It is that time of year again . . .

It is that time of year again when all the denominations get together for their respective meetings. I leave for Synod next week. This year looks rather tame compared to the last years and I am hopeful it will go smoothly.

However, other denominations do not look as smooth. The PCA has a report coming back about the Federal Vision and Rev. Jeff Meyers has posted 30 Reasons not to adopt the report. I will attempt to summarize his 30 reasons into a few.
1. The PCA is not Strict Subscription – points 1,2,10,11,12, 13, 15, 16, and 17. Meyers has a point here. It does appear to me that this report may have a hard time fitting in with the idea of ‘Good Faith Subscription’, but that is the bed the PCA made for themselves.
2. Disagreement with the conclusions of the report – points 9, 14, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (possibly 16) – This is a legitimate reason to vote against the report. The question is do people agree with him or not.
3. Sour Grapes and Church Politics – 3,4,5, and 6 – Rev. Meyers thinks a FV proponent should have been on the committee. I agree that it looks like a railroad by not having a FV man on a Study Committee, but this why you vote on things at the GA. If the report is wrong, vote it down. This is not a reason to vote against it, but the reason you have votes in the first place.
4. The Report is unconvincing – points 8, 18, and 19 – A legitimate reason to vote against the report if one agrees with his conclusion about the lack of meat in the report.
5. The Judicial Nature of the Study Committee – points 28 and 29 – A very good point. One I have made before as well. There are procedure and protections that exist (and rightfully so) in a judicial process that do not exist in a study committee. It seems odd to pretend that this is not part of a disciplinary procedure. This is clearly a great reason to vote against the formation of the committee, but is it a reason to vote against it now that it is created? A dilemma for sure.
6. Obviously inappropriate treatment – point 7 – This is sad, and I hope it is an oversight. It is against the Standing Rules in the RCUS not to turn in a Report 4 weeks prior to the Synod. How did this report not get into the Commissioners Handbook? Wow. A stunning development that is just inappropriate all around.
7. Because the conversation is good – point 30 – This is by far the worst of his reasons. It seems obvious that not all agree this conversation is good. The idea that a conversation is not a movement and thus it should allowed to continue is hard to fathom. I poor ending to an otherwise nice contribution to the debate by Rev. Meyers.

If you want a more critical and through treatment Green Baggins is going through them. I think he is up to Point 16. This has helped launch the firestorm that provoked responses from Mark Horne and Uri Brito. Just to name a few. While I am against the FV, I do think they have some legitimate complaints about the way the PCA has handled this situation. On the other hand, Mr. Brito has done his fair share of mistreating in his Senior Paper for Reformed Theological Seminary. Mr. Brito has managed to take the entire FV debate and throw it out the window as Personality Clashes, mainly by those anti-FV men like Green Baggins and John Robbins. The fact that the two sides cannot even agree that real differences exist between them really disappoints me. If you wondered why the RCUS no longer funds or supports RTS, look no further than the paper of Mr. Brito.

All in all, it will be a wild and strange few months. I thank God I am in the RCUS everyday.