A reply to some of the (very deserved) criticisms of the PCA study committee on the Federal Vision can be found here. The PCA will be addressing this issue at their GA in the coming days, and so I would urge everyone to pray that God would protect that denomination from an act of theological folly and high-handedness.
I am not going to interact with the “humble answers” seriatim, but I do want to say one thing about how they answered the most glaring problem with the study committee — that being the stacked nature of the committee. To put it in terms that the average layman can follow, that committee was as stacked as a double order of golden brown buttermilks.
Read the answer to this charge, and try to read it out loud without laughing. Here you go.
First, it has been suggested that the composition of the Committee was unfairly weighted. On the contrary, the Committee represents a broad range of thought within the PCA, bringing together many who have in the past disagreed on less essential (though important) issues. These seven elders are from seven different presbyteries and have between them served faithfully in at least 20 different churches across the PCA. One is a former moderator of the PCA, another is the Vice President for Academics of our denominational seminary, and a third, the chairman, was an active member of the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network (PPLN) that spearheaded the passing of the “Good Faith Subscription” amendment. Three others are faithful and active ruling elders that have served the PCA in a variety of capacities. This broad composition highlights the tremendous opportunity for different “camps” across the PCA to join together at the 35th General Assembly to reaffirm what unites us most as a church: the centrality of God’s grace in all of salvation. Further, such accusations reveal a mistrust of the motives of the Committee and the denomination’s moderator, who has faithfully served our church, beginning in the RPCES, for over 35 years, including service as the editor of the PCA’s news website. This is a form of ad hominem and does not address the substance of the report itself, nor the report’s nine clear declarations which represent straightforward readings of the Westminster Standards with which few could disagree.
Here, allow me to translate. Charge: the committee assigned to investigate the issue of the Federal Vision was stacked so that there would be no one representing FV concerns on committee, and hence there would be no minority report. Reply: on the contrary, the seven men on that committee are a walking embodiment of diversity. They live in different towns, they order different entrees at restaurants, and, after checking, we discovered that none of them have the same make of automobile. Thus, the ad hominem charge that this committee was stacked against the Federal Vision is a charge that stands both confounded and abashed. We hope, dear reader, that we can get past this nonsense.
Well, it is kind of hard to get past it so long as you continue to roll around in it.