And I can’t let this one pass by. In the course of his argument, Carl Trueman mentioned an oddity that he had noticed — that men who are conservative in their theology, and capable of great precision and nuance, turned suddenly simplistic when it came to political analysis. Hey, worth thinking about, right?
But the theological context he used to make this point was this one, and a howler it was too.
“There has been an understandable reaction in recent years against the kind of theological proposals coming out of movements such as the emergent church and, closer to home, the Federal Vision. Debates with these groups have taken place on a whole variety of fronts, but one of the central bones of contention has been theological precision” (p. 79).
“While conservative theological types (among whom I number myself) are often very concerned about theological precision, we can tend to think in rather simplistic, black-and-white, cliched terms when it comes to politics” (p. 80).
Two points. Just two. Dos.
One, “debates with these groups have taken place on a whole variety of fronts,” except for the fronts where they ought to have taken place. As I have mentioned before, oh, about three hundred times, when it comes to arranging for a fruitful debate on these issues, I can’t get arrested.
And second, “precision” is fully capable of being simplistic. Let me assure Dr. Trueman that the technology is certainly available for that. I myself have been colliding for a number of years with men who think the Westminster Confession of Faith was built out of pressurized two by fours, and Trueman sets them forth as champions of nuance? Heh.