Here we read,

First, it has been suggested that the composition of the Committee was unfairly weighted. On the contrary… [read the rest]

As Jeff put it in only one of his thirty points:

5. The failure to appoint men who could represent the FV viewpoint is probably a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules (which the Assembly is required to follow unless it has adopted its own special rules) specifies that “special committees” (i.e. committees which are not permanent, standing committees but committees formed for particular purposes, such as for study, investigation, etc.) should be composed of representatives of “all points of view”:”When a special committee is appointed for deliberation or investigation. . . it should represent, as far as possible, all points of view in the organization, so that its opinion will carry maximum weight (§49, “Appointment of Committees,” subtitle “Proper Composition of Committees,” emphasis added).”

Robert’s Rules goes on to state, “The usefulness of the committee will be greatly impaired, on the other hand, if any important faction of the assembly is not represented.” Just as Robert’s Rules warned, the usefulness of this Report is indeed greatly impaired because of the Moderator’s failure to include qualified representatives of the assembly who could speak for the men associated with the FV.

It would be very unwise for the Assembly to adopt a badly skewed Report that was produced by a committee that did not properly represent all relevant points of view in the PCA.

The response? No one counts but the groups represented on the committee. No one else matters. We have no need to include anyone, to recognize their years of service, to regard them in any way as brothers, except in acknowledging the need to condemn and marginalize them by this stacked committee–which isn’t stacked because no one else counts.

Truly, it is a grievous thing to watch hearts harden.

Let me ask you. If you knew a study committee was being selected to investigate and produce a report on “the New Perspective on Paul,” and that one of the members had written the hymn you see below, and that he was pretty much of like mind with all the other people permitted on the committee, would you think a) it was simply an attempt to put institutional power behind a foregone conclusion or b) a genuine attempt to discover the truth?

My hope is built on nothing less
Than covenantal faithfulness
Circumcision will not do
If I want to be a spiritual Jew.

On this, the solid rock I stand
Or is it all just sinking sand?
Or is the law just sinking sand?

When darkness veils my lovely face
I rest on the law’s abundant grace
If good enough for Pharisees
It’s good enough to save me.

The Jewish Law was all of grace
Tis the way to see God’s face
They only needed to find out
That faithfulness would solve all doubt.

Jesus keeping the covenant
Is met by faith obedient
His name and honor are at stake
If my faithfulness is all a fake.

When the last trumpet shall sound
May I in the community be found
Clothed in my faithfulness alone
Standing before God’s throne.

A couple of statements for the record, while I think the above hymn utterly misrepresents Wright (one of the persons it was aimed at), I don’t think it is wrong for a minister in my denomination to hold such an opinion.

This leads me to also point out that there is nothing wrong with being a member of a committee while already having strong convictions.

My question is about the process, not about any one person.

• Read Jeff’s “30 reasons”