notwithstanding, what the title intends to convey is that Byrd sees the teaching of biblical manhood and womanhood as a false teaching which she has once held and is now “recovering” from it.

In this light, Byrd’s book acts as an attack against the teaching of biblical manhood and womanhood, and the recovery of what she believes to the better approach to the topic of not just gender roles but also church relations. The use of the word “recovery” links her to the ressourcement movement in parts of Evangelicalism, with all the connotation that it has.

[more]

COVID-19 and the Necessity of the Church

In light of the issue facing churches around the world concerning the pandemic and the suspension or opening up of churches for worship, here is my small contribution in an attempt to bring light to the issue at hand, in my article COVID-19 and the Necessity of the Church. An excerpt:

In late 2019, what was initially thought to be a small viral outbreak began in the vicinity of Wuhan, China. By February 2020 however, this outbreak had metastasized into an epidemic in Wuhan and soon spread across the world. Initially called the Wuhan virus, what is now known as COVID-19 (the SARS-CoV2 virus) has caused a pandemic creating chaos and death across the world, stretching the capabilities of healthcare systems to the breaking point. South Korea, Northern Italy, and New York City in the United States became the next epicenters of this virulent disease. 6 months later, this plague continues to spread without a clear indication of subsiding. Governments around the world have implemented drastic and even draconian measures in an effort to manage or halt the spread of the disease, measures that have yielded varying degrees of success.

[more]

News: Aimee Byrd kicked out of ACE

In an interesting development, soocial egalitarian Aimee Byrd has been removed from contributing to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, which occasioned her current "update" about the event on Scott McKnight's blog on Christianity Today.

There are three things that I want to comment here. First, Byrd states that she does not know who the Board of Directors of ACE are, presumably except for the chair since she was contacted by him. She has also mentioned the unnamed people who have contributed to the questions posed to her by Jonathan Master. I will just add that I do not like this practice of seeming anonymity in the Reformed world. I do not understand the reason for anonymity especially for ordained ministers, so perhaps someone would want to enlighten me why this is the case. I do believe the best way to deal with disagreement is to be frank and honest about it. What is the point of anonymmity and getting someone to be the spokesman for a group of people in the church?

The second issue I want to comment is Byrd's conduct concerning the questions put forward by Jonathan Master. According to Byrd, in response to the question, she answered one of them, and decided "afer seeking counsel" to decline answering the rest of them. Now, I do not know which universe Byrd resides in, but I think that when someone has questions concerning your orthodoxy, you should try to assauge their concerns and answer their questions properly. Instead, Byrd's conduct in this mattter has been the same as to her conduct with CMBW, which is mere obfuscation of the issues. In the supposed response to one of the questions, her response is one of non-response. The questions was one of natural law, yet Byrd's reponse is to to talk about ontology, but the two are not the same thing. It is possible that Byrd does not understand the question, but if that is the case, then she has no business writing a book on the topic of biblical manhoood and womanhood, in the same way no one is interested in whether a five-year old agrees with Einstein's theory(ies) of relativity.

Lastly, I want to comment on Byrd's insistence that she and what she has written is "in line with the confessions in which my Orthodox Presbyterian Church subscribes." As someone who was in the OPC as a licentiate during the time I was in the US, merely stating that she is "in line with the confessions" is not sufficient. She may think she is in line with the Reformed confessions, but she may be wrong and self-deceived. It is not enough for her to assert that she is "in line with the confessions" of the OPC. Since she has written a book on the topic, anyone can test what she has written to what the Reformed Confessions, and what the Word of God, actually says about the topic.

This assertion by Byrd that she is in line with the OPC's Confessions is troubling. Most people do not assert that they are in line with their church's confession as an argument in favor of their position, but if they say so, they prove that their views are in fact in line with their church's confessions. From Byrd however, there is much talk about her being in line with the OPC's confessions and about her being in good standing in her church, and little proof about how what she says is actually biblical and Reformed. To be honest, this is my first time seeing someone make an argument about the validity of their position from their standing in the church, as if the latter has any bearing on the former at all!

What Byrd should have received from Reformed pastors is empathy, compassion, correction, and teaching. Instead, she has been propped up in her ignorance by men who should have known better: men like Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and R Scott Clark. The current situation with Byrd is a disaster, and this infection of egalitarianism will weaken the Reformed churches.

The priority of corporate worship: Corporate worship and Covid-19

Around the world, there have been multiple outbreaks of the Covid-19 virus, leading to the declaration that it has become a pandemic. With the high infection rate of the virus, certain precautions have been recommended included social distancing. Part of this social distancing as it pertains to the church has been societal pressure to stop corporate worship services altogether.

As Christians, what should we think about this? Before we think through the spiritual issues, first, it must be pointed out that the panic seen in many parts of the world is irrational, as the relatively low fatality rate of the virus plus the fact that is it borne by droplets makes it a relatively benign outbreak. Note that I said it was relatively benign, insofar that it is not something on the scale of Ebola or the Spanish Flu. Thus, there is absolutely no need to panic over it. Second, it can be limited by taking precautions, thus we are to be responsible and take necessary precautions in maintaining hygiene and being wise in social interaction.

More importantly, the question is asked as to the worship of God on Sunday, the Lord's Day. Christians must remind ourselves why we physically meet Sunday after Sunday together to worship God. For many Evangelicals, it is understandable that there is little understanding of this matter, with only a superficial appeal to Hebrews 10:24-25. If the focus of worship is merely to sing worship songs to God and to hear His Word, then it is understandable why some churches think that there is nothing wrong with moving church online to live streaming, and this is seen as the "socially responsible" thing to do. But that manifests a deficient doctrine of the church and an ignorance of the reason for corporate worship in the first place.

Why have Christians met together Lord's Day after Lord's Day to worship God? Is the corporate nature of the worship service merely because of the technological limitations of the First Century AD, or for that matter all of human history until the last few decades?After all, if Hebrews 10:24-25 speaks about encouraging one another, surely that can be done online or even through Whatsapp and other social media platforms? But the corporate nature of the worship service is demanded by what the worship service is, and the physical presence of the saints manifests the importance of the body. The Scriptures always declare that we are spirit and body, not a spirit inhabiting a body. When we are raised up on the Last Day, our bodies are raised anew (1 Cor. 15:44) and we will always be embodied spirits through eternity. Therefore, where the physical body is is important, which is why online church or even virtual reality church is no church at all! To denigrate the body is to embrace Gnosticism, and unfortunately, many Evangelicals fail to see that.

The nature of the worship service is that it is not a time for us to give to God, to sing songs and hear the Word preached. Bur rather, the worship service is where God is present spiritually (Mt. 18:20, 1 Cor. 4:5, 11:29-30, Rev. 2:1), meeting us covenantally (Hos. 2:23, Rom. 9:26, 1 Pet. 2:10). The worship service is God's service, not ours. For just as we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, so likewise we cannot approach God to worship Him except through His invitation only. And just as in an ancient covenant, the parties of the covenant physically meet, so likewise the reason why we must be physically present for worship is that the Lord meets us there as we are there physically. We encounter God in the corporate worship, praising Him and hearing Him speak to us through the pastor who proclaims His Word. This is why Christians ought to meet together in church services Lord's Day after Lord's Day, honoring God in our use of time and our use of space.

If that is true, how then should we respond to the secular pressure to stop the worship service? First of all, we must agree that the corporate worship service is very important in the life of the Christian. It should not be something to be cancelled at whim. It must be said that it is understandable though wrong that many think that religious worship gatherings should be the first to stop, but work is seen to be something must more important and must continue. If corporate worship is that important in the Christian life, then surely it must be treated at least as important as work and school. If the outbreak results in the cessation of work and school, then certainly there should be a cessation of corporate worship for that period. Yet, if work and school continue, then the corporate worship should likewise continue.

This does not necessarily mean that there should not be precautions taken. The necessity of corporate worship does not negate the requirement for wisdom. Rather, during an epidemic or pandemic, steps can be taken to reduce the risk of infection. Perhaps this is a good time for big churches to practice church the way the early church did so, by splitting up into many congregations of smaller numbers. Instead of halting services, why not have groups of 20 or so which can worship God corporately? This can be a good time to break up the business model of doing church, in favor of a model more in line with biblical Christianity. While not for the "house church movement," there is nothing wrong with meeting in homes per se to worship God, so why not get around to doing that?

Corporate worship is biblical mandated by Scripture. Barring a situation like the Black Death, Christians ought to continue to worship God corporately. God is still sovereign over the virus, and He calls us to worship. The paranoia over Covid-19 displays the world's fear of the unknown, but Christians ought to be better than this. While taking precautions, we must have faith and trust in God. We are not to panic as the world does, but put our faith wholly in God. After all, as it is confessed in the Heiberg Catechism:

Q1: What is your only comfort in life and death?

A. That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.

God is sovereign, and thus we should not fear this virus. We must know this and believe this. If God wants me dead through the virus, I will get it no matter what. If God wants me alive, I will stay alive no matter what. So, trust God and do not panic. Take precautions and attend to the worship service. For there is where God is, and where we receive from Him His grace and mercy, our supply for each and every week.

The "Doctrinal Triage"

For his Masters of Divinity degree, Eric Powers has written a thesis entitled "Is there any Biblical Warranty for the Doctrinal Triage," which can be accessed here. In this 2016 thesis, Powers argues that there is no biblical warrant for the doctrinal triage: the view that doctrines can be split into first-order, second-order, and third-order doctrines. Citing Al Mohler, among others, the triage is described as follows: first-order doctrines are those that are non-negotiable; second-order doctrines are those that are "denominational distinctives" and are doctrines that, while serious, Christians can disagree with without calling salvation into question; third-order doctrines are less serious doctrines that Christians can disagree on within a church (pp. 13-14). Powers engages some of the texts used to support this notion of doctrinal triage and shows that they do not in fact promote this teaching. Rather, any claim of order of doctrine is one of the relation of foundation to the building. In this view, the foundational doctrines are required for the other doctrines, yet there is no sense in which we can say that the doctrines built upon that foundation is any 'less important' or 'less essential' than the foundational doctrines required for them. Interestingly enough, Powers appealed to the unity (and simplicity) of God to ground his view that all doctrines are "relevant to the believer and are equally true" (p. 68; pp. 68-73).

Coming from a confessional perspective means that I do not start with a view of doctrinal importance based on some notion of triage. At the same time, the doctrinal triage is practiced in broad Evangelicalism, under various names, and it is clear that it has been used (or abused) to allow for toleration of doctrinal errors within the church. This thesis is indeed a helpful piece of work as it addresses the tendency within Evangelicalism to water down and downplay doctrinal differences among professing Christians and churches.

Who can partake of the Lord's Supper?

If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ ... ["The Directory for the Public Worship of God," III.C.3. In: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, The Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (2011 Edition) (Willow Grove, PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2011)]

According to confessional Reformed practice and piety, who should be partaking of the Lord's Supper? If we take seriously the commands of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, then we must say that the Lord's Supper is not open to anyone and everyone. Those who partake of it illegitimately eat and drink damnation upon themselves. I shudder when I see parents in certain (non-Reformed) churches break pieces of the consecrated bread and give it to their children. How can they hate their children so much to invite judgment upon them? But I digress.

If the Lord's Supper is not to be open to anyone and everyone, and most certainly it is to be taken in a spirit of reverence (instead of the irreverence of the Corinthians which had gotten them killed in judgment), then the Church ought to guard the Supper. The guarding of the Supper is not to protect the elements, for we do not believe they are transformed into the divine substance in any way. Rather, from the passage in 1 Corinthians, the practice of "guarding the Supper" is meant to protect those who partake of it. Guarding of the Supper is meant to protect the irreverent from eating and drinking further judgment upon themselves. As a sacrament given to the Church, it is the Church that administers it to God's people. Therefore, as a church-instituted ritual, other qualifications soon come to bear to ensure that the Lord's Supper is to be properly administered.

In the conflict that is the Reformation, the Reformers inquired into the nature of the true church. The signs of the true church, according to the Reformed tradition, are: the right preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of the Lord's Supper, and the right administration of church discipline. In order for the Lord's Supper to be properly administered, it must be administered in both elements (Bread and wine), by a minister rightly ordained, in a true church that preaches the Gospel, to church members who are not under legitimate church discipline. The phrase in Reformed circles for legitimate partakers of the Lord's Supper therefore can be framed to be for "members of good standing, in a church of like faith." It is of course agreed that only Christians can partake of the Supper. But besides that, the qualifications for someone to partake of the Supper is encapsulated in that phrase, which will be unpacked as follows.

The first qualification for partaking of the Supper is that someone is a church member. Since the Supper is an ecclesial ritual, a rite given to the Church, only those who are members of churches can partake. Since we are saved into the church, it stands to reason that those without membership in a church are not affiliated with the institution of salvation and thus should not partake of the Supper.

The second qualification is that the one partaking is a communicant member. This is obvious since the Supper is to be done "in remembrance of me." Non-communicant covenant children have not yet come to a profession of faith and thus cannot fulfil what is commanded of believers to do.

The third qualification is that the member must be a "member in good standing." This means that the member is not being placed under legitimate church discipline for sins committed in his life. Grievous unrepentant sin is a scourge in the church, and must be dealt with just as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 5:5. The term "legitimate" is stressed since the false church always persecutes the true church, just as Martin Luther and the Reformers were excommunicated by the apostate Late Medieval Catholic Church.

Fourthly, the one who partakes must be in a member in "a church of like faith." What this means is that it is recognized that his church is a true church "of like faith." The Reformers struggled against both the emerging Roman Catholicism and the Anabaptists. If the church is a false church, then someone being a member therein means nothing whatsoever since that is not a church. Progressing further in history, we have the Arminian controversy in early 17th century Dutch Reformed Christianity, where the Classical Arminians were kicked out of the church for false teaching. Some of the expelled ministers in time form their own Arminian churches. Since these ministers are under church discipline themselves, their churches are not biblical and neither can membership in them be considered true church membership in true churches.

With the emergence of Evangelicalism in the late 18th century, the issue of what constitute a true church "of like faith" becomes more difficult to discern. Evangelicalism to a large extent believes in the true Gospel, so it seems that members in their churches can be considered members of churches "of like faith." On the other hand, particularly with New Evangelicalism, heretics of all sorts abound within, extending even to entire churches. So how does one discern whether a membership in a church is a membership of a "church of like faith"?

Concerning this, much discernment and wisdom is required. In some sense, it can be said that Evangelical churches meet the criteria for being "churches of like faith." Yet, in another sense, they do not since many of them tolerate heretics and heresies in their midst. Thus, the "line" if you will is not so clear cut, running somewhere between Evangelicalism broadly and confessional Reformed churches only, narrowly. Generally speaking, members in Reformed churches can be considered "of like faith" while those in Evangelicalism should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Who are those therefore who can partake of the Lord's Supper? They are to be believers, members in good standing, in a church of like faith. Failing to meet either of these criteria means that one should not partake of the Supper, even if one truly believes in Christ for salvation, so that the Supper is not defiled by the stain of someone taking it improperly, resulting in judgment upon the one partaking.

The issue of gender roles as it pertains to ministry within the church

With John MacArthur's two word answer to the question "Beth Moore" being "Go home," the issue of women in the church has risen again to the forefront. The assault against complementarianism it seems continues unabated. One of the defenses excuses concerning Beth Moore in ministry is that she is not preaching to men but merely "sharing," especially on special occasions such as Mothers' Day. But is that defense even valid at all?

Complementarianism, or the biblical teaching concerning the roles of men and women extending to the rejection of the validity of woman pastors and elders (and perhaps deacons), is based upon the whole of Scripture concerning what God has commanded concerning how men and women ought to function in the world and in the church. Since gender is a creation construct, therefore distinction in gender roles are not caused by sin and are to be celebrated. Although the teaching on gender roles permeate all of Scripture, there are particular texts in the Bible that specifically deal with the topic. One major text is that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and it was for that reason that I had read up and written an exegetical paper on that passage, which is entitled Gender Roles: Ordained order of mankind towards the Creator. This was written when I was in seminary nearly seven years ago, but I continue to stand by what I have written, and I reject the notion of gender egalitarianism in any form it manifests itself.

The question of the place of women in the church of course runs deeper into just whether women can be office bearers. In total's sharply (social) egalitarian society, there is pressure towards bringing that egalitarian mindset into the church. One way of doing that is to simply have women doing the functions of the special office, without the office that comes with those functions. Thus, Beth Moore merely "shares": she doesn't "preaches," even though for all intents and purposes she is preaching. Another way is to blur the line and be involved in radio programs where ordained men discuss theological issues affecting the church (e.g. Mortification of Spin), and say that you are not preaching by being on the program, which is technically correct. That is, unless you are a regular, where you are in effect given a platform with equal status alongside other ordained men. The sheer number of ways the sinful human mind can think of to attempt to circumvent God's prohibition on women preaching is truly astonishing.

Along this same line however is the focus on the issue of the special office itself, which is also under attack as being unfair at best and a "laity control" system or worse when egalitarianism comes knocking. Both gender roles and the special office are similar in the fact that God has ordained them both and limit people under both. But they are not the same thing. Gender roles is a creation ordinance, while the special office of the church is a redemptive ordinance. Yet, there is sufficient similarity that, in the context of the church, it can be said that unordained men are like women, in that just as women cannot partake of the ordained ministry of the church, so likewise unordained men cannot partake of that ministry of the church. The key point in positing this similarity is to show that gender restrictions in the church are not purely arbitrary since the restriction against ministry applies likewise to unordained men.

This analogy is sometimes framed as saying that women can do whatever unordained men can do in the church. But if that is the case, then conversely it can be logically inferred that unordained men cannot do what women cannot do [If p, then q = If ~q, then ~p]. But how does that affect ministry within the church? Well, if unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then, when you wonder if an unordained man should be doing this ministry in the church, ask yourself, "Would I be comfortable with a woman doing it in the church?" If yes, then go ahead. But if no, then clearly, no unordained man should be doing that ministry in the church.

This applies particularly to preaching in the church, where many church plants have a practice of allowing anyone that the church planter feels is able to preach to bring the Word. But if the church plant rejects egalitarianism, then they should not have any unordained man preaching. They can have licentiates (who have been licensed to preach) or even those under care of the church to preach, but the pulpit should not be open to anyone else! Church plants are not free to violate the commands of God just because they are church plants! Did God give a special dispensation to church planters so that they can violate the commands of God because they have the "good intention" of starting a new church? Where is that taught in Scripture?

This goes for all aspects of the church's ministry, especially including the liturgical elements of the reading of the Law and the declaration of pardon. It should be abundantly clear that unordained men do not have the authority of the church to declare God's forgiveness of sins (Te Absolvo) upon the people, so upon what basis should they be asked to conduct that section of the liturgy? Neither do they possess Christ's authority to call the people of God to worship Him (Call to Worship), or take the authority of Christ to represent the church in public prayer to God in the service (Remember that this is public prayer not private prayer). If unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then there is no difference between asking unordained men to do the Call to Worship, do the Reading of the Law and the Gospel and the Declaration of Pardon, doing the public corporate Prayers of the church, and asking any woman to do the same. Any church or church plant that does this is no different from a church having a woman pastor who regularly conducts the services of the church! It is sin, it is treason against the most holy God, and must be repented of! No two ways about it!

The problem with us living in a society of radical individualism and autonomy, with an unholy entitlement complex, is that we subconsciously bring this mindset into the church. We think that ministry is an entitlement that we can grasp, and see God's good commands as limitations upon our ambitions of "service." We resent the fact that God has only called SOME to serve, not all, and we are constantly thinking of new ways to circumvent God's holy ordering of the world and the church. This is something that we all have to repent of constantly, and submit to Christ in all things in our lives, both men and women, ordianed men and unordained men. Amen.

A defense of an ordained ministry against anti-institutionalists

In church history, there has always been those who are against the Institutional Church. During Augustine's time, it was the Donatists. During the Reformation, it was (most of) the Anabaptists, then the Quakers. Among the more orthodox Protestants, most of the Restorationist groups did not attack the church as an institution, but attacked the established churches and created new denominations or associations in their place. The late-modern quest for autonomy and radical distrust of authority has however spawned movements such as the western "House church" movement, or "organic church movement," founded by George Barna and Frank Viola, who may not be currently associated with the movement but they were its original founders, and to which I have written a paper against it here. This anti-intellectual anti-institutional impetus however remains at the fringes of visible Christianity. Recently however, someone posted this particular poster attacking the institutional church as being "Nicolaitan," citing Revelations 2:15 to that effect. It is to this that I would like to give a brief response.

The first thing to note is the attack on institutional churches as "Nicolaitan." First of all, although the picture attached to the top part of the photo is of a megachurch concert, to contrast that with a small group setting is more than just a criticism of megachurch "Big Eva" market-driven evangelicalism. The attack, while superficially against the unbiblical excesses of a megachurch, is against any form of the church as an institution. Otherwise, why would the contrast not be given between a megachurch and a traditional church setting? No, rather, the author of the poster clearly sees no difference at all between all forms of the institutional church. The problem, according to the author, is that the church is institutional whereas it should be organic. The problem, according to the author of the poster, is that the institution itself is a "laity control grid." Any form of "hierarchy" of "clergy" in the church is part of the "laity control grid" which is the sin of the Nicolaitans

Second, it is clear that the author thinks that he and his group alone have the sin of the Nicolaitans figured out. It is astonishing how the sin of the Nicolaitans is stated as the "laity control grid" because the name Nicolas can mean "victory over the people." So are all who call themselves Nicholas (not an uncommon name at that time and definitely not now) all tyrants over the people? Is the "Nicolas" of Acts 6:5 also a tyrant? Are the churches that have a "Nicholas" in their leadership all tyrannies in the making, purely because of the name "Nicolas"?

This kind of "interpretation" of Scripture is what I will call the "Bible code" way of interpreting Scripture. Instead of treating Scripture as communication in a language that is spoken and read normally during the first century AD (i.e. koine Greek), the words are treated as if they are a treasure chest of meaning that needs to be deciphered for its hidden content. In this case, even though no Bible scholar that I know of can say definitively what the sin of the Nicolaitans actually is, the author of the poster can confidently declare that the sin of the Nicolaitans *must* be a "laity control grid." Essentially, this is linguistic gnosticism! And yes, I have heard other so-called pastors do it, but it is still wrong. Koine Greek is a language, extinct today, but still a proper human language with syntax and the need to be interpreted in context. It is a language, not a code!

Thirdly, the object of contrast is that of a small group setting, where the verse used makes it abundantly clear that what the author of the poster sees as biblical is a fully egalitarian context where nobody is the leader, in contrast to the supposed "laity control grid." In other words, it is clear that the small group photo with the attached verse is meant to convey that the "biblical practice" is radical egalitarianism along the lines of that promoted by Barna and Viola in the 1990s to 2000s.

Over and against such an unbiblical rejection of the institutional church is Ephesians 4:11, whereby we are told that God gave (direct object; accusative case) apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. In other words, it is God who gives these officers, these men, to His church. To receive church officers is to receive the gift of God to His church. To reject them is to reject God's gift and ultimately God Himself. But if Ephesians 4:11 is correct, then God give men to serve the church as church officers. God did not just give gifts to people in the church, although He does do that also as seen in 1 Corinthians 12. But more than just gifts to individuals is the gift of men set apart to serve God in a special capacity, as office bearers in the church.

It is thus very clear that, if Ephesians 4:11 is to be taken as Scripture, the rejection of the institutional church is unbiblical. There is no point in pointing to passages such as 1 Corinthians 12 because it is never denied that God does indeed give spiritual gifts to people in the church; it is never disputed that this happens. But unless one wants to pit Scripture against Scripture, then one has to deal with what Ephesians 4:11 expressively teaches, not obfuscate with spurious screeching about 1 Corinthians 12. The way anti-institutionalists argue is in fact an assault on the authority of Scripture, because one cannot use one part of Scripture to "override" the other part of Scripture. If one uses one part of Scripture to override what is plainly taught in the second portion of Scripture, then what one is doing is to set up a canon within a canon. "All Scripture is authoritative, but some portions of Scripture are more authoritative than others, and I get to decide which parts are more authoritative and which parts less." Such an attitude should not be accepted by Christians, and it is sad that some behave in this manner.

Thus, in conclusion, this poster is unbiblical. It teaches contrary to what the Scriptures actually teach, and engages in serious mishandling of the Word of God. As such, it and the ideology it is promoting ought to be rejected by all Christians, at least all who are willing to live their lives in love and submission to the God of Scripture and of Christ.

On being Reformed: An appreciative but critical response to Dr R. Scott Clark

What we have come largely to differ from our forefathers is on a particular ethical inference. This revision of Reformed ethics is not of the substance of the faith. We still hold and confess the same view of the moral law and its application of the Christian life. [R. Scott Clark, "A House of Cards? A Response to Bingham, Gribben, and Caughey," in Bingham et al., On Being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018), p. 80)

The book On Being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity puts together three British and two American scholars in a debate over the identity label "Reformed." What does it truly mean to use the label "Reformed" as a theological identity of oneself or one's theological tradition? The three British men by and large locate "Reformed" as a historic identifier of a group of traditions linked to each other via a "theological family tree" (Chris Caughey and Crawford Gribben, "History, Identity Politics, and the 'Recovery of the Reformed Confessions,'" in ibid., p. 20), with Matthew C. Bingham as a baptist claiming the title "Reformed" due to the "Reformed Baptist" utilizing of a covenantal framework to understand all of Scripture (Matthew C. Bingham, "'Reformed Baptist': Anachronistic Oxymoron or useful Signpost?," in ibid., p. 48).

In contrast, D.G. Hart and R. Scott Clark demur, claiming that the identifier "Reformed" is an ecclesial definition not a historical definition. Hart further points out the seeming inconsistency in Baptists wanting the name "Reformed" while not at the same time desiring the label "Lutheran" (D.G. Hart, "Baptists are different," in ibid., p. 65). Clark states that the Particular Baptists have a different covenant theology than those in the Reformed tradition as they reject "the Reformed view that the covenant of grace is substantially one administered variously in redemptive history" (Clark, in ibid., p. 79). Lastly, against the claim that modern-day Reformed churches are substantially different from those in the Reformational era, he asserts that the difference is one of ethics, not of the substance of the faith.

Having read both sides, I would say historically, the British writers do have a point. If one looks purely historically, one can sortof discern a type of family tree between various Evangelical traditions that have some relation to or derivation from the Reformed tradition. The question however is whether such genealogical relationship is sufficient to merit the label "Reformed." And here I appreciate the point made by Hart and Clark that the term "Reformed" should be an ecclesial label. If the church is the bride of Christ, it seems more logical that the label should be decided by the church more than the academy.

At the same time, I do not believe Dr. Clark has made a good case in his assertion that any changes through the centuries is merely one of applied ethics. First of all, in church history, there has been a huge diversity of churches and denominations (excluding Baptists) that were part of the Reformed tradition and still claim to be of the Reformed tradition. Yet, Dr. Clark will likely not regard them as being Reformed. I am thinking of church bodies like the PRCA with their monocovenantalism. I would ask Dr. Clark, "Is the PRCA Reformed?" Or how about many mainline Presbyterian churches around the world that revere Karl Barth, and think that to be Barthian is to be Reformed. Are these church bodies Reformed? Now, if it is admitted that these church bodies are Reformed, then can it be truly be said that to be Reformed is to have only a "revision of Reformed ethics" which does not touch "the substance of the faith"? But if Dr. Clark denies that these church bodies are Reformed, then does it not seem that "to be Reformed" = "being in NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council) and having a similar understanding of Reformed theology like Dr. Clark (and Dr. Hart and WSCAL and so on)"?

Secondly, is it really true that the revisions like 2-Kingdom theology is merely a matter of application and not of the substance of the faith? I am here not saying that the changes are truly of the substance of the faith. But what I am questioning is the somewhat implicit assumption that everyone in the Reformed tradition will agree that 2-Kingdom theology is merely a "revision of Reformed ethics." Would the 17th century Scottish Covenanters see 2-Kingdom theology in its modern form (as advocated by Drs. Clark, Horton and VanDrunen) as a mere "revision of Reformed ethics"? I doubt so. So how does one go about determining whether any theory promoted by any Reformed theologian does not strike the substance of the faith? I have heard that Misty Irons (Lee Irons' wife) had used 2-Kingdom theology to condone homosexuality in society, and I have found a video of her as a "straight ally" in the apostate Revoice conference. Notwithstanding her particular case, is it true that 2-Kingdoms theology has nothing whatsoever to say about the obligation of society and the State to the Law of God?

The reason for me raising this question is not to assert that theories such as 2-Kingdom theology is or is not indeed a mere revision of Reformed ethics. The reason for raising this question is to show how it seems that the assertion that this is a mere revision of Reformed ethics is a self-serving reason that anyone in history who claims the label "Reformed" can use for his own unique brand of ethics. Coupled with the first question, Dr. Clark's statement seems to be a self-serving statement. Now, that does not imply he is wrong. But let us not have the illusion that it is some dispassionate statement of fact that Dr. Clark is putting forth in defence of his view of what constitutes the "Reformed" identity label. It is not!

In conclusion, it is appreciated that the "Reformed" identity label is to be an ecclesial label. Yet, it seems to me that it is also a label for a particular type of theological tradition, namely NAPAC as the representative of the Reformed tradition. The way I see it, this is where Dr. Clark's definition would lead us, and I do not personally have a problem with it, as long as it is explicitly stated.

Book Review: Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity

Unity is something that God desires in his church (c.f. Jn. 17:21), yet the Christian church seems to be growing more and more fragmented. How then ought we to seek and fight for Christian unity in a divided world? Luder G. Whitlock Jr. had this question in mind as he wrote his book promoting Christian unity, in Divided We Wall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity, published in 2017. I have read the book and reviewed it in a book review here. An excerpt:

The history of the Christian church concerning the cause of Christian peace and unity has not been very glorious. Over the centuries, there have been many divisions within what is purported to be the one catholic and apostolic church. It is common among Roman Catholic apologists to attack Protestantism for all the divisions in the church ... [continue]

The strength and weakness of Evangelicalism

The strength of evangelicalism is its minimalism. … [This] has afforded not only a wide berth for cooperation but also a laser focus on contested points. The weakness of evangelicalism is also its minimalism. Doctrinal minimalism in one generation can be a way of focusing the fight; in another, the path to doctrinal indifference. [Michael Horton, “Prologue: What are We Celebrating?,” in Matthew Barrett, ed., Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 15-6]

1 Cor. 5: The Separation of Sin

Last Sunday, I preached on 1 Corinthians 5, with a discussion on the doctrine of separation, at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church. Towards the end, I tackled the issue of "Second degree separation," something taught in Fundamentalist circles. You can hear the sermon here.

Turretin on the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant

IV. Now as the church is rightly distributed into militant and triumphant, so the distinction between them must be considered not to be essential and specific as to nature but only accidentally as to state and degree. For since there is only one communion of saints and only one body of Christ (Cant. 6:9), as he head by which it is governed is only one and the Spirit by which it is animated only one (Eph. 4:3, 4); so the church in both states is the same, …

V. These two states, however, as so mutually connected by the most wise dispensation of God that they cannot be torn asunder, but necessarily attend and follow each other. Just as no one can be a citizen of the church triumphant who has not given his name before to the militant, nor is anyone crowned in the former with Christ who has not rightly contended with him, so no one is a true member of the church militant here who in his own time will not be carried into the church triumphant; nor is anyone enrolled among believers in grace who will not be received into the choir of the blessed in glory. For whom Christ once received coming to him, he will never cast out (Jn. 6:37), because the bond of our union with him is eternal and indissoluble (adialyton). …

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 20.XIII.5; v. 3:633-4]

The Church Militant refers to the Invisible Church on earth, fighting sin, the world and the Devil. The Church Triumphant refers to the Church in heaven, who has won over sin, the world and the Devil. Errors like the Federal Vision attempt to separate the two, such that one can be a member of the Church Militant without being a member of the Church Triumphant, due to covenant breaking. However, Scripture teaches that those who are truly saved are the members of the Church Militant, and will never fall away. Thus, 1 Jn. 2:19 states that those who are "covenant breakers" were never truly in the Church in the first place. They broke the covenant externally- that is true, but they were never actually in it.

The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are thus two sides of the same coin, in different forms. Until Christ comes again, the two forms are present, since we are living in the period between the Inauguration and the Consummation of the Kingdom of God. When Christ returns, the two will be seen as one, and all who believe in Christ will be gathered as the Church Triumphant, praising God and Christ forever and ever.

1 Cor. 1:10-17, The Centrality of the Gospel, and the sin of schism

λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλῶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου ἐβαπτίσθητε; (1 Cor. 1:12-13)

But I say this: that each of you say, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas, and I am of Christ. Has Christ been separated? Was Paul crucified for you, or was it into the name of Paul you were baptized? (1 Cor. 1:12-13; my translation)

Last Lord's Day, I had the privilege of bringing God's Word to the saints at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, which can be heard here.

It is very easy to take the moralistic route on this passage and just preach that the church must be united, as if unity in the church is as easy as having a big campfire and everyone holding hands and singing around the campfire. But to do justice to the text, one must deal with the real issue of the ground of unity, which is the Gospel message. The problem and sin of schism is real, but more laws and commands will not be able to solve it. We notice here that there are 4 factions under 4 figureheads that Paul mentioned: "of Paul," "of Apollos," "of Cephas or Peter," and "of Christ." The first faction focus on evangelism and church planting, the second emphasizes Bible study, rigorous intellect and apologetics and the third faction, history and tradition. Notice here that the fourth faction claim to be above the fray. In my sermon, I point that those who cry "no creed but Christ," the non-denominational denominations (which I did not name in my sermon, but people can look at examples like the Christian and Missionary Alliance or Calvary Chapel) and anti-intellectuals will fit that category. I will here further point out that striving for "unity" on grounds other than the Gospel will also fit into this category, since such is essentially putting up a new law for believers to keep.

The problem of unity is not that no one wants unity, but that everyone wants unity on his terms. Even the so-called modern "ecumenical movement" is essentially the 4th faction, since they think themselves above the fray of denominational differences while uniting around a social gospel and not the true Gospel itself. True biblical unity, if it is to be there, can only be found in the true Gospel. It stands to reason therefore that anyone, any church, and any denomination that denies the Gospel has cut itself away from true biblical unity. That is why the "ecumenical movement" manifests a false demonic unity, since the Gospel is not the center in it but only a perversion thereof.

True biblical unity therefore is hard, because it requires fidelity to the Gospel, an understanding of its centrality, and an understanding of the subservient functions of other biblical doctrines (baptism in the case of the Corinthians). Christians seeking true biblical unity should strive for it, which in the biblical Presbyterian model imply that they ought to be seeking to join local churches into presbyteries, synods and General Assemblies. This should be the goal for Christians to strive towards, a truly difficult task at hand.

Unity, the Reformed churches, and "Reformed" tribalism

God has given our churches the body of truth. He has given us the precious truth of the gospel of His sovereign grace in Jesus Christ. He has revealed that truth to us in His Word. He has given it to us as it is summarized and set forth in our Reformed confessions. God has also given us in our own congregation(s) unity in that truth. That truth should be precious to us. We must guard and protect it. We must stand for the truth of God without compromise. This means we may not unite with those who oppose it, but only with those who are one with us in the truth.

The question now is, how do we carry this out? In answer to that question, it must be clear from the outset that the way in which this is carried out with those who are not one with us varies from church to church, and from situation to situation.

If there are churches who have made it clear that they are determined to oppose and reject the truth, certainly we cannot be close to them nor continue to seek unity with them. By their conscious and deliberate rejection of God’s Word, they give evidence of departure from the faith. Instead of being a church that is reforming and coming to a clearer understanding and confession of the truth, they are moving further away from the truth. This does not mean that they have immediately become a false church. But the fact is that they have shown by their wilful [sic] rejection of the truth that they are headed in that direction. [Daniel Kleyn, "Loving Churches who Seek the Truth," Salt Shakers 39 (Sept 2016): 6]

Thus wrote Pastor Daniel Kleyn, a PRCA (Protestant Reformed Churches of America) missionary in the Philippines, in this article of relating to other churches that are not in the same denomination as them. Now, I think it is a good idea to consider how we should perceive and interact with other churches, which surprisingly few people write about. So I would applaud Kleyn for daring to write on this issue openly, and taking a position that is most certainly at odds with Evangelicalism of any stripe (including the Martin Lloyd-Jones style Old Evangelicalism)

While I applaud his daring, and he certainly has it right that unity is found in truth, yet I do have serious problems with his article, not less is because of his denomination the PRCA. In full disclosure, I was formerly a member of Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church (CERC), joining it before it developed sister church relations with the PRCA. I joined the church then because it was Reformed, not because it was PRCA. When the church decided to pursue a closer relation with the PRCA, and as I began to see what the PRCA stood for, I was in total disagreement with the direction the church was going. When I left for seminary, I took the opportunity to get out and join the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), of which I am still a member.

The PRCA have certain hobby horses they love to harangue others over, and while I do not know how explicitly they express it, they are certain that almost every other Reformed church in the US are deeply compromised in doctrine, with their favorite whipping boy being the CRC (Christian Reformed Church), and those that came out of either her and the PRCA: the URCNA (United Reformed Churches of North America) and the CanRC (Canadian Reformed Church). Basically, they alone are the true Reformed church body, if you believe their polemic. Now there is nothing wrong with criticizing these church bodies IF they are in fact apostate, but where is the evidence for that?

When you start to examine the issues and the critiques by PRCA pastors and theologians, and measure it according to Scripture, the Reformed tradition, and Reformed theological sources objectively, you will start to realize that the PRCA do not trade in truth. The PRCA has a tradition which is regarded as axiomatic as being truly "Reformed," but that tradition is not open to criticism or reconsideration. What is "Reformed" is what they believe as taught especially by their founder Herman Hoeksema; everything else has to fit into that system. By "truth," they mean "the Reformed tradition as interpreted by Herman Hoeksema, and their two other theologians Herman Hanko and David Engelsma." Everything they read must be re-interpreted according to this lens, as we have seen in Engelsma's absolutely horrendous review of the book Sacred Bond, co-authored by my pastor Zach Keele and Pastor Michael Brown of Christ URC at Santee (here, here, here and here).

The only and true reason why I am Reformed, and why anyone should be Reformed, is because the Reformed faith is the truth. I other words, the Reformed faith is the truest and purest form of biblical Christianity. If that were not so, there is no reason for anyone to be Reformed, and I would be the first to throw out that label. Therefore, to stand on the truth and to be always seeking after truth is a Reformed imperative. When Kleyn says that "we must stand for the truth of God without compromise," he speaks truly in form. But do the PRCA actually stand on and trade in truth? NO! If they were actually standing on the truth, then why are they so resistant to actually represent their opponents accurately? Why does Engelsma have to misrepresent Keele and Brown in his review of Sacred Bond? If they are really interested in the truth, why don't they interact with their critiques? I am sure I am not the only one who has pointed out the errors in their theology and practice, so why not interact with us? After all, since they clearly believe they are right and we are wrong, shouldn't they be interested to show us how wrong we are?

The problem with the PRCA is they are "Reformed" tribalists. "Reformed" to them is a tribe in which certain shibboleths must be honored. The truth is not that important as much as following the standards and traditions of the group. I don't think it needs to be proven why tribalism, or sectarianism, is wrong. Therefore, when the PRCA and ministers like Kleyn talk about how churches that that by "their conscious and deliberate rejection of God’s Word, they give evidence of departure from the faith," and that "they are moving further away from the truth," he is rejecting other Christians just because they do not hold to PRCA tribal doctrines. That of course is a sin against the catholicity of the Church, and is utterly reprehensible.

Now, saying this, I do not wish to imply that sectarianism is a problem merely for the PRCA. There are other groups that are just as sectarian (e.g. those attacking EFS as "anti-Nicene heresy"). The common denominator is a willingness to misrepresent their opponents, ignore critics, and spin the truth. But as Jesus is the truth, such should never be the way true Christians and true Reformed Christians conduct ourselves. And for those who fall into sectarianism, they are to repent of their sins and turn to God, seeking true ecumeneity in the truth of Christ.

The evolution of the papal institution

The Roman Catholic hierarchy was not instituted by the apostles but rather it evolved over time. It was not even conceived by the apostles as some sort of acorn flowering into a mature oak tree (John Henry Newman's and Vatican II's idea of development). When Jesus told Peter that "on this rock I will build my church" (Mt. 16:18), even if we grant that the "rock" is Peter, Jesus made the same promise of the authority of binding and loosing to the other apostles (Mt. 18:18, Jn. 20:23). There is nothing special about Peter except that he was the one chosen to show how slow and foolish the apostles were. In fact, despite the grace given to Peter, even after Pentecost and after years as a church leader, Peter still fell into error and needed to be rebuked publicly by Paul in Galatia (Gal. 2:11-14). And while Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36), it was James who presided over the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:12-21)

The idea of a Petrine chair of apostolic succession is historically and biblically without any foundation whatsoever. So how did the papal office came into being? It came into being slowly over centuries, built upon many choices the church made that slowly but surely deviated from the biblical norm of ecclesiastical governance.

The early church was a built upon the Presbyterian model. Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), and deacons were likewise elected into office (Acts 6:1-3). The Apostles, as the special office, slowly passed from the scene, leaving every church with a plurality of elders and deacons, yet connected to each other.

As the apostolic church became the early catholic church, bishops began to emerge. The first churches were founded in major cities like Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus among others. But as the Church grew, churches began to be planted in minor cities and towns. The pastor of the church in the major cities began to take on a mentoring and leadership role over the smaller churches, and they became the bishops. Thus, the episcopal model of governance began purely as a matter of good, helpful and efficient practice. Over time, power and influence began to converge into five major churches in the cities of Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople (New Rome), and Antioch. The bishops in those five cities began to be seen as in some sense superior to the others, as they claimed apostolic succession for their respective sees.

While Presbyterianism has ceased to be practiced in the early catholic church, the equality of bishops persisted for a longer time. At Nicea in 325AD, the bishop of Rome was not seen in a special light. In fact, Liberius in his capacity of bishop of Rome (352-366AD) condemned Athanasius on behalf of the Arians, and was in turn anathemized by Hilary of Poitiers (Hilary of Poitiers, "Liberius, to the Eastern Presbyters and Fellow Bishops," Book II, VII; "Letter of Liberius in Exile to Urascius, Valens and Germinius," Book II, IX.)^[1]. The bishop of Rome in the fourth century was taken to be just one of many bishops. He was the bishop of the capital city of Rome, but that did not come with any special privileges.

As the age of the united Roman Empire drew to a close, chaos began to spread in society. Over time, the Empire became divided over the issue of language. The Western half of the Empire began to speak exclusively Latin, while the Eastern half spoke Greek. The coming of the "barbarians," the Goths, Huns and other non-Romans who attacked and bled the Roman Empire, created space for the spread of the influence of the church. As society collapsed in the West, the Church stepped in to provide services for society, which is certainly a good thing yet it had unintended consequences. East and West moved further and further apart over language and culture and even jurisdiction. The vacuum of power in the West led the Church to began to assume secular power for herself, creating the two swords doctrine. In the East, the Emperor controlled the church, resulting in caeseropapalism, the emperor (Caesar) as "pope."

As the "apostolic sees" emerge, the various Patriarchs still embraced an equality among them. Unfortunately for the Church, only one of the apostolic sees was in the West - Rome. The bishop of Rome, sitting in a land without any equals, and sitting among the vacuum of sociopolitical power, began to be elevated in power and stature. Despite the first real pope Gregory the Great denying the use of the appellation "universal" to any one single bishop, in time his successors would embrace the term, amassing power and wealth into the see of Rome. By the time of the High Middle Ages, the papal office as the supreme leader of Christendom was established. Of course, the history of the church in the setting up of church councils was not forgotten, so some people still held that councils are superior to the pope, a movement known as Conciliarism. The fiasco known as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, where a series of popes and anti-popes ruled and anathemized each other, became an utter disgrace to the Church and strengthen the forces of Conciliarism. During the Medieval period, the pope did not have absolute power over all of the Church, but must rule with the help of bishops and other members of the clergy. The Pope of course was very powerful, but he did not yet have the power of an absolute monarch although he certainly acted the part.

This situation persisted through the Reformation. As powerful as the Pope was, if more bishops had turned on him during the Reformation, he would be forced to try to find a middle ground with the Protestants. But the Pope had enough powerful people who sided with him, and many people did not like being mocked and ridiculed by Martin Luther, an "uncultured" German. During the Jansenist controversy after the Reformation, and especially later in the Ultramontanist controversy, the various warring factions began to see Rome as the court of final appeal.

Ultramontanism makes for an interesting prequel to the next evolution of the papal office. As the Enlightenment dawned, the advances in learning split the French clergy between the smart and powerful who attend elite schools and were trained in the latest learning, and the poorly-educated priests who were trained in the old ways and used as fodder to fill pulpits. The lowly priests resented their smarter elite cardinals and bishops, and appeal to Rome was used to take the elite French clergy (Gallicans) down. France was of course the most advanced Roman Catholic country at that time, while the other Roman Catholic countries were just beginning to face the Enlightenment. The tremendous changes caused by the Enlightenment frightened the pope, who had a taste of is power when Napoleon humiliated one of his predecessors, Pius VI, by attacking the Vatican and taking him prisoner in the late 18th century. The pope thus had lots of reasons to fear the Enlightenment, and Ultramontanism dovetailed nicely with his mood as the pope was turned to as the defender of the faith.

In a reaction to the Enlightenment, Pius IX in 1864 published his Syllabus of Errors as a rejection of "Modernism." This dovetails nicely into the next evolution of the papal office into one of infallibility, as a safeguard against "modernism" in any form. Vatican I occurred from the years 1869 to 1870, and Pius IX pushed through the novel doctrine of papal infallibility, ignoring objections from learned Roman Catholic historians like Ignaz von Dollinger. Standing as THE defender against modernism, the pope gained support from the Ultramontanes and passed the encyclical Pastor Aeternus defining papal infallibility as dogma. Ironically, at the end of the council before it could be formally closed, the Italian nationalists invaded the Vatican, stripping the pope of his secular powers just as he claimed supreme spiritual powers for himself.

Vatican II marks another shift in the papal institution towards something closer to the situation of the early medieval period. This did not happen however because the pope suddenly became humble and decided to give up his power. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church had grown too large for the type of central control to take place, and the Asian, American, African, and Latin America bishops revolted and forced changes that promote a more decentralized model. Apart from suspending the council altogether, the pope could do nothing but acquiesce and try to work out something that preserved some of his power while ceding parts of it to the other clergy. Post-Vatican II, the Pope has become more of a figure of authority than an actual monarch. The Pope's absolute authority promulgated in Pastor Aeternus still remains on paper, but he has become more of a paper tiger than a real tiger in these modern times.

Thus marks the evolution of the papal institution. It began with helpful practices, mixed in with some heterodox teaching, and the special environment of its time cultivated the papacy. Good and helpful practices over time may result in error, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the evolution of the papacy.

---

References:

[1] Lionel Wickham, trans., Hilary of Poitiers, Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth Century Church (Liverpool: Liverpool University, 1977), 77-9. Translated Texts for Historians, Volume 25, Against Valens and Uracius: The Extant Fragments, Together with His Letter to the Emperor Constantius. Translated from A. Feder (CSEL), ed., Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (including Lber ad Constantium Imperatorem and Liber II ad (or con.) Constantium) (1916). As cited in William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith (Volume II: An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura; Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001), 2:267