Pastor Stellman
Let it be known that I take no joy in this post. I do not know Jason Stellman, nor have I read his defense of Two-Kingdom theology. I have interacted with him from time to time on his blog, and I have seen some of his work as the prosecutor of Peter Leithart. On the whole, I have both appreciated and disagreed with what I have read from Jason Stellman. That, however, is nothing unique. What is fairly unique is that Jason Stellman, a PCA minister, has defected from the Gospel. You can read his letter to the clerk of the PCA’s NW Presbytery on his blog. My point here is not to engage with Stellman’s reasons for rejecting the very heart of the Reformation (sola scriptura et sola fide). I read his reasons and scratched my head. I’m no heavy-weight scholar, but these reasons he offered for denying the final authority of the Bible and for rejecting the doctrine of justification by faith alone seem pretty trivial. I know that everything is complicated when one takes the time to examine it closely. The Solas of the Reformation are no exception. However, the truths that he’s rejecting are fundamental, and the reasons he offers for rejecting them are pretty lame. All in all, this is a sad situation.
Two things come to mind. First, let us more and more learn humility. Let us humbly trust Christ our Savior. In the final analysis, we have nothing but Christ. He is our righteousness. He is our life. He is our Savior. We continue in the kindness of God by his grace. Let us not be proud, but fear. The Root supports us; let us, in humble faith, cling to that Root.
Second thing is a plea for fair play. When the Federal Vision controversy broke in 2002, I was in seminary. I was so deeply disgusted with the way Reformed brothers in Christ treated each other, that I decided not to seek to enter the full-time, ordained ministry. (Full disclosure: there were other factors that played into that decision, but the FV fiasco was a major one.) I saw tremendous amounts of pride and precious little love on both sides of the controversy. This is probably still the case, and it is a travesty.
Pastor Leithart
As for the plea for fair play, think about Pastor Stellman and what he represents. He’s one of the anti-FV poster-boys in the PCA. He’s a Westminster-trained, two-kingdom guru. He’s the prosecutor against Peter Leithart, who’s been tried over issues related to the FV. (See Pastor Leithart’s response to Stellman’s defection at his blog.) Stellman’s one of the men on the ecclesiastical front lines against the FV, which is accused of greasing the slides for the return to Rome. That irony is pretty rich.
**UPDATE** I have been admonished that I have misrepresented Pastor Stellman, this maybe better: “To be fair to Stellman, he has not made the slide to Rome charge against Leithart, or other FV’ers. Specifically, the charge of Stellman’s prosecution was that Leithart’s position was Lutheran, not WCF” (Thanks to Reed – see the comments). My point was not so much that Stellman himself accused Leithart or FVers of heading toward Rome, but that such an accusation is VERY common.
Now, consider: What do you suppose would happen if a high-profile FV leader denied two of the Solas of the Reformation? I suspect that, for starters, the “TR” pundits would be falling all over themselves to show how the FV is really just Romanism for beginners. But Stellmans is one of their boys, and not just one of them; he’s one of their point men.
I hope that Pastor Stellman’s decision to defect from the Gospel will have a salutary effect upon the Reformed churches. Hopefully, it will be the cause of humility for all. Maybe theological opponents will take extra care actually to listen to each other and spend less time talking past one another. Maybe tactics like guilt by association and name calling will diminish. In short, maybe this will inspire more fair play in theological debate. I pray that it will.
Tim,
My thoughts exactly.
Excellent word Tim! I think that’s a good admonition for us all!
Hi Tim.
Interesting thoughts and a good call to humility and decorum in theological debate.
I think the rhetoric of Dr. Leithart’s reply proves that fair play is still elusive for some of the protagonists.
Brandon
Just sad….
Good word, Tim. Thanks.
Brandon, I thought Leithart’s comments were irenic enough seeing that the chief prosecutor accusing him of going to Rome is, indeed, going to Rome! What’s more, I think his points are thoughtful and meet. Even great things (like our Standards) can be handled wrongly. There is a way that the Reformed can hold to history that is similar to the Romanist view of tradition. Sola scriptura is a delicate balancing act.
I suppose, Tim–if there’s an irenic way of saying, “I told you so.”
There’s just one more thing I wanted to point out. Stellman was not accusing Leithart of going to Rome. Stellman was accusing him of variance with Presbyterian interpretation of Scripture as reflected in the Westminster Standards. So, I’m afraid that Leithart only lets on that he bristles at being held to the Standards that he vowed to uphold. His reaction to Stellman’s departure is therefore little more than misguided and petulant.
Fair enough, Brandon. The irony still remains, however, that the man prosecuting Leithart of being at variance with a specific Protestant Standard (indeed, Leithart’s Standard – no denying it) is, himself, found to be denying, not just the Standard (to which he also vowed), but the two fundamental issues of Protestantism in toto. The Prosecutor denies Protestantism itself, while the Defendant bristles under a particular confession of it. At the end of the day (at any rate, right now), one man has denied sola scriptura et sola fide, while the other man still holds to both.
Honestly, Brandon, Leithart makes me nervous. You know me, and you know my convictions (at least to some degree). But, while Leithart makes me nervous, Stellman makes me want to weep. Leithart has been an open book throughout, but Stellman been a dark horse. He’s moved from Captain Protestant Prosecutor to Paddling-Up-The-Tiber. Leithart is the one who hasn’t changed… that’s both settling and unsettling to me. The world’s a strange place. We should, you and I, have a cigar sooner rather than later.
Jason Stellman and Fair Play
So who didn’t play fairly?
Jason Stellman?
Truth Unites, my fair play had to do with theological discourse in Reformed circles, not so much with Stellman and his specific situation
Tim,
Leithart’s remarks were not irenic at all. Even more, the ideal of fair play is hopelessly undermined if it’s mixed with tit for tat. By the standard of the golden rule, Leithart does himself no credit in saying that while it is over the top to say that he is leaning toward Rome it’s actually okay to say that his critics’ position makes them especially susceptible. To paraphrase, if it isn’t good for the goose, it isn’t good for the gander.
The same goes for the commitment to the confessions. Here Leithart seems to be tilting at straw men. I am sure Leithart’s critics would be surprised at the notion that they were placing the Westminster Confession alongside the word of God (rather than subordinate to it). Or, that they weren’t seeking to enforce adherence to the Confession precisely because it faithfully summarized the word of God. In the same way, Leithart oversimplifies things by arguing that he makes biblical arguments; his opponents, arguments based on the traditions of men. That’s nothing but to say “heads I win, tails you lose.”
I agree that there must be more heat than light in this discussion. Leithart’s reaction to Stellman’s implosion, however, is another example of insulting one’s opponents rather than engaging them.
Brandon, you are an old friend and you’ve been around Reformed circles for many years. I don’t think that Leithart is merely tilting at windmills. There most certainly is a way in which ANY historical document can be held that will undermine the final authority of the Bible. You know me, brother, and you know that I love the Reformed confessions. You know that I’m submit to the Westminster Standards and have a deep love for the Three Forms of Unity. One does not need to progress past the first chapter of the WCF to recognize that to be confessional, one need first be biblical. As I said, sola scriptura is a difficult balancing act, but it comes down to this: what rules, Scripture or some human standard? I know that every heretic has his verse. This IS the balancing act. This is Protestantism. This is Christianity.
Tim,
I am grateful for the knowledgeable zeal the Lord has given you brother. It is an inspiration to me. I guess if I’m trying to labor any point it’s this: it’s one thing to warn against putting man’s word above God’s word. It’s a whole other ballgame to say that one’s opponents would “get it” if they simply quit idolizing man’s word. I just seems that interest in fair play would preclude that kind of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides. Leithart seems to surreptitiously neutralize certain criticism as long as he can associate it however tenuously with a caricature of slavery to the traditions of men (i.e., the Westminster Confession, which btw, about which he did take certain vows). “But hey, if my opponents idolize man’s word, who cares what they think?” That’s just how what Leithart wrote sounded to me. Like I said, that’s a straw man.
The point that we maintain Sola Scriptura even to the point of self-critical reflection on our Reformed tradition is well taken. But there’s more to the FV controversy than that.
Brandon, there is certainly more to the FV than self-critical reflection, to be sure. There is more to Peter Leithart himself than that. He has both made me nervous (mostly in personal correspondence) and made me very excited. He is certainly a learned and gracious brother (even by the assessment of his opponents – Jason Stellman, for example). It’s possible that (in that blog article) he’s dismissing all opposition by associating them with slavery to men, all the while painting himself as the pristine Bible man, but I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s painting with that broad of a brush. It’s certainly fair to say that some of the opposition to Leithart has been motivated by less-than-thought-out commitment to tradition. (It’s also quite possible that Leithart doesn’t have the best grip on the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition.) In any event, his blog article (ISTM) identifies a certain problematic trajectory of the more hard-core confessionalists. I quite agree with his assessment of that trajectory (or, better, possible trajectory). I don’t, however, necessarily agree with Leithart’s style of confessionalism, partially because I’m not sure what it is!
Like (your thoughts).
Tim: maybe a better representation would be to say that Stellman says Leithart is Lutheran, not WCF’ian. Stellman never said, or hinted for that matter, that Leithart was heading toward Rome.
Agreed that humility and gentleness is the rule for us all in this debate. Agreed that some on both sides crowed loudly about the slippery slopes on the other side. Your characterization of Jason, however, is not quite consistent with his own public behavior. FWIW.
Thanks, Reed. I will certainly rework anything in the post that misrepresents Stellman. Please elaborate further, sir. Thanks!
BTW, my mentions of the impression of Leithart heading toward Rome were not impressions gained from Pastor Stellman at all. They are impressions of the general attitude toward the FV and Leithart specifically. As I mentioned in the post, I don’t know Jason and have never spoken with him. I’ve seen him in the flesh once and corresponded with him on his blog a few times; that’s all.
Tim: you’ve said,
“Stellman’s one of the men on the ecclesiastical front lines against the FV, which is accused of greasing the slides for the return to Rome. That irony is pretty rich.”
It seems that it might be in keeping with the tone you’re promoting to add some note of qualification, e.g.,
“To be fair to Stellman, he has not made the slide to Rome charge against Leithart, or other FV’ers. Specifically, the charge of Stellman’s prosecution was that Leithart’s position was Lutheran, not WCF.”
Otherwise, you give the impression that Stellman himself accuses the FV of being a slippery slope to Rome. It would be quite unfair to Stellman to leave such an impression of hypocrisy hanging out there, when he is guilty of nothing like that. He maybe be guilty on other fronts. I’ll let others make that case. In this regard, he is not.
All I meant.
Thanks, Reed. I’ve updated this to correct any misrepresentation. I appreciate you bringing that up, brother.
One could conclude that any relationship with Leithart leads to Rome, even a prosecutorial one.
On a more serious note, I did not find Leithart’s response irenic. It read to me as an “I told you so,” and “These confession people are bad guys.”
Nice joke! It was an I-told-you-so, to be sure, but I think it was non-combative. I also think that it wasn’t so much that confessional people are bad, but rather that there are certain ways of holding to the confessions that are very close to the way that Rome holds to tradition. At least, it seems, he wants to label this hard-core confessionalism as a gateway drug to Popery.
Thanks for the second, Pastor Tito.
Tim, I mean, come on, you might think I’m just ranting here, but Pastor Tito too?!
I think you may be guilty of calumny for saying Jason ” has defected from the Gospel.” Have you spoken with him and asked him if he no longer believes that Christ died on the cross for his salvation? Perhaps you hold to “another gospel” than the one that most of Christendom accepts as the Truth for 2000 years. http://youtu.be/Vu4eRverZbg
TrueFaith2, thanks for the comment and thanks for visiting my blog. I have not spoken with Jason, as I mentioned in the post. As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s a great deal of theological content behind the affirmation that “Christ died on the cross for his salvation.” What’s more Christendom doesn’t define the Gospel – it never has. Hopefully, Christendom has *defended* the Gospel, but God’s very revelation in his Word defines the Gospel. The Apostle Paul himself said that the Galatians had departed from the Gospel, as they wanted to add some human effort to their justification before God. The Galatians held to a different gospel, for it did not conform to what Paul had preached to them. Again, this TRUTH is not defined by the church but by God’s very Word, the Scripture.
Tim:
I have to disagree. Scripture is exceedingly clear on what the gospel is, unless you want to “add on” to Saint Paul’s definition. This post here will explain that the gospel is very clear and jason has not denied it. He has denied what reformed people “believe” what the gospel is. http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-jason-stellman-deny-gospel.html
[...] of mine (I hope we become friends, but it’s too early to call him a friend) has made some comments on this blog with reference to my claim that Jason Stellman has denied the Gospel as he has [...]
Hello Tim,
Which verse of the Bible do you think Stellman has denied?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Hey, Bryan, nice to run into you again. I’ve appreciated our discussions before (also my discussions with Tim Troutman). I hope and pray that God will bless us both in our pursuit of the Truth of God.
Truth be told, Bryan, I don’t know what “verse” Stellman’s denied. In broad terms, he’s explicitly denied or repudiated the formal cause of the Reformation – resting in God’s written revelation as the final arbiter in via. He’s also denied the material cause of the Reformation, sola-fide justification. There are a number of “verses” that come together to teach these two doctrines. I’m quite interested to see what Stellman does now. I’m sure he’ll produce a goodly number of articles to substantiate his move away from historic Protestantism. I can’t remember your history, Bryan, but since you’re associated with CTC, I’m sure that you were once a Protestant, too. I admire the courage it takes to follow one’s convictions. I just think that such convictions don’t square with God’s revelation in the Bible.
Hello Tim,
I know there are verses you would appeal to to support sola fide, but here’s what see. I see you refer to “his decision to defect from the Gospel.” I also see Jason continuing to affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. I also see you saying, in your follow-up post, “I say that the final court of appeal is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.” So Jason affirms the truth of every verse of the Bible. You also affirm the truth of every verse of the Bible. Your interpretation differs from his. But you hold that the Holy Spirit is guiding you to your interpretation, but you assume that the Holy Spirit is not guiding him to his, since he has, in your opinion, defected from the Gospel. It seems like special pleading to call your interpretation “the Gospel,” and then co-opt the Spirit in support of your interpretation, and deny the work of the Spirit in those who arrive at different interpretations and, who, by your stipulated definition of your interpretation as “the Gospel,” have defected from “the Gospel.” Don’t you think?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, I’m not thinking quite so subjectively as you let on. However, right now I have kids to play with, beer to drink, and a date to hook up with my wife. All of which are pretty important. More than that, tomorrow is the Lord’s Day, and I have to be ready to rock. So, I will plan on getting back with you early next week. I wish you a wonderful Lord’s Day, Bryan. You are in my prayers, and I hope I am in yours.
Nice set-up! Yes, yes, we know how, non-sequitur like, the truth of Rome’s interpretation “follows” from this cleverly constructed dilemma. I can definitely say after years of observing Roman and Eastern proselytizers in action online, they are delightfully predictable.