I wrongfully neglected to write this: On the other hand, it shows a very different spirit for the men of the RPCNA to host this discussion of issues and invite/allow “FV spokesmen” to engage various questions. I’m disappointed that various substantive issues have not been engaged as much as I’d like, but that’s beside the point. The RPCNA is acting like a real church in this matter.

Josh, you got me, but I’ve long advocated, maybe even in your presence, that seminary education should be conducted by the church. But one difference between a seminary and FV is that the seminary we might be thinking of is not rocking the boat the way FV is. That seminary is actually trying to defend and maintain the Reformed tradition, not highlight the tensions (either actual or imagined) in it.

Barlow, sorry but I can’t be of much help with the PCA. I have enough on my plate in the OPC. As far as the revision of the WCF goes, I regret this one doesn’t qualify by your criteria. It does show that reform from within is possible. Maybe the Iraq conflict will help current revisionists.

Your second reason works by comparing the approach taken by FV pastors with an approach appropriate to an idealized ecclesiology that doesn’t exist in the PCA. There are no church doctors in the PCA and we can hardly even agree if ministers are a separate office from elders. Where are the denominational structures that train theologians? Exegetes? If it weren’t for Catholics, secular universities, and independent seminaries, most reformed denominations in the US would have no “doctors” - Ph.D. or otherwise. At least the PCA has a denominational seminary, even if it is not a Ph.D. granting institution - if these professors at Covenant were treated with the respect due to doctors of the church, then the whole FV controversy would never have gotten as far as it has in the PCA. Ask any big name in the PCA who the de facto doctors of the church are, and you will get a variety of answers. Can you seriously envision Ligon Duncan submitting to the theological judgment of Robert Peterson or Jack Collins?

The 1789 revisions only took place after one of the most significant turning points in the history of the nation… hardly an example of a regular process of self-criticism and reform. And Vatican II was in 1965; we out-Rome Rome in our clinging to prior modes of expression and an unwillingness to restate, reformulate, or even simply readopt-with-stipulations these expressions.

So, please, give us a break here. You accuse the FV people, who are fully committed churchmen, of not embodying the church because they have been viciously attacked by men who have not one ounce of churchmanship.

Luther was treated far better by the Pope. Rome at that time was far more of a Church than either the PCA or the OPC are today.

Second, every bit of theology and exegesis is fully overseen by the church. Unless you means that it must be run by a committee of some sect. In which case, Darryl, I ask again what committee of your sect reads and oversees your work before it’s published?

Get real.

On what grounds do you say that “its members have a hard to [sic] embodying it [high ecclesiology] in their own personal communions or within the group itself”? The group is not intended to “embody” ecclesiology, since the group is not a church! And, again, the communions they are a part of do seem, from what I have seen, to embody high ecclesiology. Have you read Jeff Meyers’ book? Have you attended Christ Church?

And, wait a minute. I’ve been at another place that does theology and exegesis: seminary! But it wasn’t directly overseen by the church, was it? Which local board of elders served as the board of governors at Westminster California? To which denominational assembly does it report? The various professors and students there are the ones who are overseen by the church: is that sufficient? Well, each representative of the FV is overseen by a presbytery or church. So, if the FV has to be overseen by a specific local body, why doesn’t ACE or WSC?

So, whichever one of Darryl’s characterizations is taken, I still don’t see his point. Sure, the FV is a bible study: but it is not even trying to replace the church. Maybe it is like ACE: but it’s still not replacing the church. No one in the FV is trying to replace the church: rather they have this conversation, then return to their local congregations to “lift the local communions of its members into more vigorous and more substantial identities that would give the modern Reformed church a bit of an earlier pre-modern or anti-modern feel.” Yes, it is an affinity group: but notice that almost none of the FV figures are in the same church. They gather with like-minded men to study, then they return to the local congregations, where the real work goes on. Isn’t that exactly what ACE does? So why is it bad for the FV to be like ACE?

As to an earlier question you had about how to change a tradition from within, American Presbyterians revised the Westminster Confession in 1789. Few may be aware of it. Even John Murray in a report for the OPC cited 31.5 of the confession. After 1789 31.5 did not exist because they eliminated 31.2. Traditions change all the time. Just look at Vatican II.

At the same time, why is it the fault of the “federal vision” that it isn’t a church? Why would it occur to you to judge the federal vision conversation on the basis of its similarity or dissimilarity to the institution “church”?

What would a theological motion to presbytery look like? What would be moved? Do we have any examples or precedents where this has happened outside of the context of a judicial case or an allegation of heresy or error?