Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion, that the criticisms contained in the MARS testimony are right on target. This will help us set up something that will reveal (with a great deal of clarity) why the testimony is a plain violation of the ninth commandment. Let us also take the naming of names on page six in the most broad and charitable sense, which is that NPP and FV are not coterminous with these errors, but rather that they are “carriers” of these errors.
Here is the problem, and it boils down to the relationship of Mid-America to Norman Shepherd. Norman Shepherd has visited there to lecture, his works have been assigned in class (and not in the way New St. Andrews assigns Darwin), and he (most significantly) served for a number of years on their board. John Barach is one of the original Auburn four, and a graduate of MARS. He has Norman Shepherd’s signature on his diploma, and he graduated in 1997.
It seems to have been recognized by all previous lumpers-together that this stew needs to have Norman Shepherd in it, and not just N.T. Wright and Steve Wilkins. It is remarkable therefore that MARS did not identify Norman Shepherd by name. Neither did they identify their own seminary as carriers of these errors as well.
Shepherd’s previous connection to Westminster is not comparable, because he was forced out of Westminster as a result of a previous incarnation of this same controversy. But one of the places that “gave refuge” to Shepherd after that controversy was MARS. This was after his views became known, and became known in controversy. This is just another way of saying that MARS is in the process of changing sides, and is trying to do so in such a way that no one notices.
This kind of inconsistency has been seen before, and it is one of the central reasons for seeing this whole imbroglio as ecclesiastical politics instead of ecclesiastical reformation. Norman Shepherd has been used as a scarecrow in all this, but those who were previously associated with him in ministry have been pressured to simply back away. If they just drop their support quietly, then nothing so messy as public repentance will be required of them. Presbyterian & Reformed is now publishing attacks on the FV, but they previously published Norman Shepherd’s Call of Grace. And Richard Gaffin blurbed it.
Clearly, MARS is no longer willing to stand with Shepherd, as they were once willing to do. But in this testimony of theirs, they did not even mention Shepherd. If this were a matter of biblical principle, and not politics, MARS would have started with themselves. This is Biblical Ethics 101. Instead they lumped a bunch of disparate groups together, excluding only the one citation that would have involved them in it. In their defense, if it can be called that, at least they did not cast the first stone.
In that famous story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus famously tells the accusers that the one without sin should cast the first stone. I take this as the Lord saying that whoever is without the sin of adultery, the sin in question, should cast the first stone. And they all, beginning with the oldest, slowly went away.
So I have a very simple question for Alan Strange — and let me say again that I do appreciate his willingness to interact with me on these things. Here it is: consider this set of errors that you are attacking, and of which the NPP and FV are carriers. Was MARS in the 1990’s a carrier of these same errors also? If not, why not? In what ways are other critics of NPP/FV/NS mistaken? If so, then why was an expression of institutional repentance not included in the testimony? Why attack others publicly for doing something that your own institution did privately for many years?
The accusation made against us is that we are messing around with justification by faith alone. This is not true, but suppose for a moment that it were true. If the anti-FV critics were right, and correct in lumping all the carriers together as well, then this would include Norman Shepherd along with the rest of us. But MARS cannot afford to name him, because that would be too glaring. Too many people would say, “Hey!” all at once, and go off to look at their diplomas, and there would be Norman Shepherd’s signature, staring back at them in silent rebuke. They would then haul out their old class notes and say, “Huh. He didn’t used to be a bad guy.”
We have no textual basis for asserting that this happened, but let me expand the story of the woman caught in adultery. I am not making a historical claim here, but rather trying to illustrate something about human nature. I do believe that Jesus was referring to the sin of adultery when He says that the one without sin should cast the first stone. I believe that is implicit in the text. But here is the expansion. Human nature being what it is, I do not find it incredible to believe it possible that one of the men with a rock in his hand had himself slept with that condemned woman before. And I also believe that he could feel terrible about it, feeling the pangs of conscience terribly. But that doesn’t mean that he would have the backbone to drop the rock and stand up to the vigilante mob around him.
If the testimony of MARS is to be believed as a statement of principle, then I think that they must publicly repent of their own connivance with these errors, as well as repent of trying to sidle away from those errors instead of repudiating with them openly. If they are not willing to do this, then at a bare minimum, they need to withdraw their testimony as it now stands. The way they have grouped the offenders together is not just too confusing, it is too convenient.