So, what are you going to do about it? The same thing you encouraged everyone else to do with respect to shrines to Baphomet in state capitols?
I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?
Because in the absence of such action on your part, telling other people not to take action against pagan idols seems less like principled prudence and more like justifying your own lack of zeal.
"I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?"
Perhaps because that isn't the first step in our disciplinary process, even if that process were the way to resolve matters such as this. What Brad is doing here, exhortation, is most consistent with our rules of discipline. No one should be in a hurry to prefer charges. When I came into PCA, from Anglicanism, I had the lax attitude Brad addresses. Exhortations such as this served to correct my understanding. As to his supposed lack of zeal, be mindful of that 9th commandment. You wouldn't want anyone to prefer charges of defamation against you.
I would suggest that what we have right here is an example of Brad being closer in mindset to French, Moore, and Clark, than he probably realizes. True, he doesn't make overt appeals to the American Project or any kind of civil/legal construct, but he seems just as reluctant for Christians to take meaningful action as they are.
This is because what you described as the "American Project" goes deeper than just the post-War consensus, though it certainly compasses that. It's the disease of managerial proceduralism. Ironically enough, one of the most obvious symptoms this disease is an immense resistance to actually employing the procedures one espouses to accomplish one's stated ends.
Thank you for your characterization of my article as excellent. I have some personal acquaintance with Brad, but insufficient for speculating about the proximity of his mindset to that of Clark, French and Moore. I think, in fairness to you both, that the difference is not that you prefer meaningful action to Brad's relative inaction, but rather what constitutes _meaningful_ action under the circumstances. The same holds for what you refer to as "resistance" to employing the procedures one espouses. As I am understanding, you want to proceed immediately from exhortation (BCO 27-5 [a]) to charges and specifications (BCO 27-5 [d]), when in fact the next move would be to personal one-to-one confrontation (BCO 27-5 [b]), with each and every individual, witnessed by Brad, performing the act. (In the cases of churches violating 2C he could write a letter to their sessions admonishing them to cease their idolatrous practices.) A trial is certainly one way to employ process to achieve one's ends, but its spirit seems rather malicious, hardly expressive of the fraternal love we should exhibit.
Look: I'm in favor of whatever procedural niceties are appropriate under the circumstances. My concern is that they aren't employed nearly as often as they should be. And when they are employed, the church courts often settle for minimalist, procedural decisions that usually maintain the status quo rather than addressing issues of substance.
Exhortations are all well and good, to be sure. I find it somewhat confusing that you take issue with my "exhortation" that Brad put his money where his mouth is.
Brad--among others!--has been banging this drum for years. Exhortation has been tried.
As to "charges of defamation," I am perfectly willing to defend my actions if it comes to that. But I find I cannot contain my mirth. The incongruity of bringing charges against someone for "exhorting" REs to be more vigorous in their discipline is just too delicious. Such a warning, if one might call it that, loses much if not all of its persuasive force when coming in the same paragraph as an argument against bringing charges.
Your exhortation wasn't so it's good you set the term apart with quotation marks. And you cannot properly exhort someone to take an action not sanctioned by the rules of discipline, thus opening himself to a counter charge if defamation. Right now, as matters stand, there is no provision under our rules, no previous action of GA which prohibits the conduct Brad is talking about. And the charges I mentioned were not for exhortation. You are exhorting; you are being pugnacious. And possibly, defamatory.
This is the managerial proceduralism bit I was talking about.
The problem isn't with the rules, nor the lack of precedent at GA (or SJC). The rules, as they currently exist, are entirely sufficient to impose discipline for violations of the Second Commandment. The rules, as they currently exist, are entirely sufficient to recognize the conduct to which Brad objects as violations of the Second Commandment. That it has not been previously recognized as such is no obstacle.
Am I correct in understanding that there is, at present, precedent for disciplining people for watching television shows and moves such as The Chosen? I mean, some act of GA (SJC) which determined that members of the PCA are liable to be disciplined (suspended, excommunicated and, in the case of officers, deposed) for watching moves and television shows in which actors portray Jesus. If so, then so be it. If not, then I think you can make the case that Brad and his ilk (including me) should draft an overture asking GA to "make it official" no watching of television shows or movies containing portrayals of Jesus. I could get on board with that. (Heck I think we should include songs with sexually explicit lyrics: we aren't allowed to watch pornography, why should we be allowed to listen to it?) I don't know, Ryan: a litigious spirit just doesn't seem what we should be about.
First, I think we may have been talking past each other with respect to the target of any potential process. I wasn't really thinking about initiating process against individual church members, as it seems that you were. I was thinking specifically about the possibility of PCA churches condoning or even promoting such depictions. But looking back at the initial article, yours was a perfectly reasonable assumption, and one that I simply wasn't thinking about. That's on me, and I apologize.
But second, I want to take a step back here, as I think there may be a more fundamental disagreement about process in general.
In particular, I stand by my previous assertions that there is no procedural (or substantive!) requirement that a particular act be specifically identified as warranting discipline by GA/SJC before it is appropriate to initiate process. Process, after all, is not merely concerned with whether the accused committed the acts in question. It is also very much concerned with whether said acts are sinful in the first place.
In other words, cases of process involve apply law (which is necessarily general and abstract) to specific factual situations (which are necessarily particular and concrete). This is the whole point of judicial functions in the first place, civil or ecclesiastical. Whether the people exercising judicial and legislative authority are the same or not is irrelevant. The point is that judicial cases must answer not only "Did the accused do X?" but also "Is X actually illegal?"
All of which to say that whatever the disagreement we may have had about the specific issues in Brad's article, I think this is a far more serious point of disagreement. If a Session thinks that a particular action constitutes sin, it is incumbent upon that Session to pursue appropriate discipline. Yes, that begins with exhortation and informal calls to repentance. Obviously. But the fact that there hasn't been a case or overture about the actions in question doesn't mean that process cannot be initiated. It would just involve what legal practitioners call "making new law." Nothing wrong with that.
Hence my assertions above. Has any PCA body formally declared watching movies, etc., to constitute a violation of the Second Commandment? Not that I'm aware of. But I don't see why that issue, in and of itself, should serve as a barrier to anyone initiating process on that basis even in the absence of a prior overture to that effect.
Yep. Pretty much.
So, what are you going to do about it? The same thing you encouraged everyone else to do with respect to shrines to Baphomet in state capitols?
I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?
Because in the absence of such action on your part, telling other people not to take action against pagan idols seems less like principled prudence and more like justifying your own lack of zeal.
"I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?"
Perhaps because that isn't the first step in our disciplinary process, even if that process were the way to resolve matters such as this. What Brad is doing here, exhortation, is most consistent with our rules of discipline. No one should be in a hurry to prefer charges. When I came into PCA, from Anglicanism, I had the lax attitude Brad addresses. Exhortations such as this served to correct my understanding. As to his supposed lack of zeal, be mindful of that 9th commandment. You wouldn't want anyone to prefer charges of defamation against you.
I just re-read your excellent post from last month (https://noxvenit.substack.com/p/the-gospel-is-definitely-national).
I would suggest that what we have right here is an example of Brad being closer in mindset to French, Moore, and Clark, than he probably realizes. True, he doesn't make overt appeals to the American Project or any kind of civil/legal construct, but he seems just as reluctant for Christians to take meaningful action as they are.
This is because what you described as the "American Project" goes deeper than just the post-War consensus, though it certainly compasses that. It's the disease of managerial proceduralism. Ironically enough, one of the most obvious symptoms this disease is an immense resistance to actually employing the procedures one espouses to accomplish one's stated ends.
Thank you for your characterization of my article as excellent. I have some personal acquaintance with Brad, but insufficient for speculating about the proximity of his mindset to that of Clark, French and Moore. I think, in fairness to you both, that the difference is not that you prefer meaningful action to Brad's relative inaction, but rather what constitutes _meaningful_ action under the circumstances. The same holds for what you refer to as "resistance" to employing the procedures one espouses. As I am understanding, you want to proceed immediately from exhortation (BCO 27-5 [a]) to charges and specifications (BCO 27-5 [d]), when in fact the next move would be to personal one-to-one confrontation (BCO 27-5 [b]), with each and every individual, witnessed by Brad, performing the act. (In the cases of churches violating 2C he could write a letter to their sessions admonishing them to cease their idolatrous practices.) A trial is certainly one way to employ process to achieve one's ends, but its spirit seems rather malicious, hardly expressive of the fraternal love we should exhibit.
Look: I'm in favor of whatever procedural niceties are appropriate under the circumstances. My concern is that they aren't employed nearly as often as they should be. And when they are employed, the church courts often settle for minimalist, procedural decisions that usually maintain the status quo rather than addressing issues of substance.
Exhortations are all well and good, to be sure. I find it somewhat confusing that you take issue with my "exhortation" that Brad put his money where his mouth is.
Brad--among others!--has been banging this drum for years. Exhortation has been tried.
As to "charges of defamation," I am perfectly willing to defend my actions if it comes to that. But I find I cannot contain my mirth. The incongruity of bringing charges against someone for "exhorting" REs to be more vigorous in their discipline is just too delicious. Such a warning, if one might call it that, loses much if not all of its persuasive force when coming in the same paragraph as an argument against bringing charges.
Your exhortation wasn't so it's good you set the term apart with quotation marks. And you cannot properly exhort someone to take an action not sanctioned by the rules of discipline, thus opening himself to a counter charge if defamation. Right now, as matters stand, there is no provision under our rules, no previous action of GA which prohibits the conduct Brad is talking about. And the charges I mentioned were not for exhortation. You are exhorting; you are being pugnacious. And possibly, defamatory.
This is the managerial proceduralism bit I was talking about.
The problem isn't with the rules, nor the lack of precedent at GA (or SJC). The rules, as they currently exist, are entirely sufficient to impose discipline for violations of the Second Commandment. The rules, as they currently exist, are entirely sufficient to recognize the conduct to which Brad objects as violations of the Second Commandment. That it has not been previously recognized as such is no obstacle.
Russell conjugation cuts no ice with me.
Am I correct in understanding that there is, at present, precedent for disciplining people for watching television shows and moves such as The Chosen? I mean, some act of GA (SJC) which determined that members of the PCA are liable to be disciplined (suspended, excommunicated and, in the case of officers, deposed) for watching moves and television shows in which actors portray Jesus. If so, then so be it. If not, then I think you can make the case that Brad and his ilk (including me) should draft an overture asking GA to "make it official" no watching of television shows or movies containing portrayals of Jesus. I could get on board with that. (Heck I think we should include songs with sexually explicit lyrics: we aren't allowed to watch pornography, why should we be allowed to listen to it?) I don't know, Ryan: a litigious spirit just doesn't seem what we should be about.
Last word to you.
Two things.
First, I think we may have been talking past each other with respect to the target of any potential process. I wasn't really thinking about initiating process against individual church members, as it seems that you were. I was thinking specifically about the possibility of PCA churches condoning or even promoting such depictions. But looking back at the initial article, yours was a perfectly reasonable assumption, and one that I simply wasn't thinking about. That's on me, and I apologize.
But second, I want to take a step back here, as I think there may be a more fundamental disagreement about process in general.
In particular, I stand by my previous assertions that there is no procedural (or substantive!) requirement that a particular act be specifically identified as warranting discipline by GA/SJC before it is appropriate to initiate process. Process, after all, is not merely concerned with whether the accused committed the acts in question. It is also very much concerned with whether said acts are sinful in the first place.
In other words, cases of process involve apply law (which is necessarily general and abstract) to specific factual situations (which are necessarily particular and concrete). This is the whole point of judicial functions in the first place, civil or ecclesiastical. Whether the people exercising judicial and legislative authority are the same or not is irrelevant. The point is that judicial cases must answer not only "Did the accused do X?" but also "Is X actually illegal?"
All of which to say that whatever the disagreement we may have had about the specific issues in Brad's article, I think this is a far more serious point of disagreement. If a Session thinks that a particular action constitutes sin, it is incumbent upon that Session to pursue appropriate discipline. Yes, that begins with exhortation and informal calls to repentance. Obviously. But the fact that there hasn't been a case or overture about the actions in question doesn't mean that process cannot be initiated. It would just involve what legal practitioners call "making new law." Nothing wrong with that.
Hence my assertions above. Has any PCA body formally declared watching movies, etc., to constitute a violation of the Second Commandment? Not that I'm aware of. But I don't see why that issue, in and of itself, should serve as a barrier to anyone initiating process on that basis even in the absence of a prior overture to that effect.