There are some great comments over at the Bayly Blog that was sparked by a reference to Frame's review:See here: http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/02/tim-darryl-hart-is-a-writer-and-director-of-partnered-projects-at-the---intercollegiate-studies-institute-he-first-made-hi.htmlSee here:http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/02/taking-a-stick-to-it.htmlFrom the first link here is something R. Scott Clark said:"My picketing (of abortion clinics) was a while ago. I would not do so today as a minister. I think my vocation as a minister, in the visible church, is to prepare God's people to fulfill their vocations (which may include picketing). Since I'm ordained my activities are somewhat limited."A current, non-"academic" pastor responded:"Are you saying that your activities are limited by your time or by your calling? If the latter, it seems to me that you've missed one of the more powerful elements of the pastoral ministry, to serve as a faithful example; to show as well as to tell. What of Paul's attitude? "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us" (Philippians 3:17)."
A few highlights:Dear Daryl,You and Scott Clark don't seem to grasp that the criticisms you're facing here and elsewhere aren’t materializing out of thin air. They’re blowback from criticisms you've been airing for years--criticisms of Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Whitefield, even former colleagues.I may be slow on the uptake, but it's coming to me that your problem isn't so much with these men as it is with the form of Christianity they practiced: you know, heart religion, the call to repentance, preaching the Law for its first, second and third uses, the pursuit of piety.I can live with you disliking Edwards. I can accept criticism of Lloyd-Jones. You can call me benighted intellectually personally all you want. It’s probably true. What I can't accept is a Chauncyite definition of the boundaries of the Reformed faith. You asked me to provide a scholarly response to your criticisms of Edwards. I ask you to drop the sociological/historical attacks on these men and mount a convincing Biblical argument for why we should embrace your arid precepts over the fruitful lives of men whose wells you still draw from even as you disdain their memory.Sincerely in Christ,David BaylyI was watching these comments progress on my phone from my dentist's chair where I was undergoing a root canal. I think the root canal was less painful.What troubles me across a broad front, ranging from the current two-kingdom, anti-pietist, anti-enthusiasm, anti-vernacular approach of Westminster West to the post-millennial, reconstructionist wing on the other side is a willingness to prefer speculative (not the schoolmen type) theology to the flesh-and-blood, judged-by-its-fruit life of the living church.While I find myself in agreement with those on both sides in significant areas, the uniting principle behind such disparate views is, I believe, an unstated animus toward the real, living, tares-amidst-the-wheat Church of Jesus Christ.Does it strike no one but me that those in these camps who speak slightingly of Edwards and Lloyd-Jones (and, frankly, Doug Wilson) tend to be professors rather than pastors? I'm convinced the constructs these men come up with can exist only in a world unencumbered by real world, flesh and blood exigencies. What unites such disparate camps as two-kingdomites and post-mil reconstructionists? Disregard for the heart. Contempt for "pietism" (or enthusiasm). Rejection of revival. Disdain for pastors who served the church faithfully and loyally such as those listed above. I wonder: is this the inevitable fruit of an academically-oriented rather than ecclesiastically-oriented life?Sincerely in Christ,David Bayly