It’s likely I’ll be writing more about all of this in the coming weeks and months, but I want to follow up on my post from Monday concerning Jeff Meyers, Peter Leithart, Revoice, Federal Vision, etc.
A few hours after my article posted, Peter had a short post up on Theopolis addressing some of the problems with the Celibate Gay Christian movement. Jonathan Barlow followed up with an article the following day that addressed Greg Johnson’s speech from the floor of General Assembly that was quite good. As I said when I shared Barlow’s article, I don’t know if my article had anything to do with the timing of the articles, and I do have a few quibbles here and there, but I’m very grateful for these articles. They go a long way in answering some of my concerns. That said, I still don’t understand why Peter Leithart has not clearly explained and/or retracted his endorsement of Wesley Hill’s book Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a Celibate Gay Christian. Why not address this directly and explicitly? I’m still confused why he endorsed the book in the first place (especially given what Peter wrote on the Theopolis blog this last week), and if I’m Wesley Hill, now I’m really confused too.
But the questions surrounding Jeff Meyer’s appointment of the Missouri Presbytery Study Committee on the Revoice stuff are also still outstanding. Jeff has stated that he was merely seeking a “balanced” committee, but there are two problems with this. The first is that biblical balance is not the same thing as worldly balance. It is of course the requirement of God’s word that judges exercise impartiality and a plurality of judges is a safeguard to that biblical requirement. But the Bible does not teach that impartiality and equity is achieved by representative partisans. That’s the way of identity politics, which is central to Marxism and critical theory. According to identity politics, in order to have a balanced board, you make sure to have equal representation from various constituents (e.g. women, Asians, blacks, whites, etc.), assuming that these external, material identifiers predispose them to certain loyalties or convictions. But that isn’t the way of biblical justice at all. “You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:17). The Bible requires that justice be blind — not ignorant, but impartial. When the Hellenistic widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution, the apostles did not say that an equal number of Jewish and Hellenistic deacons ought to be appointed to make sure the deacon board was “balanced” as they looked into the needs of the widows. No, they called for seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit, and wisdom (Acts 6:3).
And this leads to the second problem, which is that these requirements did not mean that Jeff needed to know what the members of his committee thought about Revoice (as though to stack the committee against Greg Johnson). He merely needed to know that they were not already partial to Revoice. Even in our secular law courts, members of a jury or judges that have previous connections to the accused in a trial recuse themselves, to avoid even an appearance of injustice. The links I provided in my original blog post take you to an analysis of the Missouri Presbytery report at Warhorn media where it seems fairly plain that there was not merely representation from folks familiar with Revoice, but a majority of its members had long standing ties to Revoice and Revoice-like ministries. In other words, there appears to have been a conflict of interest. How do you investigate yourself impartially? And how do you do that when reputations, friendships, and money is on the line? So there is a strong appearance of a stacked deck, and I hope that Jeff will either explain how that was not the case or apologize for failing to actually appoint a truly biblically balanced committee, even if it was completely unintentional.
Lastly, in one Facebook thread, Jeff objected to my questions on the grounds that he doesn’t owe me any explanation. And of course Jeff does not owe me (personally) an explanation. But his work as moderator was a public office, his appointment of the committee members is a matter of public knowledge, and the report that exonerated Greg Johnson and the Revoice Conference is a matter of public record. And given the nature of the fight we are in, where the LGBTQP Gestapo is currently running every play they can on the conservative church, I do believe that Jeff owes an explanation to the conservative church at large. What happened, man? If there’s a simple explanation for the failure of your committee, make that known. Do you agree with your presbytery’s report? Or if the PCA Gestapo already has its hooks in you, Jeff, then you really need to reach out to some folks and get help. I don’t believe you support Revoice, but this committee and its report has brought further shame on your presbytery, the PCA, and by your involvement, the Biblical Horizons community, and all of us who have benefited from your ministry over the years.
Speaking of which, Covenant Renewal worship is supposed to be the kind of worship that transforms worshipers from glory to glory. That worship is sacrificial – it cuts us with the sword of the Word and lifts us up to the heavenly places where we are blessed with the heavenly gifts. But if that does not translate into actual public faithfulness, the whole thing is a sham. It’s absolutely worthless if we are not being made into the kind of people who can see the plays being run on us or will not stand in the moment of battle or will not admit when we have failed. If covenant renewal worship is the most biblical form of worship (and I believe it is), then it should create the most biblical Christians, the most faithful pastors. Again, if this whole thing was an accident, if people misrepresented themselves, if you didn’t know about their prior connections, would you please just say so? I would accept your answer and move on – as I have been willing to do with Peter’s endorsement of Wesley Hill’s book Spiritual Friendship. But otherwise, it looks like you’re covering for a presbytery that is shot through with compromise, and given Peter Leithart’s apparent reluctance to address the Revoice issue, both of these things together make Biblical Horizons, Theopolis Institute, and their related emphases and methodologies seem highly suspect.
Photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash
Tammy says
Perhaps the fact that Jeff Meyers thinks “Games of Thrones” is such a fabulous program (see his Facebook likes and posts) has effected his judgement of issues regarding sexual morality.
Will says
Toby, you are being a snake snd a coward brother. You need to stop this public non-sense, have a bit of respect and y’all deal with this junk offline.
Toby says
I’d be happy to talk to Jeff offline, but this is all public stuff that needs to be dealt with publicly. I’m sure some thought that Paul needed to show a bit of respect and not confront Peter like he did in Antioch, but they were wrong…
Timothy J. Hammons says
Will, there is biblical precedent for what Toby is doing. Paul confronted Peter publicly because Peter’s sin was done in public. It needed to be address before the brethren so that they knew Peter’s sin was not being glossed over. When a sin is committed in private, then it should be dealt with in private. Please do not confuse the two. Toby is completely legit in taking it to these men in a public manner. They need to be dealt with.
I hope you can see that.
Austin says
Last week Doug Wilson posted about the “effeminacy of silence”, using Drag Queen Story Hours as an example. He pointed out that there are three basic characters in these ideological displays: the first are the drag queens and event organizers and boosters, the second are rednecks expressing their disgust when they see the coverage on Fox News, and the third are a silent group of people who may oppose the event but don’t say anything for fear of being bullied into compliance or being associated with the ignorant rednecks.
Toby’s posts reminded me of Doug’s. Except in this case, Toby is in drag – wearing a priest’s collar when I don’t recognize “internet prophet” as a position to which someone can be ordained – and leading children astray with story hour. There are people giving you a platform – head of the board of NSA, on the board of Logos School, a salaried position at Christ Church to do the ‘internet prophet’ thing. I’m the crazy redneck clutching my Miller High Life going “Are you guys seeing this? Is nobody else seeing this?” and everywhere else a chorus of crickets.
Your smarmy “So I repent” and “look guys, I can admit when I’m wrong too!” aren’t fooling anybody. In over five years of wrangling with you about your sloppy blog posts you saw any pushback, no matter how collegial, as the equivalent of a ‘double dog dare’ on the playground. The “pastorally reckless paradigm” is your shoot first, ask questions later approach. It doesn’t show humility to apologize for the wrong things.
Toby, you remind me of the Alfred Adler quote, “It is always easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.” While I appreciate the bonhomie of Woelke’s “beer on the back deck”, I’m just asking you to cut it out. No “In Defense of Lent, Masculinity, and Austin”. No “Austin raised some interesting points” and certainly no “Austin you need to apologize for disrespecting me.” Stop acting like a homeless person and come back to yourself.
Toby says
Austin, I’m quite at home, thank you very much, and more at home than ever. But may God bless you and Laura richly. Cheers.
Austin says
Thanks for the well-wishes. I’m glad to hear you’re in a better place than when you were at Trinity.
I wish I could say that your assurances put my concerns to rest, but I’ve been in Moscow long enough to miss that your posts are still operating from the “Father Hunger Strikes Back” playbook.
It’s not that your BH fathers became ‘strict grammatical-historical literalists’ when you proposed a typology of pink hair, they just pointed out that your reading wasn’t very good. Only then, after you felt rejected, did you suddenly discover that BH was an esoteric clubhouse. What a shock! Now you are trying to impress new fathers.
The play you’re running against BH is the same play you ran against me, and the same play that was run against the FV folks back in the day. Vague suspicion, a little guilt by association. “I’m claiming that there’s something in the air, a number of related problems and weaknesses all in a cluster, and faithful men should take notice” == “The Storm Cellar worries me. It’s obvious why.”
Recall that it was Leithart’s main accuser while he was in the PCA NW who became Orthodox and then agnostic, not his staunch allies?
A helpful exercise to tell whether your posts pass the ‘sniff test’: Imagine they’re written by a former Greyfriar about Doug Wilson. Your critique that Leithart’s End of Protestantism raises provocative questions without properly bracketing them is a critique people have of you and DW’s writing all the time. “I’ve raised my concerns to DW in private but he’s dismissed them. I’m troubled by DW’s friends. I can admit when I’m wrong. I repent of my association with Doug.” And then the kicker: “I fully believe that there are salvageable elements of what Wilson has taught over the last number of years.”
If someone wrote that about Doug I would think it was a smarmy, toady thing to say. And you are being a smarmy, toady person.
I have a serious question about the typology of clothes. It’s non-rhetorical, because I don’t know the answer: You wear the collar when you podcast. Do you wear it when you preach at Christ Church?