FV persecution: Is it ever going to stop?

Mark Horne once again alerts me to the witch hunt that continues in the PCA.  I have tried in the past to give these men the benefit of the doubt, after all they have strong convictions about what is confessional and what is not. However,  I often wonder what is the motivation to go after some groups and not others. In other words, why is a high sacramental view more offensive to these men than a deeply low, almost non-existent sacramental view? Why is it un-confessional to wrestle with how the Bible uses certain words and what meaning the Biblical text gives these words?

Pastor Lane Keister is incredibly blunt on this post concerning his goals to eliminate any influence of a covenantal vision in the denomination. In my opinion, the PNW Presbytery is the best presbytery in the PCA and if they succeed in eliminating the influence of men like Pastor Robert Rayburn, the PCA will have little hope in recovering a robust view of the church.

About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in Federal Vision. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to FV persecution: Is it ever going to stop?

  1. Tom says:

    Somehow, I don’t see it happening; removing all FVers from the PCA. Nor do I think it would be a good thing. In many ways, the FV crowd keep presbyterians from becoming too baptistic. They are a stablizing force in restoring the prominence of the sacraments back to the church. I, for one, appreciate that.

  2. Jim Bordwine says:

    I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but your representation of the men opposing FV is misleading–at least as far as my personal perspective is concerned. Peter Leithart’s views had to be investigated in light of the General Assembly’s actions in 2007. Being a very gracious and humble brother, Peter submitted a written representation of his thinking relative to the nine points of criticism proposed by the General Assembly’s ad-interim committee. This committee had been created to provide guidance for the denomination in regard to officers who might be proponents of FV. It was the report of this committee that resulted in the investigation of FV men in our Presbyteries. Leithart himself supported the creation of the committee in the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest responsible for examining his views.

    It was this committee, of course, that submitted a majority report finding no grounds for considering Leithart’s views to be out of accord with the Confession. Here I must emphasize that the Presbytery’s committee was specifically charged with examining Leithart’s views in light of the Confession. This was not an examination incorporating the broader Reformed community. Personally, I have had no desire to drive men out of the PCA, as you suggest. But I do believe some men hold views that are contrary to the Confession. I’m not saying that everything FV men teach falls into this category; I’m saying there are significant questions raised in a few instances when Leithart’s views, for example, are compared to the teaching of the Confession.

    In response to your statements, let me add that I am not offended by a “high sacramental view.” I happen to believe that FV brings some much-needed correction to prevailing evangelical thinking in a number of areas. Moreover, I do not consider it “un-confessional to wrestle with how the Bible uses certain words . . .” In fact, I find the lack of such dialogue to be a true weakness in the PCA.

    With all that said, I would have preferred to see the most significant teachings of FV debated in our Presbyteries in an orderly manner without the near-hysteria that has accompanied so many of the criticisms of Leithart, et al. And, by the way, I’ve heard not a word in this Presbytery concerning the removal of Rob Rayburn from our ranks.

    You may be interested to know that I chaired a committee several years ago when FV first became a point of controversy. Our committee was charged with investigating Leithart’s views. Our committee concluded that there were enough questions raised by Leithart’s teaching to justify further examination. We asked the Presbytery, therefore, to extend the life of the committee so we could continue our examination. This request from the committee was unanimous. Rob Rayburn served on that committee and was fully supportive of the idea of pursuing Leithart’s views further. Presbytery, however, denied our request and that matter was ended—for a while. Now, as you know, it is back.

  3. Uri Brito says:

    Thanks Jim. shalom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s