Well, so you’ve probably heard that the largest body of Presbyterians in the U.S. have voted to allow gay clergy. I’m not actually going to delve into that here because it is clear to me that mainline Protestantism is busy destroying itself from within. The situation reminds me of the book of Judges which tells us what happens to the people when they have no king, and each man decides for himself:
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best. Judges 21:25
Now, the really funny thing about this quote and why it matches the situation with the Presbyterians so well is that it comes immediately after, and by way of explaining, the previous chapters concerning the tribe of Benjamin. If you haven’t read it before, I won’t ruin it for you. Suffice it to say that the chapters concern homosexuality, licentiousness, abuse, rape, murder, more murder, lies, cover-ups, chaos, mayhem and evil.
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best.
So…this is what the great reformation has wrought. Everyone, every denomination doing what he thinks is best, and moral relativism’s grip gets tighter.
Oh, but I said I wasn’t going to discuss the Presbyterian Church situation, per se. Right. Okay, back to the point of this post. What I want to talk about is the response to the Presbyterian Church situation, at least insofar as other more orthodox Protestants view it. Which brings me to today’s article in Christianity Today, the magazine of Evangelical Christians. In an article entitled, The Road to Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a Reformed Presbyterian theologian by the name of Dr. S. Donald Fortson III addresses the voted change to that denomination’s constitution. Dr. Fortson is a Professor of Church History and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary—Charlotte. He is an ordained minister in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which (I learned from reading his article) broke away from the main body of the Presbyterian Church in anticipation that it was only a matter of time until the main body fell to “a pro-gay agenda relentlessly pressed until at length Presbyterians officially landed in the gay ordination camp”.
The article itself is brilliant in its linguistic and theological acrobatics to say how wrong this decision by the PC(USA) is, how unbiblical and outside of tradition…without of course, admitting that the entire Protestant Reformation was…<ahem>…unbiblical and outside of tradition. And of course, to make his point, this Reformed Presbyterian relies on the Church Fathers of the Catholic Church to make his case. It’s a brilliant use of equivocation.** Really, it’s brilliant!
Here are some examples of Dr. Fortson’s theological heroics:
And church history is crystal clear: Homosexual practice has been affirmed nowhere, never, by no one in the history of Christianity. The church fathers insisted that doctrine and practice must be tested by Holy Scripture. In addition to careful exegesis, another test was catholicity, that is, what has been the universally accepted scriptural interpretation passed down in the church. (emphasis mine)
To what church is he referring? the Presbyterian Church? Or that other one?
I kinda think he means this one
He continues–
When novel teachings were shown to fail both the careful scrutiny of Scripture and the consensus of the orthodox Fathers, heretical ideas were doubly condemned.
Um, gosh, could the ‘novel teachings’ he refers to be something like, I dunno…sola fide? sola scriptura? If you remember your history, they both failed the careful scrutiny of Scripture and the consensus of orthodox Fathers, not a one of whom supported either. The reformers were the ones who championed these novel teachings.
He goes on to quote SAINT Vincent of Lerins (without “Saint” naturally) —
‘… if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly that is, by the authority of God’s Law [Scripture], then by the tradition of the Catholic [universal] Church. …[W]e take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.'”
Um, Dr. Fortson, I know you are a scholar and like a teacher of kids as well as an actual historian so I’m sure you realize that (this is embarrassing) but uh, you do realize that you misquoted a church father, right? I am sure that you did not mean to suggest that St. Vincent, the Catholic monk said, “the univeral church” because of course, he didn’t. He said, the Catholic Church. Changing the name of the church would seem sorta like you are hiding or obfuscating facts and of course as a Professor of Reformed Theology…I know you wouldn’t do that. I mean, it’s not like he was just some presbyter schmoo. He was a monk. So I’ll just correct it for you. Here, let me correct your mistake.
‘… if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly that is, by the authority of God’s Law [Scripture], then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. …[W]e take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.'”
Yes, yes! ‘the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere’…yes, the Presbyterian Church has been taking great care to hold onto that which has been believed since the time…er…well, since the time that it formed itself in defiance of that which was believed everywhere, always, and by all. But I will take your word for it that since the time of their rejection of the universal beliefs of the universal church, they have been really really good at holding onto that which has been believed everywhere. (So that is, what? 1541 or so?)
Dr. Fortson, now on a roll, heads toward his conclusion–
Christianity is a tradition; it is a faith with a particular ethos, set of beliefs and practices handed on from generation to generation. The Christian tradition may be understood as the history of what God’s people have believed and how they have lived based upon the Word of God. This tradition is not only a collection of accepted doctrines but also a set of lifestyle expectations for a follower of Christ. One of the primary things handed down in the Christian church over the centuries is a consistent set of …
I’m sorry! I need to take a break. Laughing too hard. BRB!
kk, sorry, where were we? oh yes…haha, we were talking about the Christian tradition, some of us more seriously than others. Dr. Fortson now makes his dramatic and unintentionally Catholic and/or seriously hilarious conclusion regarding the matter at hand–
Revisionist biblical interpretations that purport to support homosexual practice are typically rooted in novel hermeneutical principles applied to Scripture, which produce bizarre interpretations of the Bible held nowhere, never, by no one. (emphasis mine)
So there you have it. Typical Reformed Protestant absconds with Patristic Fathers, rewrites what they say to make them agree with his Protestant theology, and equivocates his way into agreeing completely with the position of the Holy Mother Church circa 1520 all the while still assuring himself and his wayward, defiant Protestant flock that while it is meet and right to condemn homosexuality via the tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, because, well, you know, those Papists got it right on that one, but hey, don’t come waving your authority in my face!
Hahahahahaha. I wish I had an nth of the intellect and scholarship of someone like Dr. Michael Barber who I know would see layers here that I do not. Nevertheless, I find this whole article ripe for satire and abuse. I wonder if these earnest Sophists ever realize how absurd and hilarious they are! God bless ’em. ***
**a quick lookup of the word “equivocation” reveals that its synonyms are misrepresentation, deceit and doublespeak. To be charitable to Dr. Fortson, we are only using the definition of equivocation in the philosophical use, meaning a fallacy.
***and my original response via the comment section may not have been as charitable. Mea culpa.
Cooperating with Grace 