The Federal Vision Controversy
As we wait for adjudication from the PCA judges, FV apologists and moderates (and those young theology wonks without a better topic to pontificate over) are doing overtime trying to get their say into the world wide web. Given my understanding of this issue and my close experience with some of its origin, this would be one issue I would have analyzed to death if I thought it was at all worth my time. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is worth my time. There are many reasons I think this, and I’ll name a few of these reasons here.
_____
First, the judges of the PCA understand their task far better than the external critics on both sides; and I think the real questions before the court are clear. All the huff on the internet does not even make mention of these questions. Rather, you find political talk about Wilkins being “heretical,” and then the backlash of FV supports declaring the importance of ecumenicity and the non-heretical nature of Wilkins’ teaching. But this misses the point almost entirely. The judges are not adjudicating whether or not Wilkins is to be considered a “heretic.” They are rather adjudicating whether or not Wilkins’ teaching and intentions are consistent with the WCF as employed as a standard within the PCA’s tradition as governed by the BCO constitution. Ironically, Wilkins has aligned himself with one of the most schismatic groups on the planet as related to main reformed denominations (i.e. the CREC), and the role of the judges is to seek to suppress any further schismatic behavior from Wilkins if it be consistent with their constitutional documents and judicial tradition.
Second, the controversy centers around the system of theology as allegedly found within the WCF, a confession now used as a constitutional document within the PCA; one of the center-pieces of this theology is the WCF’s unique presentation of a post-reformation scholastic covenant theology. I have already spent a good deal of time laboring over the issue of this scholastic covenant theology, and I believe I have successfully rejected this scholastic covenant theology in its entirety while offering a more exegetically cogent, poetically sensitive, and philosophically sound alternative. I have arrived at this position through private work that scans the “covenant language” from Genesis to Revelation, through debate with Leithart, Wilson, and Ralph Smith, and through publishing a series of articles on the matter in Credenda Agenda. I have also sought challenge from numerous other reformed theologians. Since starting up my formal graduate studies, I have only found further confirmation of my position and I have not yet discovered an argument that mitigates my position or the arguments for this position. Since the entire FV debate assumes precisely what my thesis rejects, until theologians addressing the FV issues begin backing up and addressing their covenant theology in a more self-conscious manner (or are willing to address my challenges) I no longer have any use for their disputes over FV where they touch issues surrounding ‘covenant’—which is a good deal of the issues.
Third, and related to the first point, there is a great lack of coherence and respectability in the FV theology in so far as their concerns over the discrepancy between biblical language and theological language are never followed through honestly and cogently. Concerns of biblical language are stated in controversial ways, and yet there is very little follow through and helpful unpacking of these concerns once they have pricked schism and controversy. From the beginning I have understood my position as really nothing more than a carrying through of some of the more basic concerns of the FV position, as has been expressed well by Richard Lusk. The opponents of the other side, however, fail to understand or sympathize with any of the concerns expressed by FV thinkers, resulting in once again a theological production that is anemic.
Fourth, FV was started and gained momentum by a group of men who had subversive intentions. The rhetoric of Schlissel, the militant response from Wilson to initial concern, the disparaging of the PCA in general, and the almost complete disregard of the contemporary expression of the “reformed tradition” in favor of first generation reformed writings makes this clear enough. I was meeting with Doug Wilson once a week during the time that Wilson had made his subversive intentions clear. Wilson spoke about the “dirty diapers” of reformed theology from the pulpit and gave me a year’s writing for Credenda Agenda after I had explained that “I was not reformed.” One of the many dishonest dimensions I saw from Wilson that carved the path to the Wood was the clear waffling and change of tune on the FV issue once the heat became far greater than he anticipated. This change of tune was not that much different than what was seen in the slavery controversy, as illustrated here and as detailed by local historian William Ramsey here (these two resources are by no means exhaustive).
Fifth, and tightly related to the last point, I am at this point firmly convinced that 90% of the FV controversy is politics. Reformation, pure religion, piety, and truth have almost nothing to do with what is going on – a fact perhaps running with the norm of church history. The reformation of the 16 th century was no doubt political too, but it was to a good degree a moral reformation. This purely doctrinal “reformation” of the FV is really just an exhibition of the moral corruption on both sides. Wilson and Jones have rightly noted that it was the lax morality and anemic cultural fruit from reformed churches that gave their practical books an inside hook into the reformed tradition. Unfortunately, however, Wilson would use such hooks for just more of the dishonest maneuvering we saw as early as 1993. and as late as the fresh COTK scandal. There has been plenty written elsewhere about the corruption and political mindedness of Wilson, so I’ll cut this point short.
Sixth, look at the nature of the debates between FV supporters and opponents. As C.S. Lewis once said, there “is some death” in theology; if this is true, then what we have been seeing as the output from the FV controversy is the blackest darkness of religious thinking. The only interesting parts are where each side attempts to lynch the other side (e.g. Wilson’s dishonest attack on Professor Clarke). The doctrinal discussions proper are enough to make one go lock himself down in the basement of literature department and throw away the key—another monastic tradition is no doubt brewing. The results of FV have suffocated the original concerns that could have born much fruit. But since the point is the politics, neither side in the controversy could really care.
_____
I hope this is sufficient for explaining why I have had little concern over the content of these skirmishes over the last year—outside of the work already done with respect to the politically subversive actions of Wilson. Life is too short; the life of Doug Wilson is more interesting than this issue currently absorbing Wilson defenders and critics, and so I hope to stick to that topic when not engaged in my broader studies. I will just sit back and wait to see if the reformed tradition self-destructs; at the very least Brian McLaren’s predication has turned out true: the reformed tradition will be the first modernist splinter group to under go an identity crisis. I think this is in part precisely what we see.
A Kirk Apologist on NJ’s Constitution
Kirk apologist Dale Courtney quotes a story from Reuters:
State weighs cutting “idiot” from constitution
New Jersey is to consider cutting the word ‘idiot’ from its constitution so that people with some mental disabilities won’t be barred from voting.
State Senate President Richard Codey introduced a bill on Monday that would remove language from the New Jersey constitution that was designed more than 150 years ago to prevent people suffering from mental illness or handicap from casting their vote in national, state or local elections.
Codey wants to eliminate a section that says “no idiot or insane person should enjoy the right of suffrage” and substitute with a reference to “a person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.”
Codey, a Democrat who was previously acting governor of New Jersey, said in a statement the term “idiot” is “outdated, vague, offensive to many and may be subject to misinterpretation.”
This is an interesting bill; certainly, removing the word “idiot” is a well motivated and warranted move. And by changing the criteria to a judicial determination of whether a person is “lacking capacity to understand the act of voting,” the law is made more precise. On the one hand, this criteria can cover a class broader than those who are “mentally ill” or lack cognitive abilities in general; and on the other hand, this criteria might be able to include some persons able to understand their right to vote who are otherwise classified as “mentally ill.” In so far as we can include those class of people we deem “mentally ill” who are able to rationally vote, we should. This reminds me of the high volume of forced sterilzation of idiots the state of California used to perform….
And sure enough, here is what Dale left out of the quote:
He said individuals with cognitive or emotional disabilities may be capable of making decisions in a voting booth, and those people should not be discriminated against.
“This is another big step toward removing the stigma of mental illness,” Codey said.
But I leave you with the interpretation of politicized, Kirk-defending, Republican-theonomist Dale:
Or in other words: “we want idiots and the insane to vote in our state.”
Guess who’s sponsoring this legislation? You got it: a Democrat.
We already know Dale willfully libels people without detraction under protest. So I wouldn’t read too much idiocy in Dale’s comment.
ABC News, Quiver Full Movement, & Pooh’s Brains on Drugs
This post is due to my bad illness (Disney World germs and a few imprecatory prayers from Mother K knocked us out). I’m just trying to pass the time before the antibiotics kick in:
Doug Phillips linked to an ABC News interview of a friend, Ken Carpenter. You can watch the eight minute long news coverage here.
Phillips writes:
Ken is a tremendous man, a personal friend, and a featured speaker at the 2006 Christian Filmmakers Academy. . . I am grateful for his bold stand for the blessing of the fruit of the womb.
The Carpenters do indeed seem to be a nice family, a family no doubt Mary Wollstonecraft would have loved to loiter in the midst of, her heart throbbing with sympathetic emotion. However, the moral to this story goes a bit beyond this. Despite the protesting fear against the lying media from American fundamentalists, it would seem that the media has once again offered judicial restraint in their coverage.
Ken Carpenter represents the quiver full movement, and he explained to the reporter that he is the head of his home and where the buck stops, that he is the “primary distiller of wisdom,” that his sons would go to a university only if they are to pursue a particular profession, that his daughters are to be given to motherhood (when asked about higher education), and that any form of birth control or family planning is against “God’s word.” But here’s the kicker: Carpenter is apparently fairly wealthy and the large kitchen, dining, and estate was certainly good show for this “movement.” Whatever deprivations his children will have due to his ‘righteous’ continuation of birthing will therefore certainly be mitigated (pregnancy, birthing, and weaning is one of the most physically and emotionally risky and draining experiences a household—and particularly a woman—can go through). The Carpenters are likely not the prototypical quiver full family in this regard; ABC News has therefore covered this story with a keen sense of propriety, if not down right charitable distortion.
However, in order to take the spot light away from Phillips and his friend Carpenter, I should note that ABC did point to the Quiver Full web site; upon a quick glance, I noticed the following book as the site’s featured advertisement (I corrected the spelling errors):
Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors
Rachel ScottA hard-hitting, scripturally based expose on the emotional, physical, and spiritual damage caused by the secular idea of birth control.
We are living in the last days. An anointed generation must come to earth to help prepare the way of the Lord. Many in this generation will be children. Will these chosen children be allowed to come? Satan is trying hard to prevent their conceptions and births. Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors exposes how Satan has used the secular idea of choice and modern medical advances to convince God’s people to limit their family size through birth control and sterilization. Sadly, thousands of couples are suffering emotionally, physically, and spiritually because they have chosen their own path. This book exposes how the enemy is using human reasoning, deception in the media, ideas in pop culture, and lack of knowledge of God’s Word to keep God’s people bound to a worldly mindset. Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors offers hope for restoration through God’s forgiveness. By revealing truth, it challenges young couples to learn from the mistakes of the past so they can be open to bring forth this anointed generation of children.
To order this book, visit www.superdupermoms.com
My friends will no doubt understand how thrilled I am about more fundamentalist talk about warfare. Ay! Let’s raise up a new Christian Sparta! Woman can become those noble factories of war feed. Fight the high breeding infidel and the childless secularists with your hard won arrows!
You know, barbarians [not referencing the quiver full movement] have always been in the midst of the rise and fall of delicate civilizations since recorded history. I say let them breed and do what they will; the only hope for anything but another collapse of western civilization’s library roofs and the butchering of our learned men of peace (a thought that gains a good deal of clarity as I watch war-loving and fundamentalist “bar brawlers” like Douglas Wilson) is the successful maintenance of our developing global communication and education as well as the consciousness of our shared, universal narratives and emotions (Hogan 2003)—which help keeps in tack that natural empathy of our two year old “Warrior Children.”
Narrative, Judicial Analogy, & The Problem of Evil
Another Rewrite:
Abstract:
Some philosophers—and the numbers are increasing—conclude that traditional logical and evidential approaches to the philosophical problem of evil are incapable of forcing a solution to problem of evil in life. However, building on the work of Stephen O’Leary, I argue that the traditional philosophical problem and the problem as found in life can be solved jointly by treating the problem of evil as a forensic rhetorical problem. To arrive at a solution to the problem of evil, the individual must be persuaded of the truth or falsity of the following proposition: An omnipotent, omniscient being would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing the nature and extent of evil that is in fact in the world. A solution to the philosophical problem of evil is therefore a philosophical explanation of how the problem of life can be solved for the individual, which I propose is found in the forensic nature and narrative structure of the images and rhetoric employed in persuading the individual of this proposition. As ancient tradition has it, God must be put on trial. Following the Story Model of cognitive science, the Narrative Theory employed by a U.S. Supreme court ruling, and recent proposals in analytic philosophy, I argue that it is only story that has the efficacy to force a sufficient verdict, to solve the problem of evil. I defend this judicial method from traditional appeals to the epistemological authority of God and recent arguments from theological skepticism about evil.
Pooh Loses His Patience: The Foundations of Justice
My comments to my pastor’s blog before getting the mistreatment and boot; November 27, 2005:
Ironically, when I first started [commenting] on this, I assumed McLaren WAS a heretic and I trusted your general assessment. When the line of argument and critique appeared so fallacious however, I began questioning this assumption. Since then, ALL evidence I have found on the web does vindicate the emergents; I have tried to present this evidence, but nobody seems interested in evidence—either direction. If I do find McLaren a Snake, I will actually raise the volume of my criticism of your criticism up a strong notch. . .
One more thing Mr. Wilson. Dare we hang somebody without a strong defense? Isn’t it best if somebody strongly defend McLaren precisely because we want to be able to justly condemn heretics? I have not defended McLaren as witness or old friend who knows him, but rather as a defense attorney who believes in ‘the system.’ But if we lynch him without any sort of fair trial whatsoever (in any sort of metaphorical sense), we are no better than the opponents of Machen or Macaroni and Cheese. I really do not understand why you have not presented lengthy citations illustrating just where you get your hatred of McLaren’s teaching; you rather build up a general postmodern straw man that I don’t even recognize as a contemporary reality in any part of the world.
Michael Metzler
pooh – 11/27/2005 11:17:44 PM | Report Comment
You can hear that chain saw starting about here. . .
More Pictures: Family Trip to the Wood
Here are some more pictures of the Metzler vacation sponsored by grandfather bear.
You can see the whole clan but for my wife here at the United States of America, Epcot, getting ready to watch this colonial fife and drum band putting dread into the hearts of tyrant lovers. And as you can see here, my own rebellion is already showing up in my two sons.
As for the Magic Kingdom’s version of the Wood, here is Pooh’s thotful shop, here is Pooh’s thotful spot, and here is where Pooh sleeps when he is done thinking. I felt quite at home…where dreams come true….
(as for the stomach: You can tell this is no dating service, but I plan on loosing it this Spring….)
You can go to the full new yahoo album for the Wood here. But perhaps I’ll figure out how to get pictures directly into the Wood soon….now let’s see here, you are smarter than you think…
*no picture of my wife? Likely forthcoming; but you might have missed our family picture.
Xon Replies
For those of you who know of our friend Xon, and my recent post about his new internet activity: Xon has sent in a reply to the Wood, which you can see below:
Hello, Michael,
First of all, I honestly thought I had e-mailed you about my recent blog activity. I just checked my gmail archives and I see that I did not. I’ll plead the holidays on this, but still it is no excuse. I did not mean to appear like I was trying to snipe at you without your knowing about it, or anything like that. I hope it didn’t come across that way. If it did, then please accept my apology for not e-mailing you to let you know what was going on.
Second, I do disagree with your interpretation of our e-mail conversation . . . about the aborted debate we had (i.e. I was very much expressing interest in continuing the debate, but was giving you time to do so if you wanted it). But I don’t see why we should drag out all the details on that. Suffice it to say that I am simply concerned to let folks know that not all “Wilson apologists” refuse to interact with your evidence. I have in fact tried to do so on a number of occasions. I don’t have any particular desire to hash out why the original debate was stopped short, and I do not impute any bad motives to you in this. It simply, for whatever combination of reasons, was not continued, which I thought was a shame.
Third, I appreciate the way your basic interpretation of what I’m up to pushed all the rhetorical buttons that you needed to push. I don’t begrudge you this at all; “rhetoric” is not a bad word to me so long as it remains fitting with Christian charity, and your recent post to the Wood about me did remain so. We simply disagree as to what I’m really all about, but that’s not surprising given our respective positions in this conversation.
Fourth, I actually tried to pre-empt many of the things you said in my original “What’s this all about?” post. For instance, I realize that it looks like I’m making sweeping generalizations about your blog without myself providing evidence for those generalizations, and so I tried to explain myself along those lines right out of the gate to avoid confusion. I definitely agree with you that the things I have said cannot stand on their own. In other words, when I claim that your blog is full of slander and unsubstantiated accusations against Doug Wilson’s character (and I just want to remind everyone, for purpose of absolute clarity, that this is ALL I am concerned with discussing from your blog), I do have to back that claim up at some point. But this was the point of my analogy about a defense attorney and a court of law—all I have done so far is give the “opening statement”. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence that X committed this crime, or any crime, and everything the prosecution is going to try to show you will be full of holes.” I don’t necessarily need to say anything more than that at that initial point. I CAN’T say everything that needs to be said all at once. As the prosecution (you or any other Wilson accuser, on this analogy) presents their case, I will of course then have to engage their evidence as it comes up. So please don’t think that I do not intend to do that. This, in fact, is the whole point of what I am intending to do, with one addition. My own blog posts do stand as an accusation of sorts against you (and some other Wilson critics), since if I am correct that you consistently use insubstantial evidence to accuse Wilson of various things then this itself amounts to a “bad thing” that you are doing (on any Christian conception of ethics). So, stretching the metaphor, I am like a defense attorney who intends to argue for Wilson’s acquittal and then file a grievance afterwards against the prosecution. Obviously, this charge against you also MUST be substantiated, and the only way for me to do it is to consider the evidence that you (or other Wilson critics) actually do provide. My charge against many Wilson accusers is that they make poor arguments using poor evidence, so I have to look at their actual arguments and evidence to demonstrate that.
There are two ways for this evidence to be “presented.” One is that I go through the archives of your blog and dig up previous posts you’ve made against Wilson and treat that as “the prosecution’s case.” I simply respond to the things you have already written.
There are a few problems with this, it seems to me. For one, I will easily be accused of “cherry picking” if I do this. And I can understand the accusation because that IS what it will look like I am doing. People will wonder whether I am really digging up the strongest evidence against Wilson. Perhaps I am getting hung up on stuff that isn’t really that important, and leaving crucial stuff out. Perhaps I am picking only those posts of yours which are particularly weak (hey, you posted A LOT of stuff, some of it is bound to be weaker than the rest), in order to make myself look better. The only way to avoid this charge is for me to literally go through every anti-Wilson post you have put up on your blog and give it a critical commentary on my own. I don’t think anybody in the world WANTS to see me do this, and I certainly don’t want to do it. Furthermore, I am simply unable to do it. Your blog is a year old, with hundreds of Wilson-related posts. I am trying to finish a doctoral dissertation this semester. “Hey, that’s your problem, Xon, you started this!” Well, kinda sorta that’s true, and I do recognize that I am walking a fine line here, but it seems to me that I should be able to blog in part what I do not have time to blog in whole. In any case, this first option for interacting with your evidence against Wilson is not particularly desirable to me, or probably to anyone.
A further problem with this approach is that it isn’t as fair to you as it could be. Given that you now know what I intend to do, why not shore up your evidence and bring the hammer down all over again as concisely as you can. There is an opportunity to allow BOTH of us to benefit in this (as writing our thoughts helps shape our thoughts and defending our position “in action” helps us understand better what our position actually is). Which brings me to the second way to get your evidence against Wilson “presented.”
That second way is to simply invite you (or any other Wilson critic) to come present it anew, concisely and dispassionately. I wish there was already some sort of “third party” Reformed blog for doing this with the various controversies that arise in our circles, but there’s not, so I’m letting my blog be the place for this particular issue. If you are concerned about “home cooking” on my part, then I would be more than happy to have some other third party set up a blog where we can both have equal posting priveledges and hash this out. The point, though, is that I am trying very hard to avoid the status quo operating procedure for blog wars, which is the blogger presenting only his side, and perhaps the reader can bounce back and forth between several sources to keep up with the conversation. But even if the reader attends this tennis match, things still are not really presented particularly judiciously. It is just human nature to insert a lot of colorful rhetoric and things not so pertinent into one’s commentaries. This means that we are usually left with two bloggers, both glowing magnificently from their respective websites, and neither really addressing the substance of what the other says. I think it would go better if, all in one place, someone could come along and present their case, and then someone else could come along and defend. Again, another thing I said in my original post is that I realize that I am putting myself in the position of both partisan and judge in this particular case, as I am a Wilson partisan but I also want my blog to be the court where the conversation takes place. But keep in mind that really it is the readers who will decide for themselves (the readers are really more like the “judge” on this analogy) who makes the better case, based on the evidence presented and the response to that evidence given by the “defense.”
Now, I think I understand why you would not want to take me up on this invitation. Truthfully, I don’t know if I would either if the roles were reversed. So, if you do decide not to take me up on it, then I will revert to the first option for gathering evidence considered above and will start digging up some old Poohsthink posts and responding to those. This is not ideal, but it is what I will do if need be (charges that I am cherry-picking be darned). In either case, I do not intend to leave it that you present bad evidence and slander as some self-justifying claim.
Fifth, and finally, about the comment of yours to my blog from a few weeks ago which I deleted, the “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was not your argument about Wilson’s alleged attacks on the PCA. I wasn’t commenting on the substance of those posts at all; in fact, I haven’t read them. The “sort of nonsense” I was referring to was simply the very act of coming on to a blog (mine) that is about Steve Wilkins’ situation in the PCA and trying to use that as a forum to advertise for your own blog posts about Doug Wilson and the PCA. It’s off-topic, and comments get deleted in Cyberland all the time for less. I think it is seriously misguided to call this deletion “censorship”, and to use it as a reason for not taking me up on my offer to let you post some evidence at my blog.
[*editor’s note: I did not want to insert any comments in order to let this reply stand as is; however, this claim warranted a short note in my opinion. A short, friendly comment informing Xon’s thread that I was talking about the same current events (an action Xon would likely know I typically do not engage in) is what Xon called the action of a “troll;” he did not limit his comments to the fact that I was merely “off topic.” Further, the comment wasn’t “off topic,” particularly not with respect to the action of deletion without warning or notification and particularly not in a way that egregiously broke blogging protocol or reasonable blogging rules. It is not clear to me how calling this action “censorship” is not accurate and fair. Perhaps more importantly, I was not giving a reason why I do not want to post evidence at Xon’s blog; I need not give such evidence since it would seem obvious to me that the primary reason I would not post evidence on Xon’s blog is that I have already posted the evidence on my blog. I’m not sure why I would would seek to compound my labors in this way–unless Xon’s blog gains a readership greatly expanding my own. I gave this instance of “censorship” merely as an example, among others, as to the sorts of changes Xon needs to make before he will likely gain credibility as an internet judge.]
I promise before everyone here, and you may post any private e-mails between us if you want, that I will not “censor” whatever evidence you send to me. If you think it makes your case against Wilson, then I will post it.
So, there it is. You pushed your rhetorical buttons that needed to be pushed, and I’ve pushed mine. I say that I am just a concerned citizen of Reformedville who wants to see greater judiciousness in the way internet debates and charges are carried out (my actual preference would be that internet charges didn’t happen at all, but I am not the emperor). You say that I am an emotional devotee of Wilson (albeit from a distance) and that I have a strange epistemological blockage when it comes to finding fault with him. I think now we are set up nicely. Let’s rock. If you want.
Regards,
Xon
[*note #2: I have had a good deal of exchange with Xon over many months off line, and I had reminded him again recently of my opinion that despite his desire to be fair, he is functionally an emotional devotee; this comment is backed by a good knowledge of Xon’s concerns about the Wood. My original position stands: Xon needs to earn his right to become an internet judge; as far as I can tell (in my humble opinion) he will not be able to convince me anytime soon he has gained a sufficient working knowledge of the craft.]
Natural Empathy
My parents bought some legal fireworks for our new year’s celebration—the colorful kind that get the pop pop, fizz fizz about 4 to 7 feet off the ground. For small kids this kind of firework show can be a scary adventure. My two year old son was very frightened in general, but I noticed he was just as frightened for his siblings as he was for himself. Comfortably held by a grandparent, my two year old protested when my oldest daughter started getting close to the display; when my daughter started running, encircling the fizzing container of eye candy, my son put on the most intense look on his face, stretched out his hand, and cried “no, no.” He did something similar when she got close to a fire the kids were roasting marshmallows over. My two year old son does not even know how to talk much yet; but his ability to perceive harm done to another person and respond emotionally and effectively about it seemed fully formed in that instance. I wonder if his natural faculties of empathy are in fact more correctly functioning than they might be when he is older.
This experience was remarkable for me given that I had already concluded that any account of natural morality that is grounded in this natural faculty is close to sufficient, while any account lacking it is contemptible.
University of Idaho’s Poet
See the story here.
…He worked at a local farm, where he watched and learned about the land from an agricultural perspective.
“That experience and understanding has definitely made its way into my writing,” he said.
Flickr Photos
Pooh's Think 