Green Baggins has begun a process of working through the Federal Vision issue of Credenda. He worries in his last few sentences that I might feel like he hit below the belt in this exchange, but I don’t think that at all. There are a couple of roundhouses where he doesn’t hit anything at all, but I don’t really have any objections to that. He can do that as much as he likes.
He brings up a number of issues, and I don’t think I can get to all of them in just one post. I’ll parcel it out over a series of posts.
He begins with a discussion of his appreciation of systematic theology, and likes the fact that I believe systematics are inescapable, which I certainly do. Connected to this is Lane’s appreciation of the Protestant scholastics. He likes what I said about this general topic, but takes other FV guys to task for disparaging the scholastics. I have seen some of that, but I have also seen numerous positive FV citations from the scholastics — Mark “Turretin” Horne comes to mind. These are easy to forget because the Protestant scholastics frequently say things that would get them in trouble in Mississippi Valley Presbytery. But they did write them, and FV guys have quoted them with pleasure and satisfaction.
Having said this, let me mark one caution over the systematic lovefest. Lane said:
“As Muller represents, scholasticism refers to a method of teaching, not the content of said teaching. One could perhaps state that the form contributes to the meaning. Fair enough. But do fine distinctions undermine clarity or produce it?”
Well, systematics is inescapable. But that doesn’t mean that there are no differences of method between various systematic approaches. And, as Lane even acknowledges, method can have a shaping effect on the content. For example, the logic developed by Ramus was a method, but it certainly could be a Procrustean bed of a method if you didn’t watch it. Not everything is divisible by two. Lane asks if fine distinctions undermine clarity or produce it. Sometimes they produce it, sure — and certain kinds of fine distinctions are necessary. But at other times fine distinctions undermine clarity. Sure. Happens all the time. “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?” “Well, when you say ‘fat,’ are you drawing the line at 130 lb? With 129 okay, and 131 tubby? These fine distinctions are necessary if we are to make any headway in this discussion. If we are to achieve clarity.” The clarity that a night on the sofa produces.
Lane’s first criticism was directed at my explanation for why FV guys have not always acknowledged errors. I had said, and Lane quoted, “Part of the reason Christians are reluctant to acknowledge any kind of wrong-doing in the middle of a fight is because ’anything you say can and will be used against you.’ Stonewalling is easier than giving ammo to the adversary.”
Now Lane represents it as though differs with me on this one, and goes on to urge a humble recognition of the possible weaknesses of your own argument. The impression is left that I think that stonewalling is somehow a good idea, as opposed to the point I was actually making, which is that stonewalling is a natural human tendency which we FVers share with all other humans under attack. Not a good thing at all, but something that should be understood. The comments at Lane’s blog indicate that I was somehow arguing for some kind of fleshly response, and that I have forgotten the importance of love. But . . . those comments were an explanation of a certain kind of behavior, not a defense of it. Just a few sentences above the quote I had just said this:
“In the course of this controversy, on the Federal Vision side of things, I have seen more than a few examples of intemperate remarks, frayed tempers, and an unhelpful imputation of evil motives to others.”
The article was entitled “A Cautionary Note,” and with one notable exception, virtually the whole article was directed to guys on our side of the line, urging them to consider their own hearts and their own temptations in the course of this controversy. Precisely because of the criticism that we act like we are above criticism, and because I was acutely aware of our temptations, we led off this issue of the magazine with spiritual cautions and warnings to our guys. And how was it represented to the world at Green Baggins? As though his exhoration to humility contrasted sharply with my exhortation to stonewall.
Anticipating a point I will make in my next response, I am not accusing Lane of lying about me here. I am saying that he is misrepresenting me. People can say false things knowing them to be false (anonymous blogs are good for that), and they can say false things not knowing them to be false. The former is lying; the latter is confusion. I believe Lane to be genuinely honest, and I have good reasons for believing so. And with instances like this, I believe him to be thoroughly confused about what I said — and I have reasons for believing so.