Outside Gallio’s House

Sharing Options

Someone over at Reformation21 thought of a funny, and twisted it like a washcloth until it was dry enough to serve as pulpit supply in some churches that could be mentioned.

But in the course of his excursus into humor, the writer developed a new accusation that merits some response, however brief. Speaking in the faux-guise of an advocate of the “foetal vision,” he says this:

“if it becomes clear that we have a majority in the church courts, I would say to our opponents “Yo, you bunch of spineless apostate losers! Charge us if you think you’re hard enough. And Ligon Duncan – if you’re out there, just bring it on, man, BRING IT ON!!!!!” If, on the other hand, it emerges that we don’t seem to have a majority in the church and might lose our jobs as a result of unconfessional practice and belief, I would plead with our brothers, in the love of Christ, to show forth Christian love in unity, to acknowledge the rich diversity of the Reformed tradition, and to walk together with mutual care and respect, and live at peace for the sake of the kingdom.’

In other words, the federal vision folks, who have brought charges against no one, and are currently trying to drive zero opponents from their pulpits, and who are blocking no candidates at all in presbytery exams, are nevertheless to be blamed because that is no doubt what they would do if ever given the chance. Thus we see the doctrine of hypothetical retaliation and justification, which really is a problematic use of that last word. This kind of “justification” sees launching an unprovoked attack as “retaliatory in principle” because, “even though they didn’t do this unto us, they will do it if they ever have the chance.” To the pure all things are pure, and so it makes sense that to the aggressive all things look aggressive.

What this kind of thing does is blur the difference between offense and defense, between which team has the ball and which one doesn’t. The suggestion is made here that we in the federal vision are only making nice because we don’t have the upper hand, but, when we do, then the TRs will all be hauled off for a little presbyterial bastinado. The problem with this little thesis is what the federal vision folks have actually done. The catholicity of the federal vision (which is an important and under-reported emphasis in it) is not merely hypothetical; it is no temporary ploy. And, for the record, that catholicity has to include TRs. It makes no sense to try to develop ecumenical bridges to other distant communions while starting fights with your next door neighbor. We understand this. For just one example, the CREC, which is accused by some of being a haven for federal vision refugees, is also a denomination of Reformed churches which allows the London Baptist Confession as one of its six reformed confessions. For those not following the details of this, baptists are generally un-federal-visionish, if that’s a word.

It is one thing for our adversaries to decide that a fight is necessary for the sake of “the truth.” If that what someone’s conscience demands, then that is what he should do. But the fight should be justified on the basis of the facts, examined in the clear light of Scripture, and not on the basis of an imaginary scenario in which is it assumed that the other side wants the fight just as much as you do, and in the same way. This latter approach, far from demonstrating the robust insight of Athanasius dealing with the snaky charm of an Arius, rather indicates the reluctance born of a bad conscience, that of a decent guy maneuvered into beating someone up outside Gallio’s house, and all over “words, and names, and your own law.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments