Just a minor correction to what was stated about the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN). I am not a "member" of the network and haven't attended their conferences but am sympathetic to their aims.
1. The GRN predates the Revoice controversy. It grew out of a desire to provide a Confessional response to the antinomianism of Tullian Tchividjian. Its aim was to help Elders to understand the Confessional understanding of sanctification.
2. When Revoice surfaced, its focus on sanctification was prescient as the errors of Seide B Christianity represented a distortion of sanctification as it adopted Roman Catholic views of concupisence as well as antinomian tendencies. Its focus was vindicated as the Study Committee recapitulated well-defined ideas around sanctification in the Westminster Standards.
3. I think GRN is painted by culturalists as being partisan but that is a function of its confessional commitments. In other words, men who have departed from the Standards on Worship, Ecclesiology, Sacramentology, or Soteriology are answered not with some sort of "enemy front' where anything goes, but the GRN consistently placards plain old Westminsterian theology.
4. It is also not fair to paint the GRN as wanting to step into the "political philosophy" fray. Going into the 2025 GA, most elders believed (and still do) that Christian Nationlism is a poorly defined term. By that I mean that many paint any Christian who desires laws or governance around the general equity of God's Word to be "nationalists". What changed the mind of many (not all) at the GA is that some Presbyteries are having real problems with *some* young men and others being attracted to Kinist or ethno-National ideas. It's more of a reluctant willingness for a Study Committee to narrowly address aberrant views and provide some pious advice. I doubt the committee will provide an exhaustive political philosophy and address the more problematic ideas present in some circles. It won't be an attack on Burkean conservatism or side with Classical Liberalism or something like that. That all said, it's never been that clear to me how really pervasive the problem is but some have been experiencing it in their Churches and men wanted to support that need.
Just a minor correction to what was stated about the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN). I am not a "member" of the network and haven't attended their conferences but am sympathetic to their aims.
1. The GRN predates the Revoice controversy. It grew out of a desire to provide a Confessional response to the antinomianism of Tullian Tchividjian. Its aim was to help Elders to understand the Confessional understanding of sanctification.
2. When Revoice surfaced, its focus on sanctification was prescient as the errors of Seide B Christianity represented a distortion of sanctification as it adopted Roman Catholic views of concupisence as well as antinomian tendencies. Its focus was vindicated as the Study Committee recapitulated well-defined ideas around sanctification in the Westminster Standards.
3. I think GRN is painted by culturalists as being partisan but that is a function of its confessional commitments. In other words, men who have departed from the Standards on Worship, Ecclesiology, Sacramentology, or Soteriology are answered not with some sort of "enemy front' where anything goes, but the GRN consistently placards plain old Westminsterian theology.
4. It is also not fair to paint the GRN as wanting to step into the "political philosophy" fray. Going into the 2025 GA, most elders believed (and still do) that Christian Nationlism is a poorly defined term. By that I mean that many paint any Christian who desires laws or governance around the general equity of God's Word to be "nationalists". What changed the mind of many (not all) at the GA is that some Presbyteries are having real problems with *some* young men and others being attracted to Kinist or ethno-National ideas. It's more of a reluctant willingness for a Study Committee to narrowly address aberrant views and provide some pious advice. I doubt the committee will provide an exhaustive political philosophy and address the more problematic ideas present in some circles. It won't be an attack on Burkean conservatism or side with Classical Liberalism or something like that. That all said, it's never been that clear to me how really pervasive the problem is but some have been experiencing it in their Churches and men wanted to support that need.