And Being Nice Ends...

The Committee of Commissioners on MTW (CoC MTW), whose responsibility it is to provide representational supervision to the Permanent Committee on MTW, overwhelmingly voted to restore the Potomac Presbytery's language in their overture which called for the General Assembly to erect a Study Committee on Insider Movements. This is perhaps the most important theological issue for the evangelical church in our time and most of our churches and churchmen are largely ignorant of the issue.

When the CoC MTW presented its report, the chairman of the Permanent Committee moved that the section of the CoC report dealing with the Study Committee was out of order, effectively seeking to wipe it off of the Assembly's business without debate. The chairman found the chairman's motion in order and a commissioner from the floor challenged the ruling of the moderator. The commissioner challenging the chair admitted that the chair was probably technically correct, as was Dr. David Coffin, the perennial procedural watchdog who weighed in supporting the moderator. But, the commissioner said, this was a issue wherein the letter of the law was being used to kill debate on an issue of vital importance.

The Assembly almost overturned the Moderator's ruling - very unusual since the commissioner argued that Moderator was in fact right.

With the issue now headed to the dustbin for the next year, another commissioner moved to recommit the item back to the CoC MTW to fix the technical problem with their resolution. An explanation here is in order. The CoC on MTW was RESTORING the language of the Potomac Presbytery. But they formatted it wrong and it was considered "new business", which it wasn't, and it was ruled out of order without debate.

Another commissioner moved to recommit the business to the CoC MTW so that the Committee could "fix" the formatting errors and bring it back to the Assembly. This was certainly a brotherly solution to the problem. The Chairman of the Permanent Committee immediately spoke against the motion to recommit.

While this all may sound confusing, it isn't that hard to understand. The Potomac Presbytery gave an Overture to the General Assembly expecting (or at least hoping) that the Assembly would get to vote on their whole Overture. The Permanent Committee is a small group of men who necessarily function in very close relationship with Dr. Paul Kooistra. The Permanent Committee, together with Dr. Kooistra decided that a Study Committee was not the best way to deal with the issue (and there's NO disagreement that the denomination should stand against radical Movements) and deleted it from Potomac's motion. The Committee of Commissioners, which is a large body of men appointed from their presbyteries to oversee the work of the Permanent Committee restored the Study Committee to the Overture so that the whole Assembly could debate it and vote on it.

The Assembly overwhelmingly voted to allow the CoC MTW to fix the formatting problems and bring their concerns and motion to the floor for open debate.

Please pray that the men of the Assembly will judge these matters on biblical principles and be led by the Spirit in love.

More Truth Comes Out

The Aquila Report reveals that the "emperor has no clothes" so to speak. Clements writes:

Dr. Kooistra was invited to explain CMTW’s recommendation of removal of the study committee from the overture. MTW had issued a statement saying that a committee was unnecessary given the fact that MTW was already equipped to assist churches deal with insider movement issues. Upon further questioning, Dr. Kooistra said that the statement did not originate from him and was not strictly accurate. Further questions determined that materials available through MTW were very minimal and included much material that was written by insider movement advocates.

Is this really the best that we can do? With the wonderful Study Reports that the PCA has produced on Creation and Marriage should we not produce one on the most important theological issue of our time? Should we not bring to the table some of our wonderful theologians, missiologists, Islam experts and missionaries and produce a report that MTW and our churches can use in thinking through these vitally important issues?

Read the entire Aquila Report article here.

Note: Dr. Kooistra is not the "emperor" here, the idea that MTW has produced all of the needed materials on Insider Movements is.

Correction

With the Assembly Internet currently down I'm correcting a post from earlier today. A friend who is one of the Former Insider experts at MTW asked me to correct my statement that he claimed that MTW didn't have any studies on the Insider Movement. He said that Dr. Kooistra states that he has three articles on the Movement. I initially thought that meant Mr. Kooistra has WRITTEN three articles, but it turns out that he simply HAS three articles, presumably for distribution to interested parties. Maybe this is the material that MTW "has available to the churches to help evaluate Insider Movements"?

All of this seems a far cry from level of study and evaluation most pastors would expect from our denomination concerning the most important theological/missiological issue of our time...

MTW has puzzling opposition to Study Committee on Insider Movements

On May 9 of this year the Committee on MTW passed a resolution recommending to the GA that it PASS the overture condemning "Insider" Bible translations but STRIKE the language calling for a study committee. The rationale is, in their own words, "MTW has conducted extensive research and has numerous resources and tools available to
assist local churches in evaluating insider movements."

What is the "Insider Movement"? Well, in some forms, it's bad, bad, bad... It's heresy, and we're not talking about paedocommunion heresy or Federal Vision heresy (which don't really fit the category of heresy) - it's completely give up the Gospel heresy and destroy the Church in the Islamic World, straight from the Pit of Hell heresy. Insider Movements tell Muslims that they can be good Muslims and believe in Jesus. They don't have to join a church, reject Mohammed, or get baptized. All they have to do is believe in Jesus. Brothers and sisters, since Islam is a religion created explicitly to reject Judaism and Christianity, that would be like saying that you can be a Christian and a Satanist (except you'd do a LOT less harm to others as a Satanist).

What my missiologist friends are telling me is that the Insider Movement, rather than adding to the number of Christians, is growing by luring Christians out of churches! There are also rumblings that MTW has been less than vigorous in dealing with this in the mission field. Now, Paul Kooistra (head of MTW) has apparently rejected Insider theology without reservation and written a short article or two about it. The problem is that there are Insider experts who are criticizing MTW's manner of dealing with this issue.

Do we really need a denominational study committee on this? Here are some reasons why we MUST have a study committee.

1) While they are claiming that they have material available to the churches, I wrote them as a pastor of a church asking for it and got no response. People I know who are "in the know" say that there's nothing they have besides an article or two by Dr. Kooistra. Maybe they have more, but they aren't giving them to the churches.

2) Since there's some rumbling about the cleanliness of MTW's hands in all of this, it would be most proper for people outside of MTW to deal with this. Not that MTW is always concerned about proper accountability and being beyond reproach in appearances. This is the agency which has Dr. Kooistra's brother as CFO (Dr. Kooistra controls the organization and his brother controls the money). My wife is a CPA and she doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the church finances because of the possible appearance of impropriety. It is important with money, but even more with the accurate teaching of the Gospel.

3) This is THE most significant theological issue since inerrancy. Do we wish to be asleep at the switch when this train comes bursting out of the tunnel?

GA 2011 Virginia Beach

Well, next week is the PCA General Assembly. I'll be blogging during the Assembly (GA) again; I hope more than last year - it'll keep me from speaking as much. This year's GA is in Virginia Beach - nice. The best deal my assistant could find was a beachfront cabin near the Assembly. [[Turns out, beachfront is not so beachfront. 10 minutes from the beach.] Life is hard.

Here are some initial impressions on the issues for this year:

1) Funding of the Administrative Committee - Last year's debate centered on AC funding and the vision for our denomination. The supporters of the AC were able to push the plan through, very painfully. The rancor left a bad taste in everyone's mouths and it got voted down resoundingly in the Presbyteries. I have no idea why the members of the AC thought is was appropriate for our denominational employees to come up with a plan to force us to give money for their initiatives and salaries and then decide how to punish or "forgive" individual churches. Aren't we supposed to be telling them what to do and not vice versa?

2) Vision for the PCA - The "powers that be," who for good and ill got us where we are today and consist mostly of middle-aged white guys, are going to continue to "lead us" in adopting strategies to reach racial and ethnic minorities, young people and the poor. They will be largely opposed by pastors who work with racial and ethnic minorities, young people and the poor. Since the pastors who matter most are the ones who pastor the largest and wealthiest churches, the wealthy pastors and their friends in the AC and other denominational agencies (which they control), they will likely continue to take the lead in fixing the problems which they have both identified and created. We all hope that this year they actually use data in examining the problems and Scripture in looking for solutions.

3) Heresy in Missions - The "Insider Movement," which is a missiological strategy for reaching Muslims by telling them they do not have to leave Islam, join a church or get baptized, has been a hot topic for discussion in mission circles. One presbytery has submitted an overture condemning an Insider Bible Translation and calling for a study committee.

I have been told by a reliable source that Mission to the World (MTW), our denominational mission board, supports the condemnation of the translation but not the study committee because they have already studied the issue. Don't take my secondhand report as gospel, but if it is true (which will be revealed on the floor, most likely) there are several troubling things to consider. [Update: On May 9, the Committee on MTW passed a resolution making minor editorial changes to the motion on the translation and striking the erection of a study committee. The language is troubling indeed: "Rationale for Omitting the Study Committee MTW has conducted extensive research and has numerous resources and tools available to assist local churches in evaluating insider movements."

First, one of MTW's experts on Insider Movements left MTW in frustration over the issue, dissatisfied over MTW's handling of Insider situations in the field.

Second, I contacted MTW weeks ago for copies of their "studies" on the issue and have never received any response. Do any actual studies exist? Their former expert says "no."

Third, Dr. Paul Kooistra is a godly man and an effective administrator and fund raiser, but he's no theologian or missiologist. With the most important controversy in missions now brewing, we need to bring in the big guns in scholarship and missions. And, since a study committee would examine our denomination's involvement with Insider Movements, it would warn us or clear MTW of any problems. But if MTW is doing all of the examination, the fox is watching the henhouse.

Of course this is a common failing in our denomination, witness the placement of Bryan Chapell (the head of our seminary) on the Standing Judicial Committee. Denominations almost always fall by way of the seminaries, so why would you put the head of the seminary on the commission whose purpose it is to provide judicial oversight over the seminary? In the PCA it doesn't matter, because they're all Good People - until they're not.