I well remember the “great unpleasantness” of 1992. Believe me, you were PNG in my family for a while. But it is very good to be able to talk about these things, and acknowledge that most if not all of us on the various sides are acting in good faith to be faithful to our Lord, to the truth, to one another as best as we can, despite our failings. I believe that is true of this conversation as well.

However, this circumstance is what makes a binding tradition so important. It is like a marriage where divorce is not an option. In some respects, it frees us to fight hard and (hopefully) fair in the service of a mutually shared love and affection which will ultimately, though perhaps not in the moment, be seen to have been more important and more binding than the fight and the differences and hurts that it caused.

Absent this binding community, however, the situation either devolves into the N.I.C.E. of the evangelical world where everything is fought passive-aggressively and no mean words are ever spoken, or, the kinds of schisms that happen in aggressive-aggressive fights which are not umbrella-ed by a deeply rooted commitment to a particular historical community that is grounded in something more than ideas; it is grounded in shared memory, kinship, and mutual struggle and achievement.

I don’t disagree with some of the procedural history you give here. And I know that the “old ways” are not constitutional. That is precisely why they are important. Remember, I don’t accept a purely constitutional church.

And yes, our current situation is indeed ironic. What can I say? Life is messy.

As one who is quite sympathitic to the old RP Ways, and submitted to Vow 8 for the sake of France, um, I mean, ordination, I appreciate your comments here. We should not be the Frat Boy version of FV.

On the other hand, I think that the debate and discussion on Vow 8 was carried on with due submission. Every one who was debating the issue was someone who had already submitted to the TA Vow. While I, myself, ocassionally could go too far in any direction-on the RIGHT:
I argued vehemently against allowing CROSSES in the places of worship, arguing that the committee assigned to handle this topic had short changed the Larger Catechism;
I also argued strongly to force Jack White to withdraw his signature from Roman Catholics & Evangelicals Together;
I argued strongly to have some Cornerstones Seminars (actually your mom’s) teaching at Carleton 1992 shut down, penning a resolution which was adopted (Though modified later…what they ended up doing worked out better, and was more gentle and righteous). I aruged strongly that the RPCNA should enforce its own standards on the length of creation days, etc…ALL because I believed strongly in the position of the Church on its various stated confessional and subordinate standards, though I admit that I had a conservative spin on these stances.

ON THE “LEFT”: I argued vehemently in favor of a judicial decision to stop enforcing Vow 8 in 1995. This after a number of Synods had sent down in Overture to the Sessions (note for Non RPs – the RPs don’t go to the Presbyteries to revise the Subordinate Standards which have the status of fundamental doctrine; they go to the Session so that the Ruling elders are guaranteed a full and equal vote – that way waves of novelties coming out of the seminaries, or whatever, will not overwhelm the people in their own convictions – and note – the RPCNA has done a LOT of radical revision of her views in an orderly fashion ever since she was founded, especially since 1871) the revision of vow 8, and it failed to win the 2/3 majority necessary by one split session’s vote. It was like a debate at a tennis match – is “on the line” inside or outside? But, the point was that as a court the Synod had a responsibility not to enforce something which she had determined judicially and exegetically not to be valid. Synod cleaned this up later. Yes, it was a bit hard on some of the affections of some of the members who held to the tee-total position. However, it was not hard on the people who actually subscribed to the denomination’s stated views of the matter. THe RPCNA never adopted theoretical tee-totalism. IT was always a matter of curbing the exercise of our own Christian Liberty for the sake of something seen as a social good, to take a corporate stand against drunkeness.

So, remember, Caleb, that the “Old ways” and the common perceptions of the people in the pew do not necessarily have constitutional status.

But, please recognize that some of us have a full and deeply affectionate sense of these things. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am thankful for your guarding the old ways. But it is ironic that you (and EPC elder) and I (an ARP Pastor) are the ones concerned for the old ways of the RPs in the face of all the young RP Pastors here who didn’t live through these things the same way you did (as a kid) and I did, as a somewhat earlier member and minister of the denomination.

Ironic forms of traditionalism, eh?

The RPCNA of my ancestors and my youth struck, so far as I can tell, a very healthy balance between seriousness and playfulness; limits and freedom; obedience and choice. The “gains,” such as they are, of the recent “wet” RPCNA, do not take into account the deep losses that come along with such “progress.” The point is not to drink or not to drink, it is that innovators rarely stop to consider what is being lost and what damage is being done. This is relevant to our FV discussion.

I can’t agree that alcoholic beverages have done wondrous things for the RPCNA. Not because I’m a teetotaler. I’m not. But because the old ways have been uncerimoniously kicked to the curb. The order has been shaken without a lot of thought for its health, only thought for our “Christian liberty.” As such, the social authority of the community to bind the allegiance and adherence of its membership has been reduced. I remember the Synod debates on this issue, and most of the arguments for change were offered in exactly the same spirit of radical liberty of conscience that Mr. Meyers has provided elsewhere in this discussion.

Sorry to throw a damper on the booze-fest, but this is an important and relevant point, I think. Now, if anyone wants to invite me to a real booze-fest, I will be an enthusiastic participant. Just ask Darryl.