In the history of the Church, Christians have certainly divided over inconsequential matters before. Should you make the sign of the cross with two fingers or three? They have also divided over momentous issues, where the gospel itself was at stake. The magisterial Reformation was an example of this.
Sometimes issues arise where it is hard to categorize. There is enough confusion over theological terminology and usage to make the discussions themselves difficult, and if you throw in personal suspicions and ecclesiastical turf issues, you have yourself a perfect storm. Might the gospel itself be at stake? Maybe. Might the gospel itself be at stake either way you go? Maybe.
The FV controversy provides a very good example of this. How many issues are connected to it? There are quite a few, and they are all of them weighty. The relationship of faith and works, justification by faith alone, hermeneutics, sacramental theology, paedocommunion, the centrality of liturgy and worship, the exile of the Church in the Babylon of modernity, and lots more than that. So for people on both sides this is not a simple “do we baptize with heads upstream or downstream” issue.
As a bona fide guy on the FV side of things, I definitely have sharp differences with those who are on the warpath against us. But as a confessional Reformed minister, who has honestly subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, I am also convinced that many of the “distinctives” I am accused of promulgating are not distinctives at all, but are in fact the teaching and doctrine of the Confession. And so this means I believe our adversaries are actually out of conformity with the teaching of the Confession at a number of points.
At the same time, I believe that at the heart of the TR concerns are some issues that they are quite right to be concerned about, and which they have the right and responsibility to defend and make a big deal out of. On these concerns, they do represent the teaching of the Reformers. The systematics course in Greyfriars Hall, our ministerial training program, is a course through the Westminster Confession, and there are a number of central issues there where I believe FV advocates have a responsibility to emphasize their whole-hearted agreement. As I told my students recently, there are many ways in which I consider myself a TR. Or make that a TRFVer. Just call me Trevor.
But here is the problem. I have found that for many on the other side of this fracas, the more I emphasize my agreement with certain evangelical essentials (e.g. the absolute necessity of the new birth), the more it convinces my adversaries that I am a disingenuous sneak. I have resolved to affirm any FV truths that are grounded in Scripture and the honored traditions of the Reformed faith (and there are many). In fact, sola Scriptura is one of our central traditions, but that is a subject for another day. But I have refused to take this stand in a glib either/or way. Why rush to divide? I have approached the whole deal in as catholic a both/and way as possible. But far from establishing my orthodoxy in some quarters, it has merely served as an clinching argument for my theological dishonesty.
And this is why I think it is necessary to turn the charge around. Catholicity in this discussion does not require that we refrain from vigorous debate. Given the state of the church, and the turmoil this whole controversy has engendered, focused debate is most necessary. To continue the accusations without being willing to debate is the real intellectual dishonesty. The broader Reformed church coming to consensus and like-mindedness on this complex set of issues will not be accomplished by all of us preaching to our respective choirs.
And so, again, I would like to reissue the invitation to the debate that Guy Waters declined. I would be more than willing to meet in charitable Christian debate with any credible representative of and spokesman for the mainstream anti-FV position. We would arrange a time and place mutually agreeable, conduct the debate, and make the audio and video tapes available for distribution by both sides.
In issuing this invitation, I want specifically to invite men like Ligon Duncan, Scott Clark, Cal Beisner, or Joe Morecraft. If any of you are willing, please contact us. The invitation is also open to any young, capable Elihu who is embarrassed by the silence of his elders.