On American Presbyterianism
John Frame has a long, but rewarding piece entitled Machen's Warrior Children listing and discussing the different intramural wars of the Reformed/Presbyterian camp since J. Gresham Machen (a Baltimore native, incidentally) led the split from the PCUSA. His conclusion:
Overall, the quality of thought displayed in these polemics has not been a credit to the Reformed tradition. Writers have gone to great lengths to read their opponents' words and motivations in the worst possible sense (often worse than possible) and to present their own ideas as virtually perfect, rightly motivated and leaving no room for doubt. Such presentations are scarcely credible to anybody who looks at the debates with minimal objectivity. [emphasis his]
The various anniversary celebrations and official histories in the different Reformed denominational bodies have been largely self-congratulatory. In Reformed circles; we often say that there is no perfect church, that churches as well as individuals are guilty of sin and liable to error. But Reformed writers and teachers seem to find it almost impossible to specify particular sins, even weaknesses, in their own traditions or denominations, particularly in their own partisan groups. A spirit of genuine self-criticism (prelude to a spirit of repentance) is an urgent need.
If you come from a Reformed/Presbyterian background, the whole article is worth reading.
June 21, 2004 02:09 PMmaphet,
this is totally off subject, but have you ever heard of the rockford inst.?
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/TRI/About.htm
if you know anything of them, i'd be interested to have your take.
I read this piece by Frame somewhere before.
I don't think he does justice to Machen's hiers. Having met him, it's amazing to notice how Frame actually identifys his OWN faults here.
But we'll discuss this more, I'm sure.
(Uh, the theological issues involved... not Frame's problematic person, that is.)
Joy -
I hadn't heard anything directly about them but, looking through their stuff, I think I've seen some of their work indirectly.
Their stuff looks really interesting. It definitely appears well-researched and thought out. One article I read on Soros was fascinating and frightfully illuminating.
Having said that, I'm still not quite sure what to do about the "paleo-cons." Some of their arguments against the war, for example, I find persuasive, but others I find incomplete and un-compelling.
And as for what seems to be a strong emphasis on a return to the "classics" - I have to admit that I'm supportive of the desire for more robust learning, but a bit skeptical of the idea that a return to Greco-Roman culture will save the West.
Anyway, many thanks for the link!
Pondered by maphet at June 23, 2004 11:23 AM