Some critics of the OPC and 2k wonder why Old Life has been silent about Kevin Swanson, the Generations with Vision Director who pastors and OPC congregation in Elizabeth, CO.
A simple reason is that Pastor Swanson has no following (to my knowledge) in the OPC say the way Lig Duncan, or Harry Reeder, or Tim Keller do in the PCA.
It’s also the case that Swanson almost never refers to the OPC in his self-identifications. At Generations with Vision:
Homeschooled himself in the 1960’s and 70’s, Kevin Swanson and his wife, Brenda, are now homeschooling their five children. Since graduating from his homeschool and then serving as student body president of a large west coast university, he has gone on to other leadership positions in corporate management, church, and other non-profits. Kevin has 43 years of experience in the homeschooling movement and serves as the Director of Generations – a ministry he founded to strengthen homeschool families around the country. As a father who wants to leave a godly heritage for his own five children, Kevin’s passion is to strengthen and encourage the homeschooling movement all over the world, and to cast a vision for generations to come. For the last 10 years Kevin has hosted a daily radio program – Generations Radio – the world’s largest homeschooling and Biblical worldview program that reaches families across the US and in over 100 countries.
Kevin has also served as the Executive Director of Christian Home Educators of Colorado for the last nine years. He has also authored several popular books for homeschoolers, including Freedom, Apostate, Upgrade-10 Secrets to the Best Education for Your Child, the Family Bible Study Guide Series, and others.
Kevin Swanson also serves as a teaching elder at Reformation Church of Elizabeth (reformationchurch.com).
The Speaker Lineup for Freedom 2015 listed Swanson as director of — yet again — Generations with Vision and the author of more than 10 books.
I’ve never talked to an OPC officer who has read a book by Swanson.
At Amazon:
Homeschooled himself in the 1960s and 70s, Kevin Swanson and his wife, Brenda, are now homeschooling their five children. Kevin has 43 years of experience in the homeschooling movement and serves as the director of Generations With Vision—a ministry he founded to strengthen homeschool families. Kevin’s passion is to strengthen and encourage the homeschooling movement all over the world, and to cast a vision for generations to come. For the last 4 years Kevin has hosted a daily radio program, Generations Radio, the world’s largest homeschooling and biblical worldview program that reaches families across the US and in over 100 countries. Kevin has also served as the executive director of Christian Home Educators of Colorado for the last nine years. He has authored several popular books for homeschoolers, including Apostate, Upgrade: 10 Secrets to the Best Education for Your Child, The Second Mayflower, the Family Bible Study Guide Series, and others.
So far Pastor Swanson does not seem eager to put his stamp on the OPC the way TKNY has on the PCA.
So for now, paying attention to Pope Francis seems a little more reasonable than to Pastor Swanson.
Old Life 
Isn’t there something in the OldLife bylaws that says something to the effect of:
“We are only interested in publicly exposing big fish ministers/scholars that are visible to evangelical world, not the ministers who have even more wacky and obscure views in micro-denominations like the OPC.”
LikeLike
I vote for removing that part of the bylaw immediately. Although the king of the castle might say this is not a democracy, then again I have the freedom to pay a lot less attention next time the site rails against Tim Keller. By the way, I agree with 99% of the king of the castle’s assessments on TKNY, but I think an unwillingness to go after guys like this, well let’s just say is a wee bit of an indication that things are not passing the giggle or smell test let alone the credibility test of a bit more consistency.
LikeLike
Chruch, that’s a micro-aggression.
LikeLike
consistency, big fish, microaggression
you mean partiality?
looking to see who someone is before deciding how to treat him/her, giving special favor and respect (or not).
LikeLike
E. Burns, but you take Keller seriously and not Swanson. So do I.
So what’s the problem?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
They are different, again I will grant you that. Keller is like William F Buckley, while Swanson is more like Rush Limbaugh on meth. (OK Ok, I know all analogies breakdown)
Swanson maybe pathetic and come off as a bombastic clown and demagogue. Nonetheless, having a significant following, him being a NAPARC pastor (OPC at that) consistently spouting what he does……. yes I take that seriously. Although, I hope to not lose my sense of humor in the process. 🙂
I just think it would be good for you to critique this guy a bit too. All things considered he is indeed worthy of it. But as I mentioned before seems to me him being in the OPC is what makes it hard for you other OPC guys. Don’t want to call him out and would rather make qualifications about him being the equivalent of a rusted out pontoon boat which is not worthy of criticism. He was visibly in the news because of his bombastic culture warrior fever, yet you turn a post on Swanson into one about Keller. I don’t buy it.
LikeLike
Were the right wing religionists from the Sanhedrin who succeeded in getting the Roman governor to kill Jesus “lesser magistrates”?
If a Reformed church over time ceases to produce Christian individuals with divided loyalties who become Christian police persons and Christian soldiers, has that church ceased to be Reformed? If all the persons in that church give unbalanced priority to the kingdom of heaven, without ever feeling called to kill people for the sake of other people, would this make you suspicious?
If a Reformed person at all times acts only in loyalty to their citizenship from heaven, do these persons by their nonviolence set aside the possibility of their still being Reformed? To avoid this, is it not necessary to include theonomists in some pulpits? If theonomists were to be rejected from the administration of the sacraments, that slippery slope might lead to the rejection of the idea that Abraham’s children were promised salvation, and that would mean the end of Christendom.
http://www.englewoodcc.com/NLArchive/504JA.html
LikeLike
Lee Gatiss—“John Owen initially flirted with Presbyterianism before becoming more persuaded by the Congregational way. He didn’t like episcopacy as a system. Yet — perhaps surprisingly for many — along with other such Independents during the 17th century, Owen did not believe in the separation of church and state….Owen thought that the State had a duty to stop anti-Trinitarians infiltrating the church, and to silence those who rejected justification by faith alone. The magistrates could enforce that, in his view; indeed it was against the light and law of nature, he said, for supreme magistrates not to exert their authority to support, preserve, and further the cause of the gospel and forbid, coerce, and restrain false teaching (e.g. Works, 13:509-510). ”
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/01/john-owen-was-an-anglican.php
Lee Gatiss—In a Constantinian context, appealing to the conscience to “accept the Christ who died for you” may have had a very powerful effect on those haunted by the weighty obligation of their baptism and church membership …Many intuitively felt the significance of their citizenship in a Christian society. Yet as the ghost of nominal Christianity is driven out by modern secularism perhaps such a strategy has had its day. For Us and Our Salvation, p 118
LikeLike
Darryl,
Is Kevin Swanson Bryan Cross or Mark Shea?
LikeLike
E. Burns, but that would mean having to read Swanson.
LikeLike
James Young, interesting question. Since you are a Roman Catholic apologist who tends to be obsessive, that would make you a Roman Catholic equivalent of Kevin Swanson.
LikeLike
Do we need to be like the guy in this video to appreciate firearms or homeschooling?
Do homeschooling and a “locked and loaded” motif always need to go together?
Are public schools really a place for housing inmates?
Will this guy and his devotees wind up in a Burns Oregon scenario someday?
You are right, he is not Tim Keller, he is 10 times worse.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Yes, but behind the studied ambiguity of answering questions with questions and heading down the road of an infinite regress because you’re dodging does not take away the fact that you should be as willing to find out about him the way you are so eager to about Keller. At least I think you should, but then again I’m not king of Dr. Hart let alone of the “old life” kingdom and this blog isn’t a democracy. You are a benevolent dictator who can delete my comments at any time. 🙂
Here, I will help you out a bit more on finding out about Sawnson.
If his hard court press isn’t worthy of “old life” criticism I don’t know what is. I get it, you need to find out about people to give them a fair shake. But come on man you don’t need to read theological tomes or an epic biography to get a handle on a guy like this. By all means go read his books, watch more sermons and speeches, now you have no excuse, but then again it’s not like this guys been hiding out, he’s been in plain view right there in the OPC and NAPARC for a long time. (See credibility problem)
To taste the sea one only needs a thimbleful.
Thanks for the conversation and thank you for “old life blog” and the work you do, it’s always enjoyable.
Grace and peace,
LikeLike
E Burns, from the one podcast I’ve heard, I am seriously underwhelmed by Pastor Swanson’s analysis of culture and politics. Neither does it seem like something all that serious.
When you produce numbers for the sales of his books on the order of TKNY’s, maybe I’ll reconsider. But for now, he’s like Joel Osteen. To be outraged would be pornographic.
LikeLike
Burns raises some excellent points…
Ask yourself this question — what kind of transferring church member is more likely to raise a stink at an Old School presbyterian-type church? A person from TKNY’s church OR someone from Swanson’s church? I can actually think of a couple of TKNY transplants that have done just fine in Old School type PCA churches, even if it took them a while to ‘get it’! But I could line up the OPC ministers who have had deal with Swanson-transfer-types who become perpetual burrs in a ministers arse to the point where he’s spending ridiculous amounts of time trying putting out fires. It’s just as distracting (if not more so!) to a minister seeking to follow the ‘ordinary means of grace’ than anything coming from the NeoCal transformation crowd.
DGH needs a new set of OPC minister friends if he thinks ‘Swanson Types’ are part of some fringe 1% of the OPC!
LikeLike
Churchcurmudgeon, Bingo! Good point yourself.
Here is one more twist to all this and a round about way of bringing it back around so that all us “Old Lifers” can just get along. I would submit to you that in a way Swanson is a macro- level example and proof positive that Neonomianism is Reformed Theologies biggest UnWelcomed Guest. Macro in the sense he is in leadership and has a significant following.
Think about it, a pastor right at this post (and I’m not saying he is outlandish or questioning his backbone or gospel solidarity) stated…..
—–“”The OPC has a history of tolerating minority opinions on certain issues …….. Theonomy has been a tolerated position thus far in the history of the OPC, even though many OP church officers today would view it as unbiblical and unconfessional (myself included)””—– Exactly! And theonomist have a great tendency in binding the conscience of others, being culture warriors, of being softies on Federal Vision and there are more of them than is rightly acknowledged. But I bet the OPC (or any NAPARC church besides the PCA) would not as easily tolerate someone like a willow creek type evangelical in their midst. At least not as a minister in good standing for years and years. Not saying they should, just saying.
He is absolutely right, Swanson types are tolerated in good standing. Yet I would submit that broadly speaking an “Old lifer” “Marrow man” , or a person that prefers to give grace the first and last word is simply not as readily tolerated at a macro or micro level in much of Reformed circles, they are after all Antinomian and Lutheran don’t ya know. Everyone from John Piper (baptist) to Mark Jones (PCA) can agree on that.
Micro Example: I have been in and around a variety of Reformed churches and settings over the last 17 years. Been my experience that one can sit in a Reformed Sunday school class or small group and hear all manner of Swanson type positions praddled on about, from culture warrior bravado to binding the conscience about only having two children, etc, etc. I can think of very few times where anyone including leadership in that setting really speaks up against it. But the same setting will absolutely pounce on someone they believe is even hinting at indulging the flesh via worldliness and Antinomianism , in many cases perhaps they should, if there is legit Antinomianism happening.
But the point is that all too often this obvious discrepancy is glaring. The over abundance of law leaning in most Reformed settings is so obvious one can cut it with a knife. And if not law leaning a weaned on a pickle / argue about everything holy huddle posture.
My point here is that in the broader Evangelical world I think that Antinomianism is indeed the bigger problem, generally speaking. Whereas in the Reformed world (NAPARC) I think by far Neonomianism is the bigger problem, again generally speaking. We even admit that is who we more readily tolerate.
Some would say this is an over simplification, from my experience (I know that can be dangerous) it is a fair summary.
Wow, did I just make a post about Swanson which got turned into a post about Keller all about how Mark Jones is all wrong about Reformed Theologies UnWelcomed guest. It is like an enigma wrapped in an enigma with a PCA community small group as cherry on top. You guys want to meet again same time next week? 🙂
See, all has been set right in the Old Life Kingdom, Mark Jones sucks. I kid I kid.
LikeLike
Chruch, so is the point tabulating OL posts? 4% TKNY, 55% Pope Francis, 2% Trump?
Or might a function of OL be provocation or information, even insight?
Since the ones calling for posts about Swanson are already enlightened about Swanson’s woes, what would be the point of posting about Swanson’s woes.
Old Life does not do obvious.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
I think you are on to something. But do remember that one of the reasons that British Protestants (under Mary Tudor) swooned over Calvin’s Geneva was that the consistory policed the faithful on all sorts of minor offenses — like falling asleep during sermons. Reformed think pursuit of holiness is important and part of discipline. So the ideal is out there.
What you say about people with odd views is a lot harder to police. Do you really want to get into it with someone who has the wrong view of the civil magistrate? Or do you wait and see if it develops into a divisive matter? (BTW, so far Swanson has not arisen to that level.)
LikeLike
E. Burns: You are a benevolent dictator
sheesh, E. Burns.
Let me now be partial to no one, nor flatter any man for I do not know how to flatter, else my Maker would soon take me away. Job 32:21-22
E. Burns: The over abundance of law leaning in most Reformed settings is so obvious one can cut it with a knife.
If only E. Burns. Come Lord Jesus.
-Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
-You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.
-the perfect, royal law of liberty …the law of love
Matt 24:12; Heb 1:9; James 1:25, 2:8, Romans 13:10
LikeLike
E. Burns: “My point here is that in the broader Evangelical world I think that Antinomianism is indeed the bigger problem, generally speaking. Whereas in the Reformed world (NAPARC) I think by far Neonomianism is the bigger problem, again generally speaking. We even admit that is who we more readily tolerate.”
GW: Good point; I agree. One must know one’s own ecclesial context to know which aspects of the whole counsel of God need greater emphasis. IMO legalism and neonomianism are a much bigger threat within the confessional Reformed world today than the heresy of antinomianism.
LikeLike
EBurns: “I have been in and around a variety of Reformed churches and settings over the last 17 years. Been my experience that one can sit in a Reformed Sunday school class or small group and hear all manner of Swanson type positions praddled on about, from culture warrior bravado to binding the conscience about only having two children, etc, etc. I can think of very few times where anyone including leadership in that setting really speaks up against it. But the same setting will absolutely pounce on someone they believe is even hinting at indulging the flesh via worldliness and Antinomianism , in many cases perhaps they should, if there is legit Antinomianism happening.”
Kevin Swanson, I have thee tolerated.
Lee Irons, I have not thee tolerated.
One is clearly teaching a brand a neonomianism….let him keep doing it.
One is branded an antinomian because he won’t equate the moral law with the Decalogue….Ichabod!
LikeLike
Chruchcurmudgeon,
Ding Ding Ding! Exactly! That is not to say I agree with everything put forth by Lee Irons, but yes. Yet this glaring discrepancy or double standard if you will seems to be the excepted norm among the more conservative reformed (NAPARC) faithful.
Dr. Hart,
I’m not suggesting that we get into it with folks over little offenses or that we go around policing peoples every idiosyncrasy in theology, I’m talking about a general ethos to some degree here, but important nonetheless. It would be nice, no actually it would be more than that, it would be an incredibly beautiful breath of fresh air and some wind in the sails of many a church if the Neonomian ethos was less pervasive in NAPARC.
Not that it’s all about numbers by any means but if what I’m talking about was implemented and change took place it would grow many of these NAPARC denomination too. Not counting the PCA
(really they’re just evangelical Baptist anyway) numeric growth if done right, is greatly needed in NAPARC. They need more people sitting in the pews who’s daddy’s daddy’s daddy’s Grandaddys daddy wasn’t also in that denomination. Not saying that generational faithfulness is not wonerful, but to be crass NAPARC needs new blood.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
BTW…..You don’t think Swanson is in fact very divisive to the body of Christ and the gospel? Don’t you think that at best he truncates the gospel by elevating his culture warrior and theonomy visions to gospel level importance?
LikeLike
E. Burns, but we will always have Geneva (and Boston).
LikeLike
E. Burns, I think Swanson is wrong. I think Swanson is unimportant.
LikeLike
Chruch Curmudgeon: “Kevin Swanson, I have thee tolerated. Lee Irons, I have not thee tolerated.
“One is clearly teaching a brand a neonomianism….let him keep doing it.
“One is branded an antinomian because he won’t equate the moral law with the Decalogue….Ichabod!”
GW: Your point is well taken. Perhaps this is just one of many possible illustrations of the fact that, this side of glory, no church communion, no matter how orthodox and otherwise sound, is perfectly consistent in maintaining its own professed standards, guarding the sacred ministry from potential troublemakers, and applying discipline with complete equity. (Not that this is an excuse for laxity or error, mind you; just a statement of reality.)
But I would remind you and other readers of Old Life of this: A lot has changed in the nearly two decades since Lee Irons’ views were controversial in the OPC. At the time I was a young minister in the OPC (I was ordained in 97) with some theonomic leanings of my own (which I have since gotten over). My recollection is that what made Rev. Irons controversial in the OPC was not only his views pertaining to the moral law, but also his strong advocacy of the Framework Hypothesis and his seemingly tolerant view toward homosexuality. Advocacy of the former did not endear him to the literal six day creationists in the OPC who regarded their interpretation of Genesis One as a boundary marker of Reformed orthodoxy. (True confession: I was one of them.) Regarding the latter, my recollection is that while Rev. Irons believed that homosexuality was sinful and thus not to be tolerated within the church, he nonetheless favored tolerating government-sanctioned civil same-sex unions.
It seems to me that in the last 20 years or so those segments of the OPC with more “new school” leanings and/or a more fundamentalist/biblicist mindset have toyed with passing theological fads such as the six 24 hour day interpretation of Genesis One as a boundary marker of orthodoxy, theonomy, and even federal visionism. The OPC at a General Assembly level has addressed the creation days issue through its study committee on creation, and with the federal vision issue as well. (Theonomy as such has not yet been officially addressed by any judicatory of the church, to my knowledge.)
My analysis may be flawed, but my own sense is that the OPC as a whole is starting to return to the “old paths” of a more healthy, old-school confessional orthodoxy that has more affinities with the old Princeton Seminary than it does with Moscow, Idaho. Sure, you can still find within the OPC some rabid young earth creationist types who would wish to exclude from ordained office any man who holds to a non-literal view of the creation days of Genesis One, no matter how otherwise orthodox and sound he may be. (I suspect Rev. Swanson would fit in this category. In his book “Apostasy” he asserts his conviction that any rejection of the six-day literal creation young earth interpretation in favor of an alternative interpretation is a half way house on the path to apostasy; p. 140.) Yes, you will still find some in the OPC who are hard-core theonomists who would regard Greg Bahnsen as their home boy. You may even find some OP church members who are sympathetic to federal vision theology. But overall I suspect that these views are starting to lose steam and fade away, at least in most OP Presbyteries; and I would be suprised if there are too many theonomists, federal visionists, or rabid young earth creationists left in the OPC when it celebrates its 100th anniversary (2036). (Though I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet.)
By the way, I think the labors of church historians like Dr. Hart and others like him in the OPC, as well as educational training efforts like the MTIOPC (“Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC”) are helping to move the denomination in this more positive, old school direction. Let’s hope that trajectory continues.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: “(I suspect Rev. Swanson would fit in this category. In his book “Apostasy” he asserts his conviction that any rejection of the six-day literal creation young earth interpretation in favor of an alternative interpretation is a half way house on the path to apostasy; p. 140.)”
Correction: The title of Rev. Swanson’s book is “Apostate: The Men who Destroyed the Christian West” (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013); not “Apostasy”.
LikeLike
“my recollection is that while Rev. Irons believed that homosexuality was sinful and thus not to be tolerated within the church, he nonetheless favored tolerating government-sanctioned civil same-sex unions.”
Why should 2k churches have a problem with this?
LikeLike
CVD: “Why should 2k churches have a problem with this?”
GW: 2K is not a monolithic system wherein all of its advocates agree about how to address every particular issue confronting secular society. Some who are 2K would probably not have a problem with this, while others would. (Though confessional Reformed 2Kers, like their non-2K brethren, would recognize homosexuality as sin and would not sanction gay relationships in the church.)
Plus, the OPC is not (and never has been) a “2K” church, though there be many within her who (like Dr. Hart) hold to a 2K understanding.
Additionally, it was almost two decades ago that controversy over Rev. Irons’ views on this subject erupted — before the 2K position was rediscovered within confessional Reformed circles through the writings of scholars like Dr. David VanDrunnen, and thus before 2K itself became a lively in-house debate within confessional Reformed circles.
LikeLike
Cletus- James Young,
Lee Irons situation as I understand it had more nuance than that. As a 2Ker here is my answer for what it is worth. (although not all 2Kers are monolithic)
Answer> Because God by His Holy Word declares it sin.
That does not mean I need to spend my energies railing against it as a top priority in some bombastic culture warrior fashion which in fact truncates the true Gospel. Nor does the Church need to spend unnecessary energy (beyond speaking the truth via God’s Word) campaigning against it in some political organization type of fashion. (Rev Irons position)
I know this is hard for most Pope Francis Roman catholic’s to grasp, but if the Church never opened up a single soup kitchen yet faithfully preached the Word, the Gospel and trained the flock in (which is off the charts loving) it would be doing its proper duty.
No doubt this duty carried out by the Church will produce fruits of love and charity (among others) in the flock which the Church may come along side in encouragement, etc.
LikeLike
GW,
I pray your analysis is right. May many new comers be won to our great Lord Jesus is the process. May the churches in NAPARC grow in both grace and new members.
LikeLike
James Young, “Why should 2k churches have a problem with this?”
Indeed. Pope Francis doesn’t. Pay, pray, obey.
LikeLike
Brothers, before taking Rachel Maddow as a credible witness and throwing a brother under the bus, perhaps it would be a good idea to see if the clips were taken out of context. I can assure you they were not in the context of everything he teaches. Kevin speaks passionately, but he also works hard to speak with clarity. Right Wing Watch has a member dedicated to listening to everything Kevin says and spinning things in the worst possible way. In one case, Kevin cited a homosexual reviewer of Frozen who was praising the movie’s “celebration” of homosexuality. Kevin was clear that he had never seen the film, but was disturbed by what he read in the review. Right Wing Watch removed all the qualifiers, and Kevin was portrayed as making ridiculous statements that were quoted in Time and the New York Daily News. I am a member of Kevin’s presbytery. He has taken correction and labors faithfully with us. Kevin sought out the OPC and has labored faithfully with us for over two decades. Rather than sniping or cringing, we rejoice in how the Lord has used him. Rather than denouncing him in public, shouldn’t others go to him individually and then to his presbytery?
LikeLike
There has been no coddling or blind acquiescence of Right Wing Watch or Rachel Maddow. No one here, best I can tell, supports their or any Anti-Christian perspective or a celebration of homosexuality.
Kevin’s work, his very public work as leader, activist, culture warrior and pastor can and does stand on its own.
LikeLike
Jason, if I think the pope should speak less or be silent about matters of public debate, the same goes for a pastor who is supposed to be ministering the word of God. What pastor Swanson does as a citizen is one thing. Whether his position as a pastor gives him a standing as a citizen is another.
LikeLike
Jason Wallace: “Brothers, before taking Rachel Maddow as a credible witness and throwing a brother under the bus, perhaps it would be a good idea to see if the clips were taken out of context. I can assure you they were not in the context of everything he teaches.”
GW: Brother Jason, I don’t think anyone here is trying to throw this brother under the bus (at least that is not the intention of my comments). Nor do I think many of us would regard Ms. Maddow or Right Wing Watch as credible witnesses. At the same time the public pronouncements and teachings and mannerisms of any public figure are subject to public critique, including those of Rev. Swanson. Public criticism of public statements is not necessarily a sign of lack of love for the one of whom those criticisms are made.
What is of concern to me is that, outside of his own congregation, Rev. Swanson appears to be better known for his culture warriorism (through, for example, his “Generations” organization and radio show, his “Apostate” book, and his conference speaking) than his preaching of the gospel or his ministry of Word and sacrament (which, in the eternal scheme of things, is far more important than the temporal concerns addressed by culture warrior types). I’m not saying he doesn’t preach the gospel; just that his culture warrior persona seems to have eclipsed his identity as a minister of the gospel in the public eye.
In addition, while I agree that select video clips of only several minutes’ length may not fairly represent the context of everything he teaches, I believe they do represent what many remember about him and thus the causes they identity him with. If a minister of the gospel causes offense (which he will to some extent if he is being faithful), shouldn’t the offense be over things like (say) the proclamation of Christ and His cross work as the exclusive way of salvation, the sovereign predestination of God in contrast to human autonomy and free will, or God’s call to all men to repent, rather than things like (say) his political opinions, or the evils of the Girl Scouts and Girl Scout cookies, or his flailing, hyperventilating, shrill speaking style (which does not befit the dignity of the office of the sacred ministry)?
By the way, I have had some email interaction with Rev. Swanson and have expressed some of these concerns directly to this brother. My words at times may be sharp, but my motive is not to see this gifted brother “thrown under the bus,” but to see him encouraged toward a sounder, more biblical ministry emphasis and away from his culture warrior schtick, for the furtherance of the kingdom and the honor of Christ.
LikeLike
Geoff, Kevin’s not been thrown under the bus? He’s been labeled “pathetic,” “fringe,” “ten times worse [than Tim Keller]”, “a bombastic clown,” and “Rush Limbaugh on meth.” We’ve been told that he “truncates the gospel” and is a “neonomian.” It seems Matthew 18 only applies if someone doesn’t have a blog to which they can post. If this is how we are defend the good name of our neighbor (Larger Catechism 144), we’re doomed.
LikeLike
Jason, I don’t know, but how does Pastor Swanson handle the good names of his political and cultural adversaries?
LikeLike
Jason, your point is well taken about some of the rhetoric offered on this post in criticism of Rev. Swanson. At the same time, Matthew 18 (to which you appeal) deals with what our Book of Discipline calls a “personal private offense” (BD III.4-5). Rev. Swanson’s public diatribes are not personal offenses commited against me or anyone else who has chosen to comment here. Rather, they are public statements put out there for public consumption, and thus are fair game for public critique. This is true even of public statements made by ministers of the gospel in good standing.
(Or are those who have genuine concerns about the message and mannerisms of this brother just suppose to keep their concerns to themselves and not say anything? Does our status as ministers of the gospel somehow make us immune to public criticism for our public statements, unless such criticisms come only through the formal channels of the church courts?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
While pastor Wallace’s advice towards temperance of speech is commendable, one might want to point out that only one person, on this thread at least, has given into what might be interpreted as
‘bus-fodder’ speech (unless the post referred to is from a person who enjoys both Limbaugh and meth in equal measure). The point of the primary post seems to be that Swanson is neither a pivotal political figure, nor acting as a representative of the OPC (which in 2k-land is a good thing), and does not need to be subjected to the hustle and flo’ of the OL crew. On the other hand, don’t his public statements warrant public remark (tempered with prudence, of course)? Since his theonomic views are currently ‘permissible’ in the OPC, it is not clear just how Matt. 18 fits into the works; does that mean then that nothing whatsoever can be said in public as counterpoint?
LikeLike
Indeed context is important. Humor was very much referenced as a tool in that legitimate use of hyperbolic rhetoric in the exchanges / banter, etc.. Clearly it was a joke in an effort to demonstrate absurdity (Swanson’s absurdity) by being absurd. But for anyone whose humor is a little daft or who are big Swanson home boys or whose taste is all in their mouth (that is more humor btw) let me be clear…… I in no way think Sawnson does meth. I do however believe that he often and his general ministry focus indeed does truncate the gospel and he seems to have a neonomian tilt. I think he would be fairly called a theononist and it’s already been established that he’s tolerated in the OPC for that part. Yet, as claimed elswhere – most in the OPC think that theogony view is Un- Biblical and not in accord with the confessions, but still tolerated nonetheless. In the context of this blog post (ehem, see post title) I do also think he is worse than Keller.
A big ditto to what GW stated in his last post…….
“””Matthew 18 (to which you appeal) deals with what our Book of Discipline calls a “personal private offense” (BD III.4-5). Rev. Swanson’s public diatribes are not personal offenses commited against me or anyone else who has chosen to comment here. Rather, they are public statements put out there for public consumption, and thus are fair game for public critique. This is true even of public statements made by ministers of the gospel in good standing.
(Or are those who have genuine concerns about the message and mannerisms of this brother just suppose to keep their concerns to themselves and not say anything? Does our status as ministers of the gospel somehow make us immune to public criticism for our public statements, unless such criticisms come only through the formal channels of the church courts?)””””
I guess some would prefer a kind of protestant sacerdotalism or infallibility for certain public leaders. The Matt. 18 reference is not only mis-applied due to his very public culture warrior activism, but in this case also very hypocritical I must say when considering that pastor Swanson is second to none at piling on via of bombastic rhetoric and not so temperament speech.
Yeah right, because this public figure isn’t “bombastic” in the least. On the contrary “bombastic” is an appropriate term to use for this guy. Pus, sores, carved happy faces, my my what a paragon of salt, light and temperance language. So Kevin gets to use sarcastic hyperbolic humor but no one else can? I’m sure this video is yet again out of context, somehow botched together and is part of some vast Apostate conspiracy against Swanson. What possible ‘put back in context’ rendering would make this better? Is this or is this not indicative of Swanson’s approach and ministry focus? So the claim is this is not indicative of Swanson and his work?
No, Swanson arrived here, in the news, because he loves the public stage, he prefers it in this demeanor and he got here all by himself. His very public work can stand on its own. I sincerely hope he changes and as stated here he’s clearly been talked to by many before. If the offense is in the Gospel, amen! As many others have mentioned here I’m afraid Swanson’s devotees are attracted to him, generation ministries and his church for culture warrior reasons and it appears that is what he is best known for.
While the host of this blog kingdom I may disagree on a few things (one of them being critiquing Swanson a little more often) he and I are in full agreement that Swanson is wrong.
LikeLike
typos, sorry…..meant ‘theonomy’ – theonomist.
LikeLike
Thanks Geoff, excellent posts here
LikeLike
@Willour
I don’t understand your distinction re: Swanson’s activities outside of the pulpit. The employment handbook of my company makes clear that employees are representatives of the company, whether at work or not, and that employees are expected to promote values consistent with the company’s in all of their out-of-work activities. In fact, I was once employed at a law firm that even set forth an out-of-work dress code for attorneys. If corporate America can tell me what to wear when to Dunkin Donuts on Saturday morning, then the OPC is free to regulate Swanson’s out-of-the-pulpit activity. The OPC management in Philadelphia just doesn’t want to tangle with him.
LikeLike
“The OPC management in Philadelphia just doesn’t want to tangle with him.”
This is an example of “authoritarian-speak.” There is no “management” (in the sense intended) in Phila, or anyplace else… on earth.
Meanwhile, there is actually a paper-constitution for the OPC, that actually means something; and includes a quaint view (to Americans, generally) called “due process.”
As with Irons’ case, for Swanson there is a slow, judicial process that must be started in a court of original jurisdiction. Irons case could be appealed to a hearing by the fully assembled church, eventually. His wonky take on the Law was out of accord with the Confession, according to the majority of the church in representative assembly, when they had a chance to evaluate it.
For Swanson, there has to be charges; and those charges have to be adjudicated. There isn’t some pope or star-chamber in Phila with special powers to “correct wrongs” (perceived).
Liberals, progressives, and conservatives all want a new system–one with a duly empowered emperor. The problem (they say) isn’t authoritarianism, per se; it’s just the *wrong* people have that dictatorial power. “If only the GOOD people we like were in complete control, then (after we squash the bugs), everything will be ducky.”
LikeLike
Bobby: Bruce’s comments above are correct. There is no central OPC “management” in Philadelphia or anywhere else. The OPC is a presbyterian church, not an episcopal church with a strong centralized ecclessiastical bureaucracy; and one of the things this means practically is that Rev. Swanson is directly accountable to his own Presbytery (i.e., the Regional Church, where his membership and credentials are held). Because his Presbytery is his judicatory of original jurisdiction, any formal charges leading to censure that might be brought against him would ordinarily have to originate within his own Presbytery. The OPC’s Constitution, which includes its Book of Discipline, explains these things and outlines the steps in judicial process in such cases, including rules of evidence, the rights of the accused, etc. (i.e., due process).
If you’re interested in learning more about the discipline process in the OPC, the OPC’s Book of Discipline is available for you to read here: http://www.opc.org/BCO/BD.html
LikeLike
Bobby, “In fact, I was once employed at a law firm that even set forth an out-of-work dress code for attorneys. If corporate America can tell me what to wear when to Dunkin Donuts on Saturday morning, then the OPC is free to regulate Swanson’s out-of-the-pulpit activity.”
Think about sufficiency of Scripture much? Do you have a biblical text to support that? Or are you a Communist?
LikeLike
DGHart: Bobby,Think about sufficiency of Scripture much? Do you have a biblical text to support that?
1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach…. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Philippians 2:4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
1 Timothy 5: 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. 21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
Titus 1: 6 man is above reproach…9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Titus 2:1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. 7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
1 Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
LikeLike