Objectivity v Neutrality
There is sometimes a distinction between objectivity and neutrality, but in this case they overlap.
The idea that one so passionately involved in a heated controversy could suddenly and anonymously assume a stance either of utter objectivity or neutrality is a little strange.
As in the case of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together, such anonymity creates more suspicion than trust.
Second, the idea, in this day and age, that a news provider could be anonymous (when we know the owners of most news media) and be credible is also improbable.
No news provider can really claim utter neutrality or objectivity. There's a subjective element involved in which stories get picked, in deciding from what angle they get covered, who gets quoted and how.
The Christian Renewal (a neo-Kuyperian Canadian Dutch Reformed paper) has consistently treated the FV as if were a controversial option for the orthodox. Though they want to be regarded as a neutral player in the controversy, for them to decide to tolerate the FV is not neutrality or objectivity. The CR has make an editorial decision that necessarily influences the news coverage. To treat the FV as if it had equal moral, theological, and practical standing with the orthodox, confessional view is an editorial decision. I should know. They just ran three pieces in the recent issue (which I still haven't seen) where I was apparently the object of scorn. Did I hear from the "fair" or "objective" CR? Was I given a chance to respond? No. When they ran a hostile and misinformed review of Mike Horton's book on covenant theology they only ran a response by Mike AFTER some of us screamed about it.
In contrast, the Outlook (a magazine based in Grand Rapids with a similar if somewhat broader constituency) has decided against the FV. The difference between them is that the CR won't admit their bias and the Outlook has. At least the Outlook is being honest.
What responsible journalists do is to say, "Look, here are my biases and pre-possessions, but despite them I'm going to try to be fair."
I'm not sure that's even a virtue to pretend to be utterly objective in news coverage. The only thing I seek is honesty.
In RN we have a similar approach to the folks at "Covenant Radio." There is a pretense, by partisans, of objectivity. The result of giving these folks credibility will be to admit the FV as a tenured member of the Reformed community.
As I keep saying it's a good thing they didn't do this at Dort! The single biggest mistake the Dutch church made after Dort was to re-admit too many of the Remonstrants back into the churches. It wasn't very long afterwards that the DRC was shot through with rationalism.
The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.
Call me intolerant, but I agree with Paul. He was right to rebuke Peter for his choice of dinner companions. Paul wasn't neutral in the least.
rsc
Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his
blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.
I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys
formerly known as FV sympathizers'?
