Saddle sores
July 6, 2012
Before Dr Trueman lifts his battered hindquarters out of the saddle to engage with Graham Harrison and Peter Lewis, might I offer a brief sop to his troubled soul?
I happened to be present when Graham Harrison delivered his material on the book, and - in his defence - his aim, while undoubtedly that of a man with a bias of affection and esteem for Lloyd-Jones, seemed to be that of clarifying certain assumptions made in the book which, in his opinion, were flawed. The review was given with the exceedingly dry humour characteristic of Mr Harrison, and should not be mistaken for unrelieved sourness.
And, before anyone charges Harrison with casting to the winds Trueman's alleged "scholastic Reformed Orthodoxy," I should point out that this is not Harrison's dimissive assessment, but rather Coffey's phrase for the school of thought that he believes Carl represents. As such, it is a reported assessment by Harrison, and it is first Coffey against whom cudgels must be lifted. (Whether or not, or to what extent and for what reasons, GH agrees with Coffey, I cannot say. And, lest I should appear non-committal in the matter, my own review of the book is here.)
As to the matter of whether or not MLJ was, or was not, a more or less clear proponent of Independency as opposed to Presbyterianism, surely the issue should be stated in slightly more robust terms than whether or not we prefer MLJ's perhaps vague advocacy of Independency to Carl's vigorous advocacy of full-orbed Presbyterianism? I might wish that MLJ had been clearer and more definite than he was, without endorsing the Presbyterian vision.
Anyway, having tried to clear the air, perhaps it is worth pointing out that this blog post should by no means be construed as some kind of 'safe conduct' for Carl Trueman. Should he take it upon himself to enter Wales (or, indeed, Illinois) at any point in the future, and subsequently be found to have suffered accordingly, I wish it to be entirely clear that I cannot answer for it.
I happened to be present when Graham Harrison delivered his material on the book, and - in his defence - his aim, while undoubtedly that of a man with a bias of affection and esteem for Lloyd-Jones, seemed to be that of clarifying certain assumptions made in the book which, in his opinion, were flawed. The review was given with the exceedingly dry humour characteristic of Mr Harrison, and should not be mistaken for unrelieved sourness.
And, before anyone charges Harrison with casting to the winds Trueman's alleged "scholastic Reformed Orthodoxy," I should point out that this is not Harrison's dimissive assessment, but rather Coffey's phrase for the school of thought that he believes Carl represents. As such, it is a reported assessment by Harrison, and it is first Coffey against whom cudgels must be lifted. (Whether or not, or to what extent and for what reasons, GH agrees with Coffey, I cannot say. And, lest I should appear non-committal in the matter, my own review of the book is here.)
As to the matter of whether or not MLJ was, or was not, a more or less clear proponent of Independency as opposed to Presbyterianism, surely the issue should be stated in slightly more robust terms than whether or not we prefer MLJ's perhaps vague advocacy of Independency to Carl's vigorous advocacy of full-orbed Presbyterianism? I might wish that MLJ had been clearer and more definite than he was, without endorsing the Presbyterian vision.
Anyway, having tried to clear the air, perhaps it is worth pointing out that this blog post should by no means be construed as some kind of 'safe conduct' for Carl Trueman. Should he take it upon himself to enter Wales (or, indeed, Illinois) at any point in the future, and subsequently be found to have suffered accordingly, I wish it to be entirely clear that I cannot answer for it.
