The OPC Project

So what's the solution?

I find that view of the OPC as very cynical and simplistic. I find the fact that the OPC was in essence kicked out of its original denom to be one of its cool points.

I respect the proverbial line in the sand Machen and his cronies drew especially in the face of growing liberalism which we can see how it has racked the PCUSA which is a denom that has really let its people down by not having a backbone on the hard cultural issues.

I think its a matter of early protestantism looking at the church of the preprotestant era and realizing that the Catholic church was not a Bible believing church at all, but more a cultural institution that sought to keep the Word away from the people and serve its own interests through the spread of "its" kingdom, not HIS kingdom.

I think you're only looking at one side of the picture, the bad side. Americanization of Christianity is a problem to some extent, and to a lot of extent. And in a lot of ways bringing denomiations together should be pursued, however not at the cost of sound biblical doctrine. That's why the OPC PCA seperation has been something i've found as somewhat perplexing. It seems they're on the same page but won't come together when they should. Maybe its all about people desiring power and control.

but we can talk about this more in person

I don't think disunity with one's brothers is a good thing. There's an argument that can be made (a bad one, I think, but an argument nonetheless) that different denoms is not disunity, but as a general Christian principle unity is still something we should have, period. I think this extends to "The Church" as an institution also.

I think you think it's "cool" because you're an American and a Protestant, not because there exists Biblical warrant to think so.

Your paragraph 3: now who's being cynical?

My feeling is that we either value tradition, unity, and apostolic authority or you have a religious free for all. My feeling is the justification for the existence of the OPC is the same justification that can be applied to any person/church/movement etc., in other words it's a religious free for all.

The problem in the protestant church is that there exists no body or authority by which to judge theological disputes or to enact comprehensive governance or discipline. It all comes down to our individual interpretations of Scripture, and from that comes our individual moral impetus. That's why a protestant session, if it's being consistent, has no grounds for telling any person who believes they are *right* about something Biblically that they are either (in an authoritative fashion) wrong or that they can't leave a church. Hence, it's a free for all.

Josiah - I'm generally with you here, but the difficulty comes in trying to put this unity into practice. What are you willing to do for unity? Are you willing to sit under the preaching of a female pastor or priest? Are you willing to worship Christ through the consecrated host? Are you willing to tolerate people speaking in tongues in the middle of worship? Are you willing to submit to the parish rules and attend church in your parish that has no church discipline and tolerates fifty different couples cohabiting without saying anything to them? Are you willing to accept the authenticity of the apocryphal books and sit under preaching about them? Are you willing to participate in prayers to dead Christians asking them to take a message to Jesus for you?

I put it like this to point out that like any value, "unity" has to be weighed against other values. It doesn't override purity, or ethics, or maybe even concerns about your children. Do you know what kind of religious upbringing you'd be subjecting your children to in 80% of Catholic parishes (just guessing on the percentage there)?

I sort of take a more practical approach, at least for now. I've gotta bloom where I'm planted. And I also think that there needs to still be a Protestant witness - a parallel, prophetic voice calling the Roman Catholic church back to true catholicism. The fragmentation of the Protestant witness is sad, but as far as it depends on me, I want to be friendly with other Protestants from all traditions while still not giving up on the idea that Protestantism has some part to play in these early years of the Christian church (in 40,000 years, 2005 will still be the 'early church', don't you think?)

Barlow,
Your response seems to imply that if we were in a church within which bad stuff is happening, our only responses are to stand by mutely or to leave.
This does not seem to have a real Biblical basis, as the epistles offer a host of other options on how to deal with our sin and our brothers within our own specific churches without simply leaving them.
I am much more sympathetic to folks who get thrown out of a liberal church for speaking the truth than to those who forsake it.

I don't even know what the OPC project is, but I do know that there are a lot of flat-out wrong teachings about the Catholic church floating around on this page and in the Protestant church in general. Most of the arguments above that view the Catholic church in a negative light are straw men. I don't have time to explain why, but would like to later. You should, however, look at what people actually believe before you base your own beliefs on a negative version of those so-called other beliefs.

Well Josiah would you put all the power in one man? A Pope perhaps who's edicts are interpreted with Devine authority?

Also I'm not being cynical, merely historical. Its a historical judgement on the state of the preprotestant church. Even the Catholic church recognizes for the most part that its state prior to the reformation was inherrently flawed and corrupt from the top down. I.E. indulgences, inquisition, the power of bishops and priests in townships, etc.

I think the Matthew 10:14 describes how Luther approached the Reformation: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Luther indeed did try to reform the church, but the church would not heed his wisdom. Roman Catholic who were sympathetic to Luther even tried to attend the Council of Trent however were barred from having any say or vote. Now one could make the argument that Luther should have endured persecution and even death for the cause of his reforming the Roman Church, but would he be cannonized by the church for being a martyr for his beliefs? Probably not because he challenged and questioned the powers at be.

However, I feel after studying Roman Catholicism and being a catholic for the majority of my life, that the Roman catholic church has set itself up to stray from biblical teaching in a lot of ways and one can trace the progression away from the Bible being the central and sole defining authority for the church. One can see many of the declarations of the Council of Trent, which was in response to the reformation, how these declarations firmly entrenched many Catholic teachings that were contrary to biblical teaching.

My PCUSA church has a backbone on hard cultural issues. Be careful with that wide brush...it's bound to get paint everywhere.

Mello - I'm just saying, why join a church and start making trouble? I'm not assuming you have to sit quietly, but Machen gets booted out of the Presbyterian Church - is he supposed to automatically find another denomination to start making trouble in? Starting a branch of the Presbyterian Church looks *more* peaceful it seems. So yes, you can help to reform a body you're a part of, but that's different than joining one, for the sake of unity, and then making trouble. I mean, I'm all for some kind of "church of mere Christianity" but when I do that thought experiment, I end up with women's ordination, tongues, etc. - things that stretch the limits of my valuing unity over other virtues.

Mark - I'm not exactly sure how I've betrayed any "wrong beliefs" about the Catholic church - I pointed out the talking to dead Christians, and was careful to phrase it to indicate that we're not asking them to help us, we're asking them to pass on the prayers to Jesus who helps us. Thus avoiding a common protestant misunderstanding of what Catholic mean by talking to saints. I also mentioned worshipping Jesus through the consecrated host - thus avoiding the Protestant mischaracterization that Roman Catholics somehow venerate the host itself and not Jesus. As for the tongues, women priests, etc. that's all about various other Protestant bodies. As for Roman Catholic parish life, I stand by what I wrote - where is the local church discipline? I'd be happy to be pointed to it.

As for the PCUSA - there are great aspects to it; I wouldn't hesitate to join a faithful PCUSA church as a member, but it has a sinister top-down restriction on the leadership - no congregation can call a minister who disagrees with women's ordination. And so you guys are missing out on a lot of talented ministers who simply disagree about the propriety of women's ordination to the ministry. You are, in effect, cutting yourselves off from some kinds of potential reform by that policy.

And at the risk of saying too much here, let me make an observation about this discussion.

Josiah starts by questioning why the OPC exists, and makes it sound like Protestantism in general has big problems.

I have a similar affinity for the idea of church unity, but I think there are practices and beliefs unique to each communion that make it very unlikely that we can all "do church" together organizationally. And so I mentioned a few of these things - there are places where I differ with Roman Catholics, charismatics, and mainline Protestants, and where they differ with each other. Further, the "genealogical" concerns are not something we can just put aside - organizations of people have histories that are nearly inseparable from their identities.

People then criticized me for getting their traditions (their particulars) wrong, which is fine. I can take the heat there. I'm painting broadly, out of necessity, and there is more to say, but in this discussion I was taking up for the side that says "unity is difficult if not impossible." The "form" of the discussion is still there though - there are ______ (insert practice here) _____ in many denominations that make it difficult to have a unified church.

So the interesting discussion, at least here, is not to dispel all the myths we have about each other (and I teach theology at a Roman Catholic University and make heavy use of the Catholic catechism, so hopefully my misunderstandings are not as severe as Mark implies) but to ask ourselves what kind of unity is desirable and what kind of unity is feasible. Those can, in principle, be two separate things.

Barlow,

We could drag out a laundry list of falsities committed by any given denomination that one is required to swallow/bear with if one wants to be a member of that denomination.

My point is one has no authoritative criteria by which to judge said differences and make a decision beyond our own individual intuitions/intellect.

The "the Bible is our Authority" card is also a cop-out, and begs the question of the above complaint of "individual authority". Who's interpretation is right? my interpretation, your interpretation?

At that point I feel we're compelled to recognize some type of authority outside of Scripture. We do it anyway in the OPC & protestant church whether we admit it or not (this lack of interpretational transparency/honesty really bothers me, I find it grossly dishonest and hypocritical). Usually we make reference to some tradition, whether that be our denomination's official position on a matter of the WCF or 3 Forms etc. The WCF is our traditional authority, and in subscriptionist denominations (like the RCUS) it is the guidelines for church members (you must subscribe to the 3 Forms to be a member).

The problem there is that we have no criteria by which to value our protestant, 400 year old tradition over that of any other branch of the Church. We have no standard other than our individual interpretations by which to say "yep! that one!"

So my thinking is that we have a choice: either we've got a religious free for all, or we chuck the above Enlightenment epistemological zero-sum game and embrace the imperfect, traditional "Church".

The problem is it's very hard for we American, Protestant, and Enlightenment Christians to recognize that we have a fundamentally different mindset and culture than that of the Catholic. The set of issues are completely different, the way we talk about things are different, and how we define ourselves is different.

Further, I'm also stunned, absolutely stunned by how silly and straw man many of the Protestant arguments against Catholicism are. This isn't a discussion about justifications, it's simply just how old-wives-tales/McCarthian/Salem Witch Trials most of the complaints are. Most of them are based, in my opinion, on ignorance or a lack of comfort with mystery.

Jon, I'd be happy with discussions on the feasibility of unity if the actual goal was the full and complete unity of the church, but I think you've posited the question in such a way where that isn't a goal, and in fact, is actually a subversion of that goal.

Unless I'm reading you wrong and piggy-backing in discussions I've had with people before on the issue (even one's where I was the one positing the question "is it feasible? of course not! so lets keep marching with the status quo").

my apologies to micah, i realize there is a strong contingent in the PCUSA that sees a lot of the liberalism and cultural relativism and is puting up a good fight. My apologies for the paint splatter. Let me get the thinner out.

So are you being serious (because I know you're a member of an OPC church) or are you just sparking discussion? (Not that the two are mutually exclusive.)

IMO, if there's a "project" that should be brought into question, it's the PCA. The OPC was invented almost of necessity when Machen was booted out, sort of like Protestantism in general (Luther didn't ditch the RC Church; they ditched him), and there was no other viable alternatives. The PCA stepped out and created their own denom, though a viable option (the OPC) already existed.

There are levels where we should learn to live peacefully with our brethren, but there are levels when this can no longer be the case. Denial of the inerrancy of Scripture and all that comes with it is a little beyond slight differences of interpretation.

"Further, I'm also stunned, absolutely stunned by how silly and straw man many of the Protestant arguments against Catholicism are. This isn't a discussion about justifications, it's simply just how old-wives-tales/McCarthian/Salem Witch Trials most of the complaints are. Most of them are based, in my opinion, on ignorance or a lack of comfort with mystery."

Is this in reference to my position? Just curious.

Holton: wasn't referring to you. We haven't discussed this very much.

Jeanette: I'd question the PCA too, but on the same grounds I question the OPC too.

An aside: were there no other "good" options for those who left the PCUSA to start the OPC? Somehow I don't think so. At least not by the criteria by which they used to leave the PCUSA.

In some ways this entire argument is unfair because we are talking past each other rather than actually engaging in dialogue. I think what's ultimately animating this debate, as I realized when I read barlow's defense of his own comments about Catholicism- he has basically conjured up the straw men that do usually dominate this debate- and while I do agree that he has avoided using certain verbal formulations that generally indicate ignorance of the debate, barlow's comments produce, for the less trained Protestant mind, the same effect as usuing the misconstrued arguments themselves.

Basically I have to agree with Josiah- Catholics and Protestants understand reality in fundamentally different ways. If you can even use those generalizations, which I guess I already have, even though here I quickly nod to their general uselessness, then Catholics see the world primarily through experience, while Protestants define their existence through words. When a Catholic theologian uses words, she uses them while working within an understanding of the basic limitations of words. Words are arrows pointing to something greater, to the experience itself. Words can never wholly define or limit an experience, mostly because God's so much bigger than that. "Mystery" is the word Josiah used, and it's appropriate.

Man I wish I didn't have a job and could sit a write forever on this, but I have to go. But basically what I'm saying is as clever a cop-out as barlow's earlier remarks- because we're not actually using words in the same way, we're not really in dialogue at all. Which is kind of frustrating, but I also know there's something deeper going on with our souls, even though we've never met. We're experiencing the myster of God together some how, even now. And that's a good thing ultimately.

, she uses them while working within an understanding of the basic limitations of words

Mark are you saying all catholic theologians are "She's"... because that's a pretty broad generalization and leaves out a lot of people... sorry just being a smart ass.

I feel like I really don't understand this conversation at all. I thought I did.

First of all, in the area of Catholicism, Mark is mistreating me. I know he's busy, and I sympathize with that. But he simultaneously agrees that I avoid straw men, in some sense, and then blames my good formulations for perpetuating Protestant misapprehensions, and then declines to correct my formulations and says *I'm* copping out. That's a great way to derail a discussion, especially with a very sympathetic protestant like me. Further, this was a conversation begun by a Protestant questioning the Protestant project. I was trying to engage the Protestant (Josiah) on the issues as a fellow Protestant. Of course Mark, as a Roman Catholic, is going to have a different approach. I'd give anything to be able to be Catholic and have the high ground here on the unity question, but I can't be at this point in my understanding, and so it isn't much of a discussion for me to simply say to Josiah, "yes man, you're right. Let's take a membership class together at St. Rita's"

And Josiah, I'm totally with you about the ridiculous arguments that are used against Catholicism. But to be frank, there are still three or four things that I can't get past at this point in my understanding about Catholic theology, and then there are the very real problems with the average Catholic parish, the paucity of good Catholic preaching, church discipline, the flourishing of good-old-fashioned Protestant liberalism in Catholic biblical studies, etc.

Back to the larger issue, Josiah, you've posited a dilemma with two horns:

"So my thinking is that we have a choice: either we've got a religious free for all, or we chuck the above Enlightenment epistemological zero-sum game and embrace the imperfect, traditional 'Church'."

First, I sympathize here. Maybe that wasn't clear, despite my saying explicitly that sentence at the very beginning, but I do. I sympathize with you. But in studying these things for a long time, I think Protestantism is essentially just the Catholic church turned inside out. There is no one street address for "protestantism's" headquarters, but Protestantism divides up into various denominations over the very same issues that divide Catholics from each other. Some Catholics are very much fundamentalists about the bible, some are very much like 19th century liberals. Some Catholics believe in charismatic gifts, some do not. Some Catholics are into revivalism, some Catholics are into discipleship and such. Some Catholics emphasize the cult of the saints and Mary and some catholics downplay that aspect of the tradition. Some Catholics view the early church as the infant church from which we have developed, and some venerate the early church as the pinnacle of doctrinal development. In other words, the two horns of your dilemma are basically two messes that you have to choose between. The difference, however, is that one of the horns of the dilemma has:

a. A Parish System
b. An essentially unified liturgy

If you become Catholic, then the rules say you've got to go to your parish church unless you get special permission from the Priest. That could possibly commit you to a parish with little or no church discipline, to a parish with poor preaching, to a parish with cheesy contemporary music, to a parish with poor children's ministry, etc.

At least in Protestantism you can pick your battles and find a church of refuge. Yes, that's individualism, but it is also a very practical consideration that (at this point) I'm not willing to risk my children's souls to avoid.

Now, there are some other things we could discuss - I'm not so ready to accept your account of the development of doctrine and the settling of theological disputes. Having a tradition doesn't settle things either - you still have to apply the tradition, contextualize the tradition, provide an account of doctrinal development, weigh various evidences, etc. Having an authoritative interpretation of the tradition also requires interpreting that authority. You don't avoid hermeneutics when you shift your attention from the Bible to the Magisterium.

I also think there is a great deal of overstatement in your comments, Josiah. You write things like this:

"My point is one has no authoritative criteria by which to judge said differences and make a decision beyond our own individual intuitions/intellect."

That just isn't true; Protestants and Catholics have pretty much the same set of criteria that are involved in the doing of theology. There's nothing a Roman Catholic scholar can appeal to which a Protestant scholar can't also appeal. The difference is in how each applies the authorities, weighs the authorities, etc. Perhaps you'd be interested to read Peter Toon's book on doctrinal development. I think it will be pretty helpful on these issues. A Roman Catholic theologian doesn't gain an epistemological advantage because of his ecclesiastical affiliation! If the truth is what we're after, the crisis of authority is a human crisis, not an ecclesiastical one.

And I certainly think, despite your overstatement, that there are a handful of things you're pretty sure are clear in the scriptures, and you're going to cringe to be put under the authority of anyone who denies these clear things. Right?

A last point is that what is important is catholicism, not that it have a Roman character to it. I mean, we're 2000 years into church history. In 40,000 years is it really going to be the case that a 2000 year record of "unity" among Roman Catholics will trump any given Protestant unity? A very real epistemological problem is driving you to these questions, Josiah, but the resulting dilemma you construct has two historical prongs, not one historical prong and one that avoids the messiness of history.

Josiah,

You said, "That's why a protestant session, if it's being consistent, has no grounds for telling any person who believes they are *right* about something Biblically that they are either (in an authoritative fashion) wrong or that they can't leave a church." You would be right if Scripture were unclear, in which case either we would should never speak with certainty or we would need an infallible interpeter who not only speaks more clearly than Scripture, but whose claim to infallibility is also more clear than the message of Christ and him crucified. However, if the message of Scripture is clear after all, one of these possibilities holds in your scenario:
a. The church in question teaches false doctrine, i.e., teaches a heterodox gospel or fails to rightly administer the sacraments. The person in question should join an orthodox church in obedience to the commands to avoid false teaching.
b. The person in question believes false doctrine, so the session should point out the clear teaching of Scripture in obedience to its call to use the keys of the kingdom.
c. Both a and b. The plethora of denominations shows how common it is to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. (This supports no argument against the clarity of Scripture, which warns of false prophets and false teachers.)
d. Both the person and the session have orthodox doctrine, but the person is divisive. This is much more rare.
e. Both the person and the session have orthodox doctrine, but the church is divisive in that it refuses to fellowship other orthodox churches. This is also uncommon.
f. Both d and e.
This sounds simple, but is no more so than the NT on the topic. Is it clear or not?

Josiah, I really don't understand where you're coming from with this criticism. Perhaps it's because I'm not OPC. I just wish you'd been more specific, because as an outsider (PCA) I just don't know what the OPC's project is. They don't believe they're the one true church, as far as I know. Sure, they may not be working toward unity as much as they could, esp. with the PCA (although, as Jeanette pointed out, that's really the PCA's fault, at least in some sense). But I don't think that justifies singling them out for criticism. Barlow's point about the divisions in Catholicism is true, at least to my limited knowledge of it. Sure American Protestants' consumeristic approach to church (just pick which one you like, potentially escaping church discipline when it's needed) is flawed, but the alternatives aren't that great either.

And it's just not true to say sessions have no basis on which to judge people's opinions on doctrine. If you really believed that, then the whole epistemological foundation of our faith - which is the perspicacity of Scripture (at the very least on the basics - Apostles' Creed-type issues) - is gone.

Sometimes I hear people talk about being a "nonfoundationalist" Christian. But I don't really know what that means. It doesn't seem possible to me. In any case, what does a view of the Scriptures that says we can't be sure what they say do to our view of the God who inspired those Scriptures? Not good things, I'd imagine.

So ultimately, Josiah, I'd throw the question back at you: yes, denominationalism is a bad thing. We need the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. But what can we do to acheive it? We can't just shove our differences under the rug. Dialogue, yes. Engagement, yes. Working together in evangelization and social ministry, yes. But there's reasons why I wouldn't join a Baptist church, for example, and there's reasons why they won't join mine.

1) Josiah rarely posts a rigorous, clinical account of something that bothers him on his blog. Something bothers him, he posts about it, and he crytallizes his own thoughts about it as discussion furthers. I like this approach, actually, but it may account for why some read the post and didn't get the level of analysis they were looking for.

2) I am an elder in an OPC church, and there are many in the OPC who feel that the OPC's existence is justified simply because of identity - it's the OPC! We have, word for word, the exact same doctrinal standards as the PCA. Considering the doctrinal errors present in the church in the days of the Apostles, and their strong urgings to unity, maintaining a break with the PCA is simultaneously sinful and ludicrous, and it underscores people's underlying devotion to their denominational identity. And that's just one denomination.

3) Machen was not kicked out over doctrine, Machen was kicked out for starting an independent foreign missions board that "competed" with the PCUSA. I would point out that the OPC would kick out anyone in a heartbeat that did the same thing. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with Machen's doctrinal objections, but let's not be hagiographic about it. His manner of dealing with those differences wasn't remarkably Presbyterian, if that matters.

4) Protestantism has led to nearly as many Protestant denominations as there are Protestant egos. Due to the sinfulness of people, though, it is hard to imagine this NOT being a by-product of the belief that the Church is under the critique of the Bible. I suspect there's a lot more work to be done in this area to come up with an equitable solution. Biblical interpretation should be *initimately* tied to the wisdom of the Spirit-filled community and God's appointed officers, and Protestantism needs to do a better job, here. Not entirely sure what that looks like at this point.

5) The argument, "We should be united, but what about theological issue X" is not satisfying to me. The case Jesus' desire for a united Church is crystal clear (unlike some doctrinal details). I wonder what justification I as an elder will be able to give him for why it was necessary to maintain division with other denominations. What issues were so pressing that we were willing to disobey his *clear* wishes? Keep in mind, this is against the backdrop of the doctrinal problems explicated in the NT. In the Corinthian church alone, we have berserk worship, unworthy practice of the Lord's Supper (that results in divine punishment!), and some of them did not even believe in the Resurrection. Yet, Paul urges unity amongst churches. How bad do things have to get before you divide?

Could it be that Paul had a naive hope that Spirit-filled believers under Spirit-appointed officers would actually be able to work through error as time went on and Christ sanctified his Church? Could it be that the life of the community was the defining rubric under which such doctrinal disputations were to take place? Could it be that there is no hope of believers coming to a common understanding if they divide when differences arise?

I don't know exactly how much I'd "put up with" to unite the Church, but I'm willing to at least consider even the most extreme options. And frankly, women ministers doesn't even come close to the "extreme" ranking by my mileage.

You wrote:

"The case Jesus' desire for a united Church is crystal clear (unlike some doctrinal details)."

While I agree with most of what you wrote, Phil, I think that the nature of unity is itself a matter that is not self-interpreting. We always have to ask "with respect to what?" With respect to baptism and table fellowship, the PCA is more catholic than the Roman Catholic church because we mostly accept RC baptism *and* would allow Roman Catholics to take communion at our churches. However, Roman Catholics know that it isn't lawful for them to take communion at our churches, by Roman Catholic rules, so they have to abstain. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod won't even allow other protestants to commune in their worship services. And most Baptist churches require everyone else to be repbaptized (if that were possible). That's where you should direct the first critique. To me, unity starts at the table, it doesn't start with what street address we attribute to the headquarters of Christendom. I'm perfectly willing to be in communion with churches that have women pastors (the OPC is too, but it has several levels of communion - it denies 'fraternal relationships' to such bodies) - but, the question is whether it is appropriate to label those who will not join a particular congregation with a priestess as the ones guilty of disunity. I mean, who is causing the disunity in such a situation? Unity isn't always something you achieve through acquiescence. Further, I think we get hung up on denominations, but the PCA and the OPC *are* unified in organizations like NAPARC, and in direct fraternal bonds. We should be one church, but we aren't, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

Denominationalism stinks, but at the same time, unity comes in many forms. We can't all fit in the same sanctuary every Sunday anyway, and so I'm pleased to allow those who want to speak in tongues to meet separately and have a separate membership roll for convenience.

The biggest sickness that afflicts all of us internet theologians is looking for a top down surgical approach to these things. I think it might be a better thing to simply focus on your own church and ask how it can be made more catholic, more reflective of the unity we have through mystical union in Christ's body with all other Christians. It may involve a lot of local advances in unity, and that's great. That's really the best you can hope for, despite our dreams for a future that, for all we know, is destined to come about through our local efforts anyway.

And the irony here is that just the other day I was having this same conversation with a die-hard presbyterian friend of mine and I was playing the role of Josiah...

I'd like to reiterate what barlow said: working for catholicity at the local, geographic level seems to be the key.

Josiah... maybe you should just start your own church? Oh wait did i miss the point again?

The whole "work for local catholicity" is, while true, a pious-sounding misdirection meant to keep us from owning up to the core problem of the whole protestant thing.

I also find the OPC's name somewhat amusing. It calls itself the "Orthodox" Presbyterian Church in response to the un-orthodoxy of the PCUSA, in particular issues of women elders and scriptural inerrancy, neither of which are actual issues of Orthodoxy as defined by the ecumenical creeds.

Further, its not "Orthodox" in the "Orthodox Church" sense and all that's contained therein. If anything, it was a bold redefining of the term "Orthodox" to mean something it never had. Which is kind of (speaking colloquially) an un-orthodox thing to do. But anyways...

I've been so busy, so I apologize for not responding in more depth to much of what's been written. I'll get on it, hopefully this weekend.

"orthodox" as in believing that missions is actually vital because faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. That was the original thing. Women's ordination wasn't the problem that Machen was dealing with. Maybe "orthodox" implies those things now, but back then it was about Pearl Buck, missions, etc.

I think the *rejection* of the primacy of "work for local catholicity" is a pious misdirection from what we actually can do in favor of pie in the sky big-think :)

I would be if I hadn't accepted it and admitted it were true.

(rejected with faint praise)

It's not a rejection. At all. I consider it a misdirection from my point that there's something fundamentally flawed (though perhaps necessary) about the overall protestant project.