Zowie. The RPCNA has adopted a report that speaks in loud, muffly tones. The emphasis is mine. The skylarking afterwards is also mine.
1. That Synod DECLARE that we stand in solidarity with our Reformed and Presbyterian brethren in rejecting as contrary to the Scriptures as summarized by our confessional standards the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as “the New Perspective(s) on Paul” and the “Federal Vision.”
Some of you may be familiar with the Daisy Cutter bomb. Not a precision instrument. The kind of bomb you drop on terrorist militants and others generally associated with them. Not to mention others not generally associated, but standing too close anyhow. Or others just passing by.
Get a truckload of that. The theological views “that are generally associated with” the New Perspective on Paul, or the New Perspectives on Paul, or the Federal Vision. Huh. Now there’s a scapel that is about as sharp as a pound of wet liver.
So we have, at a minimum, three distinct movements, one FV and two NPPs, maybe more. Do we condemn those movements? That could be inferred, but such an approach would be too liberal. We do not content ourselves with condemning the views of these movements, but rather condemn theological views that are generally associated with them. Not specifically associated, mind you, but generally associated. And it is not necessary to specify who has the authority to do the general associating, or, as has happened throughout much of this controversy, the free associating.
Richard Gaffin shared the platform once with N.T. Wright. Saw it with my own eyes. Not only that, but he blurbed that infamous Norman Shepherd book. Canon Press is generally associated with me because they publish my books. And Presbyterian & Reformed is generally associated with Norman Shepherd. Not only that, but every current P&R author is also tainted. No one is safe, not because the cooties are spreading, but rather because of how easy it is for them to spread. You know, by this last criterion, I’m in additional trouble because I still get royalty checks from P&R, and they published Norman Shepherd, and Richard Gaffin blurbed it, and I met Richard Gaffin at the Auburn conference, and he was friendly. Of course, this had more to do with him being a Christian gentleman than being Reformed, but try that defense around here these days and see how far it gets you. I was already radioactive, but that doesn’t affect the principle of the thing. If I hadn’t already been tagged, I would have been generally associated with Norman Shepherd through P&R.
So the RPCNA has condemned the FV and the horse it rode in on. The RPCNA has rejected the NPP(s) and its sisters and its cousins, whom it reckons up by dozens, and its aunts. The RPCNA has denounced all theological views in the general vicinity of FV and NPP(s), NFPV(s)P for short, but have reglected to specify the radius of contamination. They have also neglected to specify what meter or what scale they are using.
And then, Scott Clark had this to say about anticipated reactions from us.
“The cynic in me knows that the first reaction from the FV boys will not be, ‘Oh my, yet another NAPARC denomination has soundly rejected the FV and NPP.’ No, the immediate reaction will be, ‘They still don’t understand us.'” Wait for it. Five, four, three, two, Hold your ears, one . . .
No, my first reaction had nothing to do with NAPARC, which sounds like an elite fighting unit out of a Tom Clancy novel. And neither was it “they still don’t understand us.” I am beginning to wonder if the the drivers behind all this understand anything. Scott Clark’s method of determining theological vereties reminds me of Mencken’s definition of democracy — establishing the truth by counting noses and promulgating it afterwards with a club.
And then he adds:
“Not that we’re keeping score but so far the OPC, PCA, RCUS, URCNA, OCRC and now the RPCNA have all rejected the FV.”
That’s the problem with men like Athanasius. No good at math. Don’t know how to count. Can read pretty good though.