Ligon Duncan Responds to Greg Thompson's "Renewing Ethos"

On February 26, 2008, Greg Thompson opened the Denominational Renewal (DR) conference with his talk, "Renewing Ethos." You may listen to Greg's talk by clicking (here).

This is the first week of a five week forum scrutinizing the five talks given at DR. For more on the structure of the five week forum at CGO on this conference, click (here).

During the week of September 15-18 we will host essays from Tim Keller, Ligon Duncan, Rebecca Jones, and Dan Doriani in response to Greg Thompson's talk.  On Friday, Sept. 19,  Greg will respond to his respondents.

We welcome discussion that is both robust and gracious. I [Glenn] will moderate all comments and those comments that exemplify graciousness and love for one's brothers and sisters will be approved. First and last name, and one's current, valid email address are required for comments. Also, please focus on Greg's talk and/or the response essay.
----------

Ligon Duncan is the Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, MS, and is a Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary-Jackson.  Dr. Duncan is a churchman- among other roles he has served as the Moderator of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCA. He is the author of many journal articles and books, including The Westminster Confession of Faith into the 21st Century, and an editor of and/or a contributor to many edited volumes.

---------

Glenn, thanks for the invitation to respond to Greg Thompson’s address on “Renewing Ethos.” Greg is an able young pastor in the PCA, and clearly has the respect and admiration of so many of his peers. And it’s easy to see why. Greg wants to see important changes in the ways in which we live and minister together in this fellowship of churches.

 

One thing that I would say about Greg’s piece is that he is going to have to be more specific and clear in his diagnosis and prescription if he is going to stimulate a helpful debate about our potential futures in and as the PCA. He needs to spell out precisely what (he thinks) is wrong, and why. And then he needs to say clearly and specifically what his proposed solution is. I heard Greg give some of this material in another context and it struck me as thoughtful, passionate and hopeful, yet generic and impressionistic in its diagnosis, and abstract and aspirational in its prescription. On a lighter note, I asked a mutual friend of Greg’s who had also heard this material (with appreciation) what he thought and if he’d offer me suggestions on how best to respond, and he replied: “don’t say ‘the devil’s in the details!’” Well, yes, precisely. I said this to Greg at that meeting, and I still think it’s right. More clarity and specificity in diagnosis and prescription are essential if we are to have a helpful discussion of these things.

I appreciated all of Tim Keller’s observations, particularly his Edwardsian reflection that “there can be no beauty in the soul without sound doctrine in the mind.” Tim goes on to point out that none of the character qualities that Greg longs for in the PCA can exist apart from doctrine and doctrinal commitments. I would add my hearty amen to that. As Tim says: “the ethos, the changed character he [Greg] wants for his church, is based on seven high and exalted doctrines—covenant, incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, and parousia.”

 

I would also agree with Tim that Greg is not denying this, but Greg’s emphasis is that we are “not just to be formed by truth and ideas but by beholding beauty.” There is a type of anti-doctrinal spirit afoot that could (and would like to) take that thought and run with it where Greg would not want to go.

 

I also think this is important to stress, because (in the context of some of our rather robust theological debates in the PCA today) we sometimes encounter a diagnosis that we care too much about truth, doctrine and theology, and not enough about mission, love and people. Or to put it the other way around, if we would care a little less about theology, we’d care more about these other things. Now, this diagnosis, if I can put it in a nuanced way, is bogus. For at least three reasons.

 

One, it focuses almost exclusively on preachers, not congregants. It assumes that the attitude of our most doctrinally inclined teaching elders is pervasive in the church-at-large. It is not. If we talk about the whole church as if it were a sub-group of our teaching elders – we will blow it big-time in our course corrections.

 

Two, it completely ignores one of the two dominant cultural realities in which we all live and minister – relativism. There is nobody out there in the culture championing the importance of truth, doctrine, theology and confession in the hearts and lives of our people. If we don’t. We lose.

 

Three, all true theology exists in the interest of pastoralia. This is Paul’s point in 1 Timothy 1:5 “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” Theologia is for ethos. Theology exists for the people of God. It is for our way of life. It is for our benefit. It is to effect the way we live in relation to God and neighbor. It is to lead us to right praise, right service, right mission, right common life.

 

I love the way Donald Macleod put this in his addresses on Philippians 2 and Christology.

 

Theology exists in order to be applied to the day-to-day problems of the Christian

church. Every doctrine has its application. All scripture is profitable and all the doctrine is profitable. Similarly all the application must be based on doctrine. In both the Philippians example-passage and the Corinthian example-passage, Paul is dealing with what are surely comparative trivia, the problem of vain glory in a Christian congregation and the problem of failure of Christian liberality. As a Pastor one meets with these difficulties daily. They are standing problems. Yet Paul, as he wrestles with both of them, has recourse to the most massive theology. It’s not only that you have the emphasis on the unity between theology and practice but you have the emphasis on the applicability of the profoundest theology to the most mundane and most common-place problems. Who would ever imagine that the response to the glory of the incarnation might be to give to the collection for the poor? Who might imagine that the application of the glories of New Testament Christology might be to stop our quarreling and our divisiveness in the Christian ekkl‘sia? That is what Paul is doing here. He is telling them: You have these practical problems; the answer is theological; remember your theology and place your behavior in the light of that theology. Place your little problems in the light of the most massive theology. We ourselves in our Christian callings are to be conscious of this. We must never leave our doctrine hanging in the air, nor hesitate to enforce the most elementary Christian obligations with the most sublime doctrines.

 

One last thing, personally, I find the original aspirations of the Founding Fathers of the PCA to be more compelling, and uniting, than any alternatives that I’ve heard so far. My father was a ruling elder at the time of the formation of the PCA in 1973, and so I guess you could call me a “Founding Son.” Dad came back from the meetings in those early years, having grown up in the not-so-halcyon days of the Old Southern Church (PCUS), exhilarated by the vision of a church that would be “true to the Bible, the Reformed Faith, and obedient to the Great Commission.” Personally, I don’t think we’ve arrived at this triple combination yet. And I also haven’t heard a better or more attractive alternative vision articulated by anyone.

 

The combination of embracing and living out (1) the truth, plenary verbal inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture; (2) a joyful, generous, enthusiastic confessionalism; and (3) a commitment to the mission of the church, personally, congregationally, denominationally, locally, nationally and internationally actually helps us keep together the doctrinal, pietist and transformationalist impulses that have been around in presbyterianism since Knox. So, I think we need to have the original vision worked down into our bones and hearts, and lived out in our personal and corporate life, before we start scrounging for something better. There’s plenty of material for rebuke and self-criticism stored up even in these three goals, but there is also plenty of counter-cultural and robustly biblical positive emphasis. And, brothers, we need to have some shared joy if we are going to walk forward together.

 

What would I like to see among our confraternity of PCA pastors? Well, to use a Piper-derived, hyper-hyphenated riff: “. . . a strong coalition of Bible-saturated, truth-driven, God-entranced, prayer-soaked, Gospel-captivated, Evangel-preaching, Christ-treasuring, Spirit-filled, sovereign grace-loving, missions-advancing, hell-robbing, strong-thinking, real-need-exposing, soul-winning, mind-engaging, vagueness-rejecting, wartime-life-style-pursuing, risk-taking, justice-advancing, mercy-showing, radical-sacrifice-making, Scripture-expounding, cross-cherishing, homosexuality-opposing (while sinner-loving), abortion-denouncing and life-advancing, racism-resisting, heaven-desiring, imputation-of-an-alien righteousness-proclaiming, justification-by-faith-alone-apart-from-doing preaching, error-exposing, complementarian, confessional, joyful, humble, loving, courageous, happy pastors working together for the Gospel.”

------

For further reading, Ligon Duncan recommends:

John Stott, The Living Church (IVP)

John Leith, Crisis in the Church (Westminster/John Knox Press)

John Leith, From Generation to Generation (Westminster/John Knox Press)

Phil Ryken, City on a Hill (Moody)

Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Crossway)

Comments

[Tony Stiff]

To: Nicholas T. Batzig

You said, "In my experience it is much easier to be doctrinally broad and well received than it is to sincerely hold to confessional standards and be welcomed. This is the great problem facing us."

Thank you for saying this. It needs to be heard. Renewal has to mean unilateral welcoming from all expressions of ethos. Thank you Nicholas, truly.

[Giorgio Hiatt]

Rev. Duncan and all,

Thank you for taking the time to deal with issues of ethos in the Church.

I have a question about y'alls critique.

How is Greg's talk NOT theological? He uses biblical and theological categories to structure his entire exhortation. He doesn't major on terms like "sanctification" though he does use it if i recall--but it's pretty clear that he's talking about how we embody life in the kingdom. He's calling particular attitudes "sin"--another theological term. And he's asking us to "repent" of them--another theological term. Theological praxis seems to me precisely his end.

[Brian Gold]

I notice that the closing list of important pastoral actions does not include anything about the sacraments. The fact that this is adapted from Piper is not a surprise; the un-Biblical and crypto-Baptist rejection of the centrality of the sacraments in some quarters of the PCA was one thing (among others) that pushed me to Anglicanism.

I really don't mean this as a criticism, just an observation as filtered through my own experiences.

[Mike Farley]

Mr. Batzig, you wrote:

"Pastor Thompson quotes the "Apostle's Creed" as being the doctrinal standard of the PCA. When did we downplay our confessional standards?....The "Apostle's Creed" is an ecumenical creed that marginalizes anyone who actually believes that the doctrine set forth in the WCF is "essential doctrine of Scripture."

Every affirmation of the Apostles' Creed is subsumed within the Westminster Standards. How can it be "minimizing" the Standards to quote a creed, the teaching of which is a part of those very Standards? Furthermore, Reformed folk have used the Apostles' Creed in catechesis and liturgy since the days of Calvin. They sang the Apostles' Creed in Geneva on a regular basis. Many Reformation-era catechisms (e.g., the Heidelberg Catechism, the first edition of Calvin's Institutes) used the Apostles' Creed as an outline to structure their exposition of Christian doctrine. They did this because they were affirming their catholicity and the continuity of their teaching with the early church, which formulated the ancient rule of faith from which the Apostles' Creed is derived. To cite the Apostles' Creed as a normative statement of Reformed Christian belief is a quintessentially Reformed thing to do.

[Lois Westerlund]

At times, reading through the essays and the comments, I get the impression that it one values careful and complete articulation of the whole of Biblical truth, if one values theological accuracy, and thinks it important, if one is concerned about the smallest suppression of the offense of the Cross, then one is unloving, if not paranoid and cynical. That's odd to me: it seems to blame a serious problem of the heart--lack of love--on a belief in the importance of Biblical truth! Isn't it just the opposite? Loving God's revealed truth from the heart, allowing it to constantly convict and correct leads to humility and repentance. Yes, it makes us passionate about truth, because we love God and He has spoken. Further, meditating on the wonder of our salvation furthers the love of God in our hearts, which then flows out to others in sacrifical ways, starting with our family, our brother in Christ, our next door neighbor, and on to whatever missonal niche God calls us to. We live out an ethos not of this world, from the spiritual life within.

[Nicholas T. Batzig]

Mike,

Thank you for asking me to clarify. The very fact that the Apostle's Creed is "part" (your words) of the Westminster Standards is the way that they are used to minimize. They are just that (i.e. part of the Standard)and no more. A Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, an Eastern Orthodox and a Presbyterian can all say the Apopstle's Creed together. But when it comes time to spell out what is meant, that's where it gets sticky. Furthermore, the Apostle's Creed says nothing about the doctrine of Scripture, the substitutionary death of Jesus, or the imputed righteousness of Christ (to name a few). While some would say that such a Creed is the essentials of the Christian faith, our denomination, at least at its inception, says otherwise. That was what I meant. Hope this helps.

[Tony Stiff]

Nathan thanks for the push back and time to reflect on my earlier comment. I do think Dr. Duncan's overall tone of his critique was uncynical and unpatronizing. What I thought bore the tone of that was the dismissiveness of his appraisal that I had quoted. But overall I certainly think that Dr. Duncan was cordial. My apologies if that was unclear Dr. Duncan (if you're reading these).

I would like to clarify something else, you asked, "Is epistemological humility really what's most needed in the PCA or should we be more concerned about guarding the truth?" For my part I think a denial of either of these ends in an un-renewed ethos, its got to be both and not either or. Which I imagine you would agree with.

And as far as confidence in the teachings of scripture go I heartily agree we ought to be confident and allow that confidence to move us into renewal along doctrinal, pietistic, and cultural-transformational lines.

[Ligon Duncan]

To David Wayne, thanks for the comment. Points well taken. And thanks to all who have replied so far, positively or negatively to what I’ve said. To Tony (if I may address you and others whom I do not know with this familiarity, without implying any disrespect), I hope this elaboration helps you because I certainly didn’t intend to be cynical and patronizing. BTW, I fully understand and appreciate the siutation in which this paper was given.

I'll try to watch the thread and answer other things too. To Philip, I was certainly not saying or implying that no dialogue is needed. It clearly is, and I'm participating in it. My comments are about the sine qua non of a helpful discussion. To Brian, just an aside, the Reformed (from Calvin to yesterday) have not customarily spoken of the "centrality of the sacraments" for specific reasons.

Yes, Giorgio, Greg's talk was robustly theological, but tended to focus of the personal characterological significance of the doctrine for the debater, or to assume a particular judgment of an ecclesiastical situation based upon the doctrinal exposition. The former is good and needed. The latter is what I wanted to draw attention to. We can all agree, ex animo, on parousial ambition and still vote differently at the next presbytery meeting. What then?

Let me take up Glenn’s rejoinder, because what he says is, I think, particularly important. Yes, Glenn, Greg is in somewhat of a dilemma. But it is not that if he gets specific, things will get nasty. It’s that if he gets specific, more people will disagree with his assessment of where we are and where we ought to go – because our situation is complex and our response is contingent upon tons of judgment calls. It’s not a matter of naming names (much less of calling names!), but of connecting dots between aspirations and corrections, and concrete events, issues, positions and solutions in the life of the denomination. This is because our current tensions are not just characterological (though they are often cheapened by our ungraciousness and ungodliness), they are theological, ecclesiological and methodological. So, good men, who are prepared to repent and grow in the areas in which Greg so ably and prophetically challenges us all, are also still prepared (and legitimately so) to disagree in their assessment of where we are and where we ought to go. Allow me to explain.

For instance, if we say: “I want a denomination that is less paranoid and cynical, and more hopeful.” Who, pray tell, will vote against that? I certainly won’t. If Greg’s for that, then I vote for Greg! But that’s not an actionable diagnosis or plan at the corporate level of our denominational life. Though Greg’s exposition on that point may and ought to rebuke all of us (me included) personally for past and present misconduct, and lead us to repent and ask the Lord to show us if we have acted out of either paranoia or cynicism in our service of the church, or if we have promoted paranoia or cynicism in our participation in the life and courts of the church. And though serious soul-searching there might lead to widespread attitudinal changes and more godly conduct in ecclesiastical debate. It doesn’t help us in the judgments on which good men may disagree. It won’t work for any side of the debate, or for diagnosis or prescription, because it doesn’t adequately specify the contested points of how we’re not and how we ought to live together in hopefulness, rather than in paranoia and cynicism.

So, you’d have to say something like, just to give you a for instance (entirely of my own construction without imputing the opinions thereof, real or imagined, to Greg), “we are a paranoid denomination, and the Federal Vision issue, debate and vote at GA proves it, and the women deacons debate and vote at GA proves it, but we were wrong on both of those, and I don’t want our denomination to be like that. The very fact of people raising questions about the Federal Vision is indicative of an all too common hysteria and paranoia, and a too general suspicion that people are secretly for women’s ordination kept us from having a real debate on women deacons and shows how frightened and mistrusting we are.” Ah now, that’s a different question. Many folks who would happily line up in the “I’m against paranoia” queue to sign their names, would say, “well, no, I don’t think those discussions and votes were matters of paranoia. They were appropriate to discuss and act upon and our decision was right” or “I utterly disagreed with the process and/or conclusion to those debates, but I do not see them as inherently derived from paranoia.”

Now we are into an entirely different discussion. And it is a perfectly legitimate one which ever side you take. “You are paranoid or cynical if you disagree with me or vote a certain way or have a particular theological concern” isn’t a discussion (and, just for the record, I’m not saying, implying or even remotely suggesting that Greg is saying that it is – but it is an occupational temptation for all of us preachers in church courts: “if you disagree with me, you’ve got a sin problem.”). But, “I want a denomination that will never do something like we did in the Federal Vision debate again, and we need to chart a course for a denominational life that won’t include things like that in the future” or “I thought the Federal Vision controversy ended with the right conclusion but followed the wrong process, and I’d like to see our denomination follow a better process in the future and I think that change would make for a more hopeful, trusting, happy, productive denominational life” or “I think the Federal Vision controversy was handled well and if something like it comes up again, I think we ought to handle it the same way, and I don’t see it as an impediment to our trusting mutuality and hopefulness as a people” – that’s a discussion. And any of those diagnoses could, once agreed upon, yield concrete courses of action. All three of these views (and a dozen more) would find supporters, and the debate over them would be entirely legitimate (and far more complex).

IMHO (and I think Greg would agree), one thing we need to cultivate in our denominational life is an attitude amongst the eldership with which (1) we can have a vigorous debate, and (2) I can state my case, and (3) then Tim Keller or Bryan Chapell or Greg Thompson or any other brother can say (with passion and grace): "Lig, you are wrong on this issue and the consequences of your position would be disasterous for the PCA." And then (4) the vote can be taken and I lose 90-10%, and (5) I don't have to go out and declare that the PCA is in a state of crisis because I lost a vote, and (6) I still love and regard my brothers who voted against me. We need to learn to lose a vote, with confidence in God's sovereignty and without calling into question the legitimacy of a debate that we've lost or the motives of the brothers on the other side. Personally, I lose at least one major vote in my church session per year (and I've lost count in presbytery and GA!). Looking back, I think the majority of my fellow elders got it right (and I got it wrong) about nine times out of ten. Charles Hodge, whose sandals I am not worthy to unlatch, almost never won a vote at GA in his day. He was repeatedly on the losing side.

But I’ve gone on too long already. My apologies. Hope this helps.

[GL]

I'm glad Tony already responded well to his take on Ligon's response essay, and I'm pleased as well that Ligon has engaged that vein of criticism so kindly.

And I wish I had written this a few hours ago, but Ligon addresses this in part just now. While I'm being perhaps too sensitive, I see a few word choices here and there in some of the many comments since this yesterday that reflect a "hermeneutic of suspicion" towards Tim or Ligon or towards Greg or towards one commenter or another.

I think Ligon's essay was exactly what was asked for-- poking holes where holes could be poked, asking for more from Greg to sustain his argument. That's not cynical or dismissive. That's dialogue.

I realize these discussions didn't start today or yesterday. I "get" that not only the essay writers but also the commenters have been engaged in related discussions for years, so there's a history and a context to how we perceive Greg, Tim, Ligon, and the commenters.

But naive and simplistic as this may be, I wish in this discussion we could hit "refresh" and give Greg, and Tim and Ligon and the commenters the benefit of the doubt in their phrasing. If Tim, acknowledging that he's not an historian, narrates Presbyterian history slightly off-kilter from a trained historian, does it seriously imperil his argument? If Ligon, doing as he was invited to do, illumines weaknesses in Greg's argument, is that cynical or dismissive?

I'm NOT suggesting we "all just get along." I crave the work of truth in making distinctions, and calling sin "sin, error "error", truth "truth," and beauty "beauty". I'm not suggesting sublimation of important doctrinal concerns for the sake of tone and gentility.

I am suggesting that we hit "refresh" and ask the Lord to help us SEE our brothers and sister afresh, to love them, to assess their arguments with a hermeneutic of charity, to pursue truth aggressively while simultaneously loving aggressively. If we roll our eyes at this each time, if we're too sophisticated to engage discussion "full of grace and truth,” it makes difficult the task of having helpful dialogue.

[Tony Stiff]

GL thanks for additional reflections, and Dr. Duncan I hope my reply to Nathan came through before your posting. GL I think indeed I have used a "hermeneutic of suspicion" and that does not make for furthering dialogue. Thanks for pointing that out. Dr. Duncan apologies, I do think you've underplayed the specificness of Greg's prescription for our churches ethos but I should not have suggested a dismissive tone in that. Its a gracious character of our ethos to be lead to our own faults which I've been in this convo. Thanks again, GL and Dr. Duncan.