Do You Beat Your Wife? – Reformation21 Blog.
Of course, some will respond and say that this is to make Christianity elitist. Do we really have to have read extensively in the literature of the third and fourth centuries to be Christians? Not at all. Romans 10 sets the bar nice and low for credible Christian profession. But we are not dealing here with men who are simply making a credible Christian profession as church members; we are dealing with pastors who lead churches and hold terrible and awesome responsibility for protecting their flocks and making sure the truth is taught. We are also dealing with men who, through the use of conferences and internet, aspire to influence your congregation and mine – not that that is necessarily wrong (e.g., what Christian does not read books written by others?); but it does give us all `a dog in the fight’, to use the American phrase. If they give Jakes a clean bill of health, then that has much wider implications than simply for the participants in the ER.
Of course not everyone will read, nor need read all that the early controversies contain. But, yes, even the common run-of-the-mill guy in the pew needs to be conversant about the substance. And of course, Trueman believes that, or he would not be a teacher in the OPC. He is not standing in the pulpit/lectern beating the air without purpose. Rather, his charge is to inculcate the congregations or audiences under the persuasion of his words into the facts of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Saints- that’s all of us. Of course he says as much. And it is what gives his words their force. The Elephant Room is not an isolated college colloquium gathered around a couple of burgers and beers discussing their pet views out of sight of the church at large. As he says, these are men supposedly called to ministry, supposedly called to the same truth, to teach it and nothing else. They are there to sharpen themselves and others, not about what is in dispute, hopefully, but about what is surely known. Either that, or they have never read Timothy and are defacto illegitimate authorities.
I am still at a loss as to how real life accountability is carried out in such venues. I guess walking away from a mess is one way, but it doesn’t seem to be the biblical way. If I was to advocate, even by association a heretic like Jakes, even as a layman, I might be fenced off. How is James MacDonald accountable, or for that matter D. A. Carson? It seems to me that the inherent flaw in these kinds of associations goes is the very integrity of what it means to be the church. Sure enough, we can form whatever associations we want, but as an adherent to the inter-church disciplinary clauses of the 1689 and the WCF, I find it quite difficult to just allow for the existence of non-accountable para-church ministry even if formed and functioning under the guidance of “orthodox” men if there isn’t a third-party mechanism to keep them accountable.
Now you may not agree, but both confessions actually extend authority beyond the local church, and even beyond denominational boundaries, the call to account. Especially seen is the need to curtail the activities of certain “notorious and obstinate offenders.” Or, …cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members of any church are injured…”
While we may agree that there are limits as to what one church, or an association of churches, may do to discipline the troublers, the fact remains that with so-called extra-church organizations there is no functioning mechanism to carry out such a charge.
I would think that anyone holding to such confessions, or at least the idea of visible church accountability would think twice about joining a non-accountable group. The question is, just where could the members of such go to have their day in court, or just where could any single individual who is a member of a church who has been offended by some other member(s) go to have their case heard?
The conditions now do not exist and until there is a council, a synod, or whatever one wants to call it, that can make a determination about the disposition of the individual(s) troubling the church, I think it best to refrain from any such affiliations.
The internet is a great public square, but it lacks any authority and settles no disputes. Carl Trueman is accountable to his own presbytery even for the associations he makes for they can affect all other relations within and without the OPC. But what of others? How, or who, takes them to the woodshed? That is in part what Trueman says others call elitist Christianity. So be it, it is necessary to have the final words proclaimed and a requirement that they be the words taught lest we collapse the Gospel to meaningless rubble.
This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!’ from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant’s wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?’ to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives’; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.
Now the questions are, where’s the woodshed? And who has the right to the disobedient child’s rear end? If false doctrine is soul destroying, then it seem that the most extreme measures should be taken. But who is up to that in this day and age? The sad state of affairs is that there isn’t a woodshed, nor a whip, nor men man enough to wield it. James McDonald entertained a heretic, and so did the Elephant room, so who is man of the our times? It surely isn’t Trevin Wax. Today one can be involved in an affair and wash their hands and walk away. Curious though that sounds.
