In some recent comments it was mentioned that a PCA
(Presbyterian Church in America) pastor recently converted to Roman
Catholicism. The PCA is one of the conservative Presbyterian bodies, not to be
confused with the PCUSA which is the Mainline and much larger Presbyterian body
which abandoned Scripture long ago. The PCA formally broke with the mainline
body in 1973.
The pastor in question is Jason Stellman, a pretty
strong proponent of the Reformed variety of Two Kingdom theology and certainly
someone I would have recommended not long ago. I often visited his website and
sometimes commented there.
Sacralist enemies of Two Kingdom theology have tried
to find a connection....find a way to show that Two Kingdom theology leads to
Rome. It doesn't, in fact the two systems are operating in very different
universes. In the past it has actually been Theonomy and various Sacralist
positions which have produced converts to Catholicism and it's always been an
embarrassing point for them. I almost sense a state of glee at this man's
defection.
What's even more ironic is that Stellman was just
recently leading the charge against a fellow denominationalist...Peter
Leithart. Leithart is associated with Federal Vision theology. For those who've
read a lot of the material at this website I've talked from time to time about
these folks. When it comes to Ecclesiology and a general approach to theology,
I'm quite sympathetic with them.
In fact I remember being shocked to read about some
of the things they were saying....many of them positions I had adopted several
years before. I was also shocked at how upset people became with them. They've
become pariahs within the Reformed community. The other group that's rapidly
gaining that status is the Two Kingdom group. They're often see an opposite
ends of the spectrum and on some issues they are. But actually I embrace
elements both groups teach making my positions quite unpalatable within those
circles.
Sadly the issue is rarely framed in terms of what
the Bible says. In the denominational battles, it's about what the Confession
says. In this case everyone is arguing over whether or not the Westminster
Confession can accommodate something like Federal Vision. And of course
everyone is trying to 'claim' this or that historical Reformed theologian.
That said, when it comes the overall structure of
the Bible, the defining of the Kingdom and Eschatology...which is far more than
just 'end times' issues....I totally disagree with them. The Federal
Visionaries are generally Theonomic and Postmillennial...the antithesis of what
I am.
To reiterate...this is my frustration within the
Reformed sphere. There are two polarizing camps within the Reformed world and I
think they're both very right on some things and very wrong on others. Both are
dealing with inherent and pervasive weaknesses within the mainstream Reformed
world. I think the Redemptive-Historical camp has rightly understood Biblical
Structure, the Kingdom and Eschatology but are weak in other areas. The Federal
Vision is sound when it comes to a theology of Means, Soteriology and
Ecclesiology, but horribly wrong when it comes to the other issues.
Usually it's the Theonomists who employ the denominational
bureaucracy and attempt to run out people they don't like. In this case a
Redemptive-Historical Two Kingdom leader...Stellman led the charge to have
Leithart a leader within the Federal Vision thrown out of the denomination.
The prosecution failed and Leithart has maintained
his position within the PCA. Only a few months later...Stellman suddenly
converts to Roman Catholicism. Now mind you, the opponents of Federal Vision
theology often accuse the Federal Vision or promoting a Roman Catholic view of
salvation with regard to faith, works, the sacraments, and assurance.
So then how does Stellman jump from going after
Leithart for promoting a Roman Catholic-ish theology to converting to Rome?
Quite a leap and his answer to the charge of hypocrisy is that he was operating
as an officeholder dealing with a confessional issue.
A good churchman....a promoter and maintainer of
institutional unity and integrity, essentially a bureaucrat.
Anyway this has generated a firestorm and there's
been a scramble to determine why this happened and upon whom and what to lay
blame. So far, I've found gross misunderstanding and in the case of the
Theonomists...either some real ignorance or deceit. They're not above either.
I found out about this from a friend of mine. I
hadn't visited Stellman's website in some time. This was all pretty shocking.
Those interested in this might find our email exchanges to be of interest. I
will probably write more about this later, but for now this is what I have to
offer. Out of politeness I've edited out names and email addresses.
Sent:
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:13 AM
To:
Proto
Subject:
R.C. Stellman
I don't know
who Jason Stellman is, but if you have any brief comments on his alleged
conversion to RC'ism, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, brother.
Reason I'm
asking is that A---B---- posted this link on Facebook this morning, and there's
a fairly heavy emphasis here on ecclesiology and the so-called "2K"
position:
--------------
XYZ,
Wow....your
email blew me away.
I've
been reading stuff at Stellman's blog for some time.
But,
I've barely been on the Internet the last couple of months. I've been terribly
busy with work and other things. Not only have I not been writing articles for
my own blog, I haven't been reading others. So I totally missed what was
happening with Stellman.
Really surprising. I have appreciated his 2K positions while really disagreeing with him on Ecclesiology. He's the one that lead the charge against Leithart and the Federal Vision guys. He tried to get Leithart thrown out of the PCA....what a hypocrite! His excuse....confessionalism, being a good churchman? God save us from 'good churchmen'.....I came to that position years ago. They have little concern for the church. They're bureaucrats is what they are. Good churchmen are politically astute, but really what did Ryle do for the Church of England? Packer? How many Presbyterians have compromised the truth because being a 'good Churchman' seems to be higher calling. I appreciate the disdain for individualism, but there comes a time when standing with the pack becomes compromise.
So
he could prosecute Leithart...all the while he's thinking about converting and
becoming a Papist? I mean the whole charge coming from guys like Stellman is
that Federal Vision flirts perilously close to Romanism when it comes to
ecclesiology. What a sick and twisted ethic that allows him to try and destroy
a person when he himself is guilty (and more so) than the one he's going after.
It reminds me of Gingrich and Clinton.
Gingrich
was engaged in adultery as he was going after Clinton over the Lewinsky thing.
To this day he insists the issue with Clinton was perjury...lying to Congress.
Come on, we all know that's window dressing. Clinton was caught in a moral
scandal and they were trying to bring him down. It was about
character....something that doesn't prosecute very well....so you have to pin
something on the guy. So they focused on his perjured statements. That was the
vehicle to attack his character....the point they were trying to sell to the
American people. Later when it was revealed that Gingrich was committing
adultery at the same time....he insisted that wasn't the issue. It's like he
was wiping his mouth and saying, "I've done nothing wrong." Well he
knew he'd done wrong but tried to shift the issue. But everyone knows the issue
was character and apparently both Gingrich and Stellman lack it severely.
We're
all hypocrites and we all have our secret sins. But wow, I sure couldn't go
after someone, in such a public and destructive manner when I was guilty of the
same thing. How could you look at yourself in the mirror?
I
strongly disagree with Leithart when it comes to Eschatology (and all that goes
with it), History, Liturgy, and the Kingdom. But when it comes to issues like
Covenant Theology, Sacramentology, and Soteriology.....I tend to be more in
agreement with the Federal Vision crowd than the theology held by most people
in Reformed circles.
I
strongly resonate with the BT/RH (Vosian Biblical Theology/Redemptive
Historical Hermeneutics) understanding of theology and hermeneutics rather than
Grammatico-Historical/Systematics crowd. While I agree with their structure and
method....I don't always agree with how they apply it. They're guilty of bad
forms of systematics also....it's just geared in a different way.
The
Reformed world is small enough, a conversion to Romanism is always shocking
(people still talk about Hahn).....but this case is particularly strange and
will be talked about a long time. Trueman seems to be trying to make a
connection between 2K and these events. 2K is inherently anti-Roman. Stellman
has been (in a recent years) a leading voice in the 2K world. Wow, I guess he
didn't understand it! The 2K understanding of the Kingdom is rooted in a
dialectic. Roman Catholicism is essentially anti-dialectical. It's enshrined
Nominalism....as we might put it...anchored on the visible register. Baptistic theology
is also inherently Nominalistic...anchored on the invisible. Their muddle is
that we're in the visible and they have to try and make the invisible make
sense in the visible while denying the visible has any substance or meaning. On
this point Roman Catholicism while deadly wrong at least is coherent and makes
sense. The visible IS....the thing itself. The visible is the ontological
reality....there's no understanding of Eschatology (Already and Not Yet/This
Age and the Age to Come)......the very core of 2K thinking. Stellman must have
grasped this!
Though
if you visit his blog he reveals what the real issue is.....Sola Scriptura. And
that issue....Authority....is what it's all about in the end. Every time,
whatever the issue.....it always comes back to this. This is THE question. And
it's a Christological one. It all comes back to the gospels and the deeds and
words of Christ. His validation of the OT, commission of the Apostolate and the
inspiration and authority he vests in them....and his validation of it by His
Person and Work....is the root of our faith. Get that wrong and you have no
Word. You have to go looking elsewhere.
And
anytime I entertain that....I'm left with two choices......Apostasy or
Tradition. In my case Rome wouldn't be my choice. I'd go to
Constantinople....but really in the end it would be Apostasy. Rome and
Constantinople are dead ends with no hope....but at least Constantinople is
stable and on many points represents a theology more respectful of Scripture.
As
an aside, I don't think Trueman gets it quite right...but, I have to say I
continue to really appreciate him. Being a Brit, his perspective on American
Christianity is helpful. Frankly most Church Historians today are either hacks
or hagiographers....Trueman is neither. I think he's pretty balanced. I grab up
and download any audio files I find with his name on it....interviews, history
lectures. I often disagree with him, but he's worth listening to.
The buzz from all this is going to be interesting....but I'm afraid this whole 2K ecclesiology...road to Rome focus.... is terribly misguided. It's discouraging at times, but on this point and many others I find that many people excel at missing the point...missing the real issue. People spend hours in discussion and write whole bookshelves worth of books on many an issue and utterly waste their time. There are so many arguments and debates that are largely worthless because neither side is able to identify the real issue. Kind of boastful thing for me to say but it's certainly one benefit of not belonging to a particular faction....it allows one to step back and see the forest through the trees. I see this happening all the time. I still read and listen to the debates...there are still things to be gleaned....but often when it comes to Theology and certainly History, Current Events, Politics etc.... I often disagree with both main schools of interpretation.
Thanks
for sharing that. It will certainly be on my mind today. Generally speaking
Stellman is a sharp guy. Like Hahn if he decides to labour in the Roman camp
he'll be able to argue pretty persuasively against Protestantism. As we both
know, it's not all that difficult. It is if you're holding to Sola Scriptura in
a proper sense. But as we know, very few have really thought out the issue and
consequently their formulations and certainly applications of Sola Scriptura
are built on sand and subject to overwhelming attack by a skilled apologist.
K
Johannes Dux
From:
XYZ
Sent:
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:50 PM
To:
Proto/Dux
Subject:
Re: R.C. Stellman
Yeah, I don't think
Stellman's 2K'ism is what drove him away from the PCA. It's interesting how he
said he hated his assigned role in the Leithart case, while making it sound
like his duty before God as a confessional churchman. I guess everybody
draws a line somewhere on the question of authority: I'm a biblicist, Stellman
is a confessionalist.
As to the kingdom question, in my ignorance of the discussion parameters, it seems to me that 2K is compatible with Romanism if you view both kingdoms as existing in this world (unless I'm still unclear about what people mean by "2K"). As you know, I prefer talking about the nations/kingdoms of this world, and the kingdom of the world to come. Perhaps 2W (Two-World) theology would cut off the visible path to Romanism.
By the way, it seems there's a parallel between hyper-confessionalism and this-worldly 2K. Stellman's practical final authorities (Westminster, Rome, etc.) are all here in this world.
Anyway, I'm exhausted and need to get to bed. Just quickly though, I enjoyed this blog entry.
http://apologus.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/jason-stellman-resigns-from-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/
Interesting quote from Leithart: "Biblicist, liturgical, sacramental, ecumenical Protestantism is the antidote to Roman fever, not the cause."
.
As to the kingdom question, in my ignorance of the discussion parameters, it seems to me that 2K is compatible with Romanism if you view both kingdoms as existing in this world (unless I'm still unclear about what people mean by "2K"). As you know, I prefer talking about the nations/kingdoms of this world, and the kingdom of the world to come. Perhaps 2W (Two-World) theology would cut off the visible path to Romanism.
By the way, it seems there's a parallel between hyper-confessionalism and this-worldly 2K. Stellman's practical final authorities (Westminster, Rome, etc.) are all here in this world.
Anyway, I'm exhausted and need to get to bed. Just quickly though, I enjoyed this blog entry.
http://apologus.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/jason-stellman-resigns-from-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/
Interesting quote from Leithart: "Biblicist, liturgical, sacramental, ecumenical Protestantism is the antidote to Roman fever, not the cause."
.
----------
From: Proto
To: XYZ
I think some of
what might fuel conjectured ties between 2K and a Roman tendencies is the fact
that 2K tends to identify the Kingdom in This Age with The Church.
Dominionism
(which is basically the orthodoxy of our day) wants to define the Kingdom in
broader terms....the culture etc.... Bach and Rembrandt are part of the Kingdom
in that schema.
So
some in that camp view the 2kers as hyper-Church.....and in their minds they
erroneously conclude....
hyper-Church=
Romanist tendency.
2k
is rooted in a dualistic way of understanding the Kingdom and many other
issues. Romanism generally doesn't think that way....This (the present) is not
just the particular....it is the Universal as well.
'This
worldly 2k' is (to me) an oxymoron. I think the issue is Authority. Stellman
prefers institution and let's face it if you embrace that kind of
mindset....institution (which is certainly of this world)....than Rome has a
much stronger case. If you want Protestantism to rest on a historical
foundation...it's pretty flimsy.
Though
I often really dislike Leithart....I appreciate the Biblicist angle. Biblicism
is usually equated with anti-intellectualism and being a-historical. I think I
can make some pretty strong arguments against that.
I
wish I had time to write a book dealing with Matthison's book on Sola
Scriptura. It has become the standard everyone refers to. I reject the way he
frames the argument. He rejects Biblicism and ties
traditionalism/confessionalism to Sola Scriptura.........the very thing which
leads someone like Stellman to question the whole Protestant position.
Matthison's argument is structured to counter anti-confessionalists, but his
Sola Scriptura position....isn't Sola Scriptura at all....it's
Clericalism.....Stellman was smart enough to work out its implications.
If
I held to Matthison's version of Sola Scriptura....I sure wouldn't end up...a
Presbyterian!?!?! No way.
From:
ABC
Sent:
Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:49 PM
To:
Proto
Subject:
Re: R.C. Stellman
Hey just wanted to say thanks for including me in the mix. It's
always refreshing to see good conversation taking place. I thought that XYZ's
2W idea was very creative. Do you think that Stellman might be interested in
more money? ..... ABC
I
(Proto) responded:
Yeah
actually the term....Two Kingdoms isn't really all that helpful. There are
several ways it can be interpreted, some quite different. Each
camp...Transformationalist, Pietist, and whatever one would want to call my
position (Pilgrim in the World?/Remnant?)...all can to some degree claim the
label. Postmillennialists think Augustine (with his Two Cities) is theirs to
claim, while many Amillennialists would claim him.
I
can't think of any financial gain on his part. He certainly won't become a
priest....if he wanted to do that, Eastern Orthodoxy would have been a better
choice as their priests can marry. But, there are other things he can do for
the Roman Entity.
As
I've said many times, if I was to the point of converting to Romanism....I would
probably be very close to just abandoning Christianity altogether.
------------
In
conclusion, you can see where I'm coming from on this. The issue has nothing to
do with Two Kingdoms or Ecclesiology. It's about Authority....and that has
implications for the Kingdom and certainly how one views the Church in general
and how one views the Church in history.
God
willing there will be more on this at a later time.