I was sobered to find this new blog via our referral page several days ago. The author, a military officer and PCA ruling elder, served on the PCA's Ad Interim Committee which produced the report on Federal Vision thology adopted two weeks ago at General Assembly.
The blog's first post struck me as unwise--akin to a juror's post-trial analysis of the defense--but subsequent posts have truly troubled me. It's one thing to keep Federal Vision proponents off the Ad Interim Report commiittee, it's another thing altogether for the committee to contain men who seem to have approached their work with full-fledged antipathy toward principals in the Federal Vision movement.
As one who largely agrees with the committee's report I find evidence of such bias on the committee both lamentable and almost incredible. Why, Ad Interim Committee members, did you not feel personal antipathy to key leaders of the Federal Vision movement sufficient reason to reject the committee position initially or to recuse yourself from the committee's work subsequently? It's nearly impossible to conclude that this bias wasn't evident during the committee's work, and while no committee member should be expected to approach the work of the committee a blank slate, integrity would seem to demand an attempt at impartiality by committee members--or the conscious inclusion of differing opinions. I
t's unfortunate that the positive contribution of the committee should be clouded in this manner, and it makes me wonder whether other members of the committee were aware of such attitudes during the committee's work....
