Let me ask you. If you knew a study committee was being selected to investigate and produce a report on “the New Perspective on Paul,” and that one of the members had written the hymn you see below, and that he was pretty much of like mind with all the other people permitted on the committee, would you think a) it was simply an attempt to put institutional power behind a foregone conclusion or b) a genuine attempt to discover the truth?

My hope is built on nothing less
Than covenantal faithfulness
Circumcision will not do
If I want to be a spiritual Jew.

On this, the solid rock I stand
Or is it all just sinking sand?
Or is the law just sinking sand?

When darkness veils my lovely face
I rest on the law’s abundant grace
If good enough for Pharisees
It’s good enough to save me.

The Jewish Law was all of grace
Tis the way to see God’s face
They only needed to find out
That faithfulness would solve all doubt.

Jesus keeping the covenant
Is met by faith obedient
His name and honor are at stake
If my faithfulness is all a fake.

When the last trumpet shall sound
May I in the community be found
Clothed in my faithfulness alone
Standing before God’s throne.

A couple of statements for the record, while I think the above hymn utterly misrepresents Wright (one of the persons it was aimed at), I don’t think it is wrong for a minister in my denomination to hold such an opinion.

This leads me to also point out that there is nothing wrong with being a member of a committee while already having strong convictions.

My question is about the process, not about any one person.

3 thoughts on “Bias?

  1. mark Post author

    Sean Lucas responded here.

    My response:

    Sean, you have GOT to know that I would never claim any moral high ground against you for tone. Nor do I want to.

    But you have participated in something I can’t even trust myself to describe off the cuff and issues of prejudged verdicts are one (not the only) major issue of concern. That is the only reason this is all relevant. Not past ethics, right or wrong, but passionate zeal.

    Why were you chosen and not Dr. Jack Collins, or Professor John Frame, etc? By what proper process was Dr. Peter Leithart treated like an outsider without a say in a forum that was obviously committed to condemning him? By what Presbyterian or Biblical standard does one treat ministers in good standing as pariahs? And how can we countenance a process that claims to find they are unorthodox when it was formed on the premise of their unorthodoxy?

    There is no getting away from this Sean. I am nothing but impressed by what you have done in the past. But what has resulted from your present actions is much more problematic and will be more damaging to men–not convicted errorists, but men simply decided to be such beforehand, with a nominal procedure invoked to wrap official appearances around a prejudice.

  2. Pingback: Mark Horne » The Silent Edit: Why it matters

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *