I wasn't going to blog about this but...

This afternoon I tried to write a letter to the editor of our church's magazine, Faith in Focus. I wanted to say, 'great legal ethics article by Dan Flinn, but what's with that book review of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision?'

I've never read such a load of bullshit in all my life (mind you, I keep saying that - every edition brings new wonders). I know enough to recognise the Faith in Focus review as a parody of intelligent debate. It is horrible, full of ridiculous, unqualified, preposterous statements. (Like these.) It offends my sense of justice and fairness at a very fundamental level.

Most offensive of all, I think, is the wooden-headed, dogmatic I-will-not-engage-the-issues language of the review. Such refusal means that gross misrepresentation is inevitable: any reader ignorant of the debate is left with the impression that Wilson et al deny some fundamental point, when in fact they would challenge the very way it has been constructed in the first place.

So the review is utterly unhelpful for those that don't know anything about the debate, and utterly useless to those who do.

What makes all this so much worse is that the review is not by anyone in our church. Or even anyone in New Zealand. It was lifted from the Banner of Truth website, and concerns a largely PCA situation. By which I mean, it's a report out of left field for our local circumstances. It has nothing to do with us. So why is it there at all??

But it does do the very Reformed thing and show that we can still proclaim enemies where everyone else sees brothers.

And that, I am forced to conclude yet again, must be the most important consideration for us.

Well, I gave up writing to the editor in frustration that I couldn't express myself adequately. I was trying to be reasonable and diplomatic, and it was just too hard. Maybe I will ring him. And try to be calm.