discerning drama

Those close to me will tell you how much I simply adore drama. That is sarcasm, by the way. I loath drama, and I detest those individuals who seem to either thrive on it, or manufacture it. That’s the primary reason why I’ve avoided the whole “new perspectivism” debate, because it seems to be heavily painted with drama. The acerbic attitude of many of those in support of the governmental view of justification towards those who deny it seems to color the entire issue with assorted hues of technicolor rage.

I want to be clear that I don’t mean to throw everyone involved in the debate in that same barrel of bad apples. As usual, it’s always the most vocal folks who seem to have the most words (and usually the least amount to actually say). This particular issue, however, has seriously divided former friends and brothers like few other issues in recent history. I find it interesting (and mildly ironic) that the debate between “forensic justificationists” (my new word, like it?) versus “governmental justificationists” reminds me vividly of the recent (and ongoing) debate between Dave Hunt and his various Calvinistic detractors. Dave often accused Calvinists of being “elitists,” especially when Calvinists pointed out that Mr. Hunt didn”t have the background/education to address the issue respectfully. Now, in that case, I believe the Calvinists had a leg to stand on – I can point you to much better attacks on Calvinism than Dave Hunt’s works. He really, genuinely doesn’t ‘get’ Calvinism. In the “new perspectivism” (a.k.a. “Reformed Catholicism,” “governmental justification”) debate, proponent accuse the detractors of not understanding the fullness of the scholarship underlying the discussion. They accuse those who don’t find merit in the arguments of being “divisive,” “unwilling to listen” or just plain unintelligent or unscholarly.

A couple of friends of mine (I still reckon them friends, even though we haven’t spoken for some time, primarily because of the different circles we travel in) have a blog that used to be subtitled “Less Calvin, More Luther” and is now subtitled, “Calvin Must Decrease, Luther Must Increase.” I find that title very appropriate given the current drama surrounding the debate on the issue in question, especially when you consider the fact that Luther, at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, lost his cool with Zwingli and company, refusing to discuss the matter of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper rationally and instead scrawled “hoc est corpus meum” (“this is my body”) on his table. If that’s the attitude that Luther represents, then rest assured, he is indeed increasing. [NOTE: This is obviously not the intention to the blog's authors, and I'm totally applying my own personal interpretation to that phrase.]

What I find particularly fascinating in this situation is the way folks react when they can’t convince someone from the other side that they’re wrong. First, the accusations of ignorance, followed soon after by name calling, then the silent-treatment, then some more outbursts, and then taking their ball and going home. The ocean of emotionalism that these two battling ships seem to be sailing on is amazingly turbulent. I remember when Tim Enloe, after multiple largely unsuccessful volleys, eventually shut down his web site and his blog, thusly kicking the dust from his feet. He, of course, turned around and started a new one up again, as well as a second where he could rally his like-minded troops.

Now we see the same sort of thing coming from Rob Schl䰦er (antithesis.com / discerningreader.com / christiancounterculture.com / etc), who has been extremely upset with one individual in particular who he used to unashamedly support, although he’s left a few of his old standbys by the wayside. Mr. Schlapfer’s book sales web site (discerningreader.com) offers some comments on a web page that discusses how they review books (now located here). It’s in the section titled “Excellent – A “must-read!” and states the following: “Some of the authors whom you will consistantly find here are: Jay Adams, Jerry Bridges, D. A. Carson, Marva Dawn, Os Guinness, Michael Horton, John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Gene Edward Veith, and James White.” Now, the emphasis on “consistently” is mine, because what you’ll find is that it simply isn’t true. In fact, four of the authors who used to have their own page on discerningreader.com have been removed. You will find that the links to Os Guinness, John MacArthur, Gene Edward Veith and James White no longer function. These authors, 36% of the “must-reads” are consistently not found there. Why not? What’s changed?

Let’s take, for example, Dr. James White’s book The God Who Justifies. A couple years ago, the Discerning Reader offered the following short/sweet review: “A new standard…put this to the top of your reading list!” Later, this book was added to Rob Schlapfer’s “Advanced/Essential Training” list of suggested books. Later still, the little happy note disappeared, and there was no comments at all. Then, as the New Perspectivism debate started heating up, the following review of The God Who Justifies was offered by The Discerning Reader:

“A well-argued theological defense of the Reformed understanding of justification by faith – as distinct from Roman Catholic and Lutheran understandings. James White has done an excellent job bringing together some of the best statements from Reformed theologians of the last 450 years and integrating them with his own apologetic insights as one who regularly debates Roman Catholics, Mormons and others. The result is a definitive restatement of the central doctrine of Reformed Theology. Essential reading for beginning and intermediate students of the Bible. Advanced students will want to ponder the more exegetical “less theological” arguments from contemporary New Testament scholars such as Tom Wright, Paul Barnett, Don Garlington and others. In fact, the real weakness of the book is that it fails to address the issues that are truly on the forefront of today’s theological discussions. One would hope that a future revision of The God Who Justifies will do so, through careful exegesis of the texts, as opposed to merely thoughtful citations from the confessions and theologians of the Reformed past. That would truly serve us in coming to a final conclusion as to what Paul (especially) is saying on the matter.”
- The Discerning Reader

An exchange of accusations then took place. Dr. White questioned this change to his book entry on discerningreader.com, and Rob Schl䰦er responded that it had been that way for some time. Dr. White’s comments on the review can be found on his blog (the 10/16/04 entry) and Rob Schl䰦er’s responce to this entry is located on his own blog. Two things I find interesting about Mr. Schlapfer’s comments: Firstly, Rob seems to indicate that the fact that James took offence to being referred to as “an ass” is the result of backwards, fundamentalist thinking. Rob must be so forward thinking to be well beyond my scope of understanding too, because I know I, and most of the Christians I know and fellowship with, would take offence at such a comment. Secondly, in referring to the expanded review of The God Who Justifies, Rob comments, “This is the only note we have EVER published about the book. Prior to Winter 2003, we simply listed the book as one of our ESSENTIALS.” That, as I’ve demonstrated, is false. The origional review, placed in the exact same physical postion on the web page read, “A new standard…put this to the top of your reading list!” You can check the page on the Internet Archive and confirm that fact yourself. Maybe he just forgot.

Rob also apparently feels that the Discerning Reader is suffering, “due to the abuse we have suffered from staunch Reformers like Dr. White, who seem determined to drive us out of business.” Perhaps, the reason the Discerning Reader is suffering has little to do with outside influences, and has more to do with internal issues. Perhaps those very same internal issues have manifested themselves as Rob seems to have chosen the same path as those before him: He’s closed down his primary website, antithesis.com, with the short comment, “antithesis is shut down – perhaps for good. I’ve just lost hope.”

Why is this issue, most especially, generating this degree of drama? Comments welcome.