One of the interesting things about blogging is that every so often someone links to your blog. Sometimes that’s other bloggers offering a list of recently read articles, sometimes someone engages to challenge you and sometimes they just reference your article as an example of something.I had one of the last kind the other day. It is interesting because checking back on my article, I don’t remember specifically making the point he attributes to me and nor does he engage with the issues I do raise.
I had one of the last kind the other day. It was interesting because checking back on my article, I didn’t remember specifically making the point he attributed to me. In any case, I checked with the author and it looks like he had conflated my review with another which is easily done. He has kindly left a link to my review inn for his readers.
The article is a positive review of Simply Trinity by Matthew Barrett, a book I gave a negative review. Of One of my issues with the book was that it fails to engage fairly or accurately with EFS advocates.
The reviewer’s argument is that Matthew Barrett had previously held to an EFS position and so on that basis he seems willing to trust his representation.of EFS as accurate. However, here are a few good reasons as to why biographical connection to something does not guarantee our accurate representation of it. For example I recently responded to an attack on reformed charismatics by someone who had grown up in a New Frontiers’ church. Their own memories of his own church did not necessarily fit with an accurate picture of the wider movement.
In the case of Simply Trinity and EFS, there are a couple of things to consider. First, EFS is an umbrella label but within that approach are a range of views and approaches. Representing one aspect accurately does not best represent the whole.
Secondly, just because a person believed that they held a position in the past does not mean they had an accurate understanding of it then. In fact this is often the concern when people pronounce themselves ex Evangelicals or change their minds on PSA.
I’m not commenting here on what happened with Barrett. I simply am saying that we cannot rely on the presumption that someone accurately represents a position because they used to hold it. We have to look objectively at what those positions actually say and allow those holding them to speak for themselves.
This means both that we should be cautious in our apologetics. We shouldn’t argue that this or that person is definitely right on a matter (or definitely wrong) because of their past history. This includes for example when we parade converts from different cultures and religions.
It means carefully checking for ourselves the actual positions in things rather than just accepting the word of someone who changed their mind.
Finally it also means that when we are attempting to describe something, whether we still agree with it (an example might be when seeking to represent specific cultures and needs when discussing mission and church planting) or are now challenging it that we do the hard work of making sure we are doing so faithfully.
Faithroots 