Welcome Pages

24 June 2012

Answering Questions #16 -Dissecting Stellman's Apostasy


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.


From: XYZ
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."
.
----------
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.