Missouri Presbytery's First Theological Principle: Be Sweet


(Andy Halsey) #1

New Warhorn Media post by Andy Halsey:


(Jeff Singletary) #2

I am not fully conversant on Presbyterian polity. Is the Presbytery composed of all the Elders of the member congregations? Does this report speak with one unified voice? Is there no dissent or means to voice dissent? Which is to say that every single Elder supports this document?


(Christopher Thomas Miller) #3

Yeesh, half-Bible is right! Their citation of the two witnesses and cherry-picking of their “sackcloth” was downright laughable:

3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days,clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. (Rev. 11:3-6)

So is this “prophesying to the world” characterized by “love-filled lamentation”? If you say it is, your definition of “love” needs re-tooling. If you say it’s not, you weren’t really paying attention when you cited this passage were you?


(Tim Bayly) #4

Presbytery is composed of both ruling and teaching elders of member churches although at any particular meeting the number of ruling elders voting is limited ostensibly to protect parity in the assembly between ruling and teaching elders. The report speaks for all the members of the committee since there was no minority report. The report speaks for the presbytery as the presbytery specifies in its actions on the report, the facts of which were published along with this report. When a presbytery takes such actions, as members of a committee have (and in this case chose not to exercise) the right to disagree, so in the presbytery, presbyters have the right to file a protest in the minutes, or even a complaint. So far as I know, no member of the presbytery’s committee nor the presbytery itself filed a protest or (so far) a complaint.


(Ken Lamb) #5

How would we come to know about such subsequent protests or complaints? Are such motions recorded publicly or would it be incumbent on a respondent to make such protests known publicly?

I struggle to know the right response here. I’m trying to not allow myself to be angry for what appears to be widespread systematic failures of the PCA…is it unrighteousness indignation in my heart? Should I instead mourn those failures, in sackcloth and ash, or should I hunger and thirst for righteousness? My flesh wants to topple money tables. What blame do the sheep bear for their shepherds?

Alright I’m done lamenting. God help the souls of those hirelings that have become as useful as tasteless salt.


(AndreasM) #6

The crosspolitic guys and James White talked about it on the Dividing Line line show last week, and they said there is some response coming. It’s on YouTube, from https://youtu.be/OCwcsZuWEMQ?t=2478


(Jeff Singletary) #7

Doug Wilson posted a link to this document.

It does have a reference to ‘The Grace of Shame.’