Introduction

So yesterday was eventful. There were events in the PCA, in the SBC, and in the CREC. You like how I am starting out in such measured tones, calling these things “events”?

The old Chinese curse goes, as I am sure you remember, may you live in interesting times. And, as it transpires, we do. We do.

The SBC

First, a trailer for an upcoming documentary about the growth of identity politics in the Southern Baptist Convention dropped, and everything you need to know about the bad happenings in the SBC can be ascertained from watching the reactions to the trailer. If you want to watch the video before reading any further, it can be found here. And a round-up of some of those reactions can be seen here.

That reaction was swift and vigorous. There was no nuance necessary. The bugle did not blow indistinctly. It was time for action. What the trailer did is reveal that the people running the show are capable of responding to a threat—provided they believe it to be a threat—in a way that is commensurate with the stipulated nature of the threat. So why haven’t they responded to critical race theory that way? Why haven’t they responded to feminist egalitarianism that way? The answer would appear to be straightforward—they do not believe those things to be a threat, or at least as much of a threat.

My twitter feed was jammed with variegated responses to the whole thing, and one of the most astonishing things was how Donald Trump managed to get into the discussion. He has a real genius for self-promotion, that man, but this one takes the cake. The trailer did not even hint at the president’s existence, and within the space of a few hours, there he was, climbing out of Marine One, waving to everybody.

One of the points made in the trailer repeatedly was that Christians of good will and good conscience are unwittingly opening the door to really bad currents from outside. But from some of the reactions (e.g. accusing the documentary of maintaining that Rachael Denhollander was demonic), it was apparent that in this push back game, any construal is a good construal. But that’s ridiculous. They don’t think that. C’mon.

The PCA

Yesterday I also read about the appointment of a committee for the PCA that will report out on various issues related to all our gender wars (e.g. Revoice). Looking at the composition of the committee, I don’t know enough to know if this one is good news or bad news. We shall have to wait and see.

The one thing that the committee will have to deal with is that orc-baby concupiscence. In the life of an individual, if any room in the budget is left for concupiscence it will always take advantage of that room, and it will grow. The same thing is true of denominations. If the committee comes out with any recommendations for their denomination’s struggle with concupiscence—short of the firing squad—then the PCA has had it.

In the meantime, pray for that committee. I would urge those who are engaged in this particular battle to refrain from the politics of pressure, and dedicate themselves to the production of published materials that might be of use to the committee. This could be of use in two ways. First, if we make plain the historic Reformed understanding of human nature, biblical law, natural law, justification, sanctification, mortification, and so on, then we may be involved in crowd sourcing the research for the good guys on the committee. That will be a help and an encouragement. Second, if the report coming out of committee is poor, it would then have to be released into an environment that has been dominated with sound teaching on the subject for the months prior.

Here we are, at any rate.  

The CREC

There was some good news from my own communion, the CREC. On Monday, my colleague Toby Sumpter wrote about some concerns he had with the anemic response in our circles to some of the spiritual friendship/Revoice issues. What he wrote can be read here.

A big part of his (legitimate) concern was the fact that Peter Leithart (CREC) had blurbed Wesley Hill’s book, Spiritual Friendship. The book was published before the first Revoice conference, but was very much in line with the themes and emphasis of the conference when it finally happened, and Hill was one of the speakers and organizers of that event. Toby knew that Peter did not support the Revoice project, but was dismayed that he had not gone on the record about it, given the fact that he had blurbed the book.

But, in a divine sense of humor thing, Toby’s post and Peter’ response to Revoice were both published Monday morning. And as Peter says in that response, coming right to the point:

“You can’t change biblical sexual morality without undoing biblical teaching about God, man, and the world.”

Peter calls this kind of direct revisionism heresy, and I was really glad to see it.

In addition, as he analyzes the confusions endemic to the “gay celibate” project, which he distinguishes from the full-tilt revisionism he condemns, he gives more credit for good intentions than I would, but he also identifies some problems with any such attempts. I was glad to see that as well. While he leaves room for the gay celibate project to avoid the ditch he warns about (while I think they are already in the ditch), both Peter and I agree on the fact of the ditch.

Down at the tectonic level, I know that Peter and I differ on the importance and nature of nature, but this does not diminish my pleasure at seeing this statement. Our difference has more to do with whether I think Peter’s ammo supply will hold up, and not whether he is on the right side in this fight.