I just now finished looking over a statement from Mid-America Reformed Seminary — “Doctrinal Testimony Regarding Recent Errors.” What a dog’s breakfast.
The testimony is suitably coy and nebulous about exactly who the particular error-mongers might be, but they do refer darkly to “the present controversies,” “contemporary discussion,” “current climate,” “theological errors,” and whatnot. The most specific statement is this:
“With no animosity toward persons, and recognizing that we all see as ‘through a glass darkly’ (1 Cor. 13:12), we humbly but resolutely stand against the theological errors now current, propagated by certain teachings of what has become known as the Federal Vision, by certain teachings of what has become known as the New Perspective on Paul, and by certain teachings of other individuals and theological movements” (p. 6).
We all see through a glass darkly, but some more darkly than others. Here is the problem, and it is a glaring and grotesque one. Their testimony includes a “Digest of Errors” (pp. 17-20). This is a list of 45 errors taught by “the various proponents of the current set of errors.” I am an FV guy, right? I should be able to find myself in there, right? But out of their list of 45 errors, I find that I could be able to join them in rejecting 43, and maybe 44 of them. The “error” I recognize as a reasonable expression of my own position is # 36, that of paedocommunion. The others on the list participate in overt misrepresentation, with varying degrees of high-handedness. The degrees of misrepresentation range from mild to jaw-dropping. This was an unbelievably shoddy bit of scholarship. This was atrocious. This was violation of the ninth commandment with a chainsaw.
I would offer to debate someone from MARS over this, but what’s the use? Does anyone really believe that any member of the faculty there would allow himself to be put in a position where he would have to answer specific questions about this “testimony”? I think I’ll save my breath for cooling my porridge.
John Frame wrote a famous essay on Machen’s Warrior Children, and his central point about the travesty of Reformed fractiousness and bloodletting was certainly well taken. But I am having doubts about whether the word warrior is the word we are looking for. We aren’t dealing with warriors anymore; we have lever-pullers, agenda-setters, drive-by report-makers, schmoozers, politicians, non-argument-followers, and hide-behind-deskers.