FV Pastor: "Apostacy is a real possiblity!"
Anti-FV Pastor: "Any Reformed pastor who believes apostacy is a real possibility is surely an apostate!"
FV Pastor: "Could you expand on that?
Anti-FV Pastor: "Sure. Any true believer who truly has true faith in the true God who has truly come to the conclusion that a true believer can truly fall away from the true faith in the true God has truly fallen away from the true faith in the true God. It's just that simple."
FV Pastor: "Huh...wha...?"
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My Experience with the Federal Vision
I have been recently asked by an old friend if I have been "sucked in by the dark Auburn Avenue doctrines." That is a fair question, if not necessarily fairly worded, so therefore, I thought I would attempt to make a brief answer. BRIEF answers are not my forte, but I will try anyhow!
Btw, if you are reading this and have absolutely no idea what is meant by "Auburn Avenue Theology," or "The Federal Vision," please count your blessings and just skip this post. It will be meaningless to you and is simply not worth worrying about.
The person who asked that loaded question (I’ll call him ‘M’) is in fact, humanly speaking, as responsible as anyone for my current theological outlook. Years ago, I use to spend a lot of time on an Internet bulletin board dedicated to religious discussion. I was pretty much a run of the mill standard conservative modern American Evangelical Southern Baptist. Skipping the details as to why I was posing the question, I posed the question of predestination/free will to the bulletin board. The question itself messed with my mind, as I could see something of both sides of the equation, while also seeing the weaknesses of both sides.
Most of the responses I received took the side of "free will." I basically went along with it. But one person (M) answered from the ‘Calvinistic’ perspective. His response left me reeling, but, (again to make a very long story very short) over time, with repeated exchanges, I finally settled on the view of predestination. (I still hold to it today!)
I developed a friendship with M that, while we have gone entirely separate ways, we have managed to maintain through occasional Internet or email exchanges, and occasional telephone calls. I still value that friendship greatly.
Now, M was also in a time of theological transition. He had been basically as I had been, then became a ‘reformed’ Baptist, then eventually became a Presbyterian. I pretty much skipped the middle step, and flew straight from contemporary evangelical Baptist to be a Presbyterian. The last issue to fall was the issue of Baptism. Largely, though not entirely, this issue changed for me after reading the relevant section from Dabney’s Systematic Theology – a book that was recommended to me by M.
In the background to all of this, was this lingering feeling to me that in addition to theological precision and the importance of systematic theology, one thing that was missing from contemporary evangelicalism was beauty, depth, and meaning in worship. Most of the worship I had been exposed to was like this: After a brief time singing sappy praise hymns, the children are dismissed to "Children’s Church", then the adults remained for a rather elementary worship and preaching service. I could only wonder how childish the children’s service was, since there was no depth or beauty in the adult service. Not only that, but I did not even like the idea of children’s church or nursery for the younger kids. The wife and I had basically began taking our young kids to the service with us. I don’t think they ever went to a children’s service.
So, one of the things I was looking for as I began the search for a Presbyterian Church was not only a change in theology, and preaching and teaching with more meat, but, I desired more ‘beauty’ in worship. I wanted a more family, covenantal approach that included the children in the worship of their God. I thought maybe the Presbyterian Church would be more reverent in this way in their worship.
Now, B’ham, even though it is more or less the founding city for the PCA, is not exactly loaded with PCA churches. In the ‘ham, there is a Baptist Church on every block. Every other block has either a Methodist, Church of Christ, or some varient of a Pentecostal church. However, there are only a relative handful of Presbyterian Church (literally probably about five percent as many PCs as BCs). Even among the Presbyterian churches, here in the buckle of the Bible belt, probably two-thirds of them were of the liberal leaning PCUSA. I was definitely not interested in a denomination that has to constantly debate the whether homosexuality is acceptable or not!
Well, I visited a couple of PCA churches – both of which I had to drive quite a ways to get to. Both were pretty nice. There was definitely a step up in Preaching in terms of Biblical exegesis. Doctrine was definitely important. However, and I couldn’t quite put a finger on it, there was something still missing. Other than the preaching, both were almost indistinguishable from most of the Baptist churches I had been to. I remember one of them dismissing the children for children's church. I remember the other one making the point that they had two services – a ‘traditional’ one and a ‘contemporary’ one. Not real crazy about that idea either.
Well, in the meantime, M had wound up in the ATL area and become sold on a particular church called Chalcedon Presbyterian Church pastored by Dr. Joe Morecraft. In talking with M, it seemed to me that a lot of what he was saying about his church matched with what I was looking for. He told me he would ask around and see if anyone there was familiar with a good church in the ‘ham.
He got back with me and said "Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church." Someone there told him that if you wanted a true Reformed Church in Birmingham, that was the ONLY place to go. Even Pastor Joe was quite familiar with the church, had spoken there before, and recommended it. I was vaguely familiar with it because my sister works directly across the street at a Barber shop and I saw the church numerous times from there. The only problem was that it was on the opposite side of town – probably a 30-35 minute drive.
Well, we visited one Lord’s Day. To the naked eye it would have seemed massively unimpressive. A small, old, not necessarily lovely building. Poor restroom facilities. The building does not sit on a very good lot. After church they had a lunch in an even worse building that seemed to be about to fall apart. However, to the open heart, we knew we had ‘come home.’
First, the first thing I noticed was the presence of a Dr. and Mrs. D. This was an older couple that I had known years before through some of our mutual political interests. They were a couple I admired greatly. Another thing was the friendliness of the people in general. We were immediately made to feel at home. Another thing was that one of the leaders just happened to stand up and make a point (before the beginning of worship) that they are not for a separate children’s church (how did he know that is what I wanted to hear?) The pastor mentioned things in his sermon that resonated with me regarding a preteristic postmil eschatology which was a whole ‘nother theological transformation that I was undergoing. Finally, though, the worship itself seemed to be more holistic, deep, and meaningful. I was too ignorant to put my finger on it, but there was something different. It was not just a couple of songs, a sermon, then we go. It was more structured. It seemed to have meaning, direction, purpose. They had communion, and it seemed that it was something they did every week. That was new to me, but somehow it seemed right.
After some time visiting there, we began to develop friendships. One thing we heard about again and again was that there was a very interesting history to the church. This involved a lot of ups and downs – trial and triumph. At the moment, it seemed, the church was in something of a flux, with a little bit of an unknown future. The ‘pastor’ who had been preaching was really a supply pastor, but he had a long history with the congregation. The leader who spoke about children’s church was in fact more or less the ‘pastor designate’ who was finishing up his seminary training. (For the record, I loved and respected, and still do, both of these men despite the changes that have since come up) However, I kept hearing about this former pastor who had more or less set the current direction of the church. His name was Peter Leithart.
In retrospect, it would seem humorous to anyone familiar with the whole Federal Vision controversy that Joe Morecraft and those at his church insisted that I must go to the church that had been set on its course by Peter Leithart. Peter is one of the big names in the whole Auburn Avenue controversy. Morecraft is one of the big leaders in the anti Auburn Avenue camp. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!
Now, in my early days at RHPC, I was not at all knowledgeable about the differing strains within Presbyterianism. I just assumed Presbyterians were all one big happy family. Turns out, they look more like the Addams family!
However, in continuing the relationship with M, and in the relationships I developed at RHPC, certain names of certain key leaders, pastors, thinkers, and writers past and present kept coming up again and again. Steve Wilkins, Douglas Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Jim Jordan, Steve Schlissel, and on and on. The supply pastor at RHPC had attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson back in the 70s and was quick to tell you that Greg Bahnsen was his favorite prof. While there, he knew DeMar, Wilkins, Jordan, David Chilton and others. In fact, the original relationship of the supply pastor with the congregation, as it turns out, was that he was personally recommended to the congregation by Rushdoony. At one time in the history of the congregation, both he and DeMar were utilized as preachers while they were attending RTS.
So, at a point around, say mid 2001, I thought I had found the one big happy reformed presbyterian family. All the people I was running with were more or less influenced by the same people (the names listed above and perhaps others) RHPC had, during this time scheduled Pastor Schlissel to come and speak in November of that year. I had forwarded this to M, asking him to come over and attend also. Unfortunately, Schlissel’s church being in the heart of NYC was affected greatly by the event of September 11 of that year and he had to cancel.
I do remember M, though, questioning Sclissell because he had had some negative things to say about the "regulative principle." Fair enough, but I think overall we take the person on the whole of what they’ve done, not on whether they already agree 100 % with us on 100 % of the issues.
However, let me reiterate to you that it was M who introduced me to the likes of Wilson and Wilkins. It was M who told me about some of the great work Wilkins had done both in theology and history. It was M who suggested to me once that Credenda Agenda (the magazine of Wilson) should be required reading in every Christian home.
All of this was reinforced with me by my own experiences. I continued to hear about Dr. Leithart. Apparently, he had left RHPC to pursue his PhD. Upon completion of that, he went to Moscow, Idaho to teach at New St. Andrews. This is, of course, tied closely to Wilson. Many of his books are published by Canon – Wilson’s puclishing house and he writes frequently for Credenda Agenda – must reading indeed! In fact, during this time, Dr. Leithart was a member of Pastor Wilson’s church. In addition to hearing about him, I got the opportunity to actually hear him and speak with him a couple of times. He occasionally gets to pass through town and when he does he usually speaks at our congregation. One time in particular the PCA GA was in Birmingham and they held a pre-GA liturgy conference at our facility. Dr. Leithart, Jim Jordan, and Wes Baker all spoke. This was perhaps the beginning of a great awakening for me concerning my views on worship. The concerns I had as expressed above were being addressed by some very smart people in very intelligent, and might I add, Biblical ways.
At any rate, I knew there were some differences within this group of leaders and thinkers. But, in my opinion they were peripheral. There were numerous things they held in common. This included centrally the idea that the whole word of God regulates our whole lives. This places God’s law on a higher plane. God’s law is not irrelevant to us, but is in fact binding. All the members of this group tend to hold God’s law, God’s Word in high regard. God’s word also regulates how we are to worship Him.
Another consistent viewpoint among this group tended to be that they were, I believe without exception, postmillenial and (orthodox) preterist. There may certainly be variations in the particulars of this, but I think they largely fell into those categories.
In addition to these similarities in peripheral issues, all these men were of course Calvinistic in soteriology, presbyterian in government, covenantal in their viewpoint of God’s relationship with His People. They all held to paedobaptism. In other words, these guys in addition to all being nominally some variant of Christian, were in fact in agreement on 98% of their theology. Where differences seemed to exist it involved the actual application of the theology. Just as an example, both Joe Morecraft and Jim Jordan have indicated that they believe in the regulative principle of worship. This means that in determining what we are to do in corporate worship, we are to look to the Bible and follow what it says. On that point these two are in 100% agreement. However, when they develop their ideas as to what it is exactly that the Bible instructs us to do in corporate worship, the two are miles apart. One could truly say to the other "I believe you are wrong in the way you develop and apply the regulative principle." However, it would be incorrect for one to say to the other "You deny the regulative principle." There are likely other topics where this type of application difference shows up. How do you deal with it? Especially, if you are all one big happy family how do you deal with it when your brother’s conclusion at a particular point differs from your own? This is where I found out that we really weren’t a big happy family.
I still remember opening the email from M some time in 2002. "Have you heard the latest about Schlissel, Wilson, and Wilkins? They’re denying justification by faith!!!!"
I have to admit that my initial reaction was not "Oh no, somehow these great men of God have suddenly all at once lost their mind and gone after false doctrine." Instead I thought, "I wonder what that is all about." That began my quest.
Now, admittedly I have not heard the full tapes of the original conference at Auburn Avenue, nor have I read the full transcripts. I have read quite a bit of it though. Initially, I was a little confused because I was still new to the whole reformed world. However, I have read substantially from the writings of not only Wilkins, Wilson, and Schlissel, but even more so from Leithart, Jordan, and others who have since been lumped into this camp. In studying all this, I also came across the name of Rich Lusk (more on this later!). I have read much of the writing against these guys as well. I have read the Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons book numerous times. I offer the following brief (maybe?) critique of the situation. I know this is wrought with over simplification and has gaping holes, but there simply isn’t time or space here for a full review. So deal with it!
From the very beginning, it has been obvious to me which side has been fair, even handed, Christ like and so forth in their behavior. For instance, the first big blowup was in a small presbytery of a small denomination (the RPCUS – Morecraft’s denomination) publicly calling for the repentance of four men from other denominations. The accused have claimed that they were not approached by the accusers and given the opportunity to sit down in private and defend their views. Is this scriptural? Any time any one from any branch of the church makes statements that I disagree with, can I publicly call them to repentance and ask for discipline? The whole tenor of this debate has been "Guilty until proven innocent, and, oh by the way, we’re not giving you a chance to prove your innocence. Therefore, guilty." A perfect example of this was the recent adoption of the committee report by the GA of the PCA. The ‘study committee’ was fully stacked with those who had been public in their opposition to the AA theology. In defense of this stacking, R. C. Sproul made the incredible statement that of course you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. There are two major problems with this statement that are readily evident to any first grader. First, this was not a trial by jury, but a study committee. A study committee should have people who are on both sides, as well as those who have no current opinion. A wide reading of the case should be made, then recommendations of both a majority and minority report given. Secondly, though, if this were a trial by jury then why is it stacked against the accused? True you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. But you don’t fill it with those who have already publicly stated their belief in his guilt! This was a grave miscarriage of justice any which way you slice it.
Now, it is true that Pastor Wilson does frequently use sarcasm and humor to make a point. I would even say there are times when he has carried it too far. However, I notice his biting sarcasm in this instance has always been in reaction to the incredible attacks made on him. Which demonstrates a lack of Christian charity more – boldly attacking an erstwhile friend and co-laborer for Christ, or responding to such an attack in a less that perfect manner?
So much could be said about the theological matters here, but I don’t have the time nor the ability to go into any detail. Suffice it to say, though, that the charge that any of the names associated with the AA theology are denying justification by faith are just plain silly. I can’t state that strongly enough. Its just plain silly. I don’t know how many times these guys have to make the specific point over and over and over again that they believe there is no way we could ever bring works to God and have a claim on salvation; that we are solely saved by an act of His Free Grace; that this is solely because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross; that this is obtained only by means of faith. They say all this, yet are still accused of denying these very things.
The fact of the matter is that the accusers and the accused, when their theology in total is reviewed, share almost the exact same theology in so many ways. In the broader Christian ‘pie’, they are all on the same small slice. Yet the most viscious of attacks have been leveled at the one by the other. It is sad, Sad, SAD!
I think the great sin of the AA crowd is that they dared to think. Especially, they dared to think outside the box of a 19th century interpretation of a seventeenth century interpretation of the teachings of Scripture. Read that sentence again. It is not a typo. The AA thinkers are truly Catholic (in the best sense of the word) learning from various strains of Christian theological tradition. However, virtually everything, if not everything, held by any of these men have been held by other leaders in the history of Reformed Christianity. The accusers want to make Reformed Christianity simply fit a tiny tiny little theological pattern. Anything outside of that pattern is not reformed. And, if a reformed leader steps outside that pattern, he is worse than someone already outside of that pattern. That is, these ‘true reformed’ leaders will still at least accept Baptists, Methodists, and sometimes even Roman Catholics as being, while theologically mistaken, Christian Brothers. However, let a Reformed leader vary his view slightly, and Whamo! he is damned to hell!
The great sin of the AA movement is also that it does not deny that the Bible does speak of works, covenant membership, apostasy, effectual sacraments, etc. Actually for the most part, their views of this fit within the teaching of the Westminster Confession (some hold to paedocommunion which is not taught by the WCF. Some also deny a covenant of Works) However, in other areas, the AA teaching are actually more consistent with the teachings of the Confession than the accepted interpretation by the "truly reformed" crowd.
In the end, though, can’t we simply in love debate these doctrines? Can’t we say "You know, I believe the WCF may be wrong in not allowing for paedocommunion." Can’t we use language that may be different that the WCF (especially if it is Biblical language??!!) Can’t we just sometimes agree to disagree and continue to be brothers? Can’t we sometimes learn from each other – as iron sharpens iron? Do we have to immediately condemn our brother whenever he says things in words different from what we might choose to use? Again, I think this is all just so sad.
Now, as I said earlier, I came across the name of Rich Lusk in my studies. Later, when we began searching for a full time pastor, his name came up. I did further research. I spoke with him on the phone at length. I drove to Monroe with two others from our congregation to meet him and his family and to hear him preach. (He was then Assistant Pastor at Auburn Avenue). I specifically asked him questions such as "Are you a five point Calvinist" and other pertinent topics. Not only I, but virtually our whole congregation was sold on him. He graciously agreed to become our pastor in 2004, and we have slowly, but steadily grown in numbers and in maturity. (As of 2003 our congregation was on the verge of disbanding, with only a tiny handful of families left. We are now strong and vibrant).
Btw, just this past week, and this was not an aberration but just the latest example, Pastor Lusk went to great lengths in his sermon to explain that our justification is by faith and not works. Hmmm. Strange from a guy who denies that truth!
I have sat under his teaching now for almost three years. I have learned so much. I have seen this "Dark Auburn Avenue" theology bring so much light and fruit. We have a congregation where everyone loves each other. We have a congregation that is beginning to become active in the community. You will know them by their fruits.
So, I invite anyone who has a problem with this ‘dark’ theology to simply come and visit us at any time. Hear the joyful singing. Hear the heartfelt confession. Hear the hearty shouts of "Amen!" and "Thanks be to God!" Celebrate communion with our Lord and with each other. Hear God’s word preached. Come on, I dare you!
Btw, if you are reading this and have absolutely no idea what is meant by "Auburn Avenue Theology," or "The Federal Vision," please count your blessings and just skip this post. It will be meaningless to you and is simply not worth worrying about.
The person who asked that loaded question (I’ll call him ‘M’) is in fact, humanly speaking, as responsible as anyone for my current theological outlook. Years ago, I use to spend a lot of time on an Internet bulletin board dedicated to religious discussion. I was pretty much a run of the mill standard conservative modern American Evangelical Southern Baptist. Skipping the details as to why I was posing the question, I posed the question of predestination/free will to the bulletin board. The question itself messed with my mind, as I could see something of both sides of the equation, while also seeing the weaknesses of both sides.
Most of the responses I received took the side of "free will." I basically went along with it. But one person (M) answered from the ‘Calvinistic’ perspective. His response left me reeling, but, (again to make a very long story very short) over time, with repeated exchanges, I finally settled on the view of predestination. (I still hold to it today!)
I developed a friendship with M that, while we have gone entirely separate ways, we have managed to maintain through occasional Internet or email exchanges, and occasional telephone calls. I still value that friendship greatly.
Now, M was also in a time of theological transition. He had been basically as I had been, then became a ‘reformed’ Baptist, then eventually became a Presbyterian. I pretty much skipped the middle step, and flew straight from contemporary evangelical Baptist to be a Presbyterian. The last issue to fall was the issue of Baptism. Largely, though not entirely, this issue changed for me after reading the relevant section from Dabney’s Systematic Theology – a book that was recommended to me by M.
In the background to all of this, was this lingering feeling to me that in addition to theological precision and the importance of systematic theology, one thing that was missing from contemporary evangelicalism was beauty, depth, and meaning in worship. Most of the worship I had been exposed to was like this: After a brief time singing sappy praise hymns, the children are dismissed to "Children’s Church", then the adults remained for a rather elementary worship and preaching service. I could only wonder how childish the children’s service was, since there was no depth or beauty in the adult service. Not only that, but I did not even like the idea of children’s church or nursery for the younger kids. The wife and I had basically began taking our young kids to the service with us. I don’t think they ever went to a children’s service.
So, one of the things I was looking for as I began the search for a Presbyterian Church was not only a change in theology, and preaching and teaching with more meat, but, I desired more ‘beauty’ in worship. I wanted a more family, covenantal approach that included the children in the worship of their God. I thought maybe the Presbyterian Church would be more reverent in this way in their worship.
Now, B’ham, even though it is more or less the founding city for the PCA, is not exactly loaded with PCA churches. In the ‘ham, there is a Baptist Church on every block. Every other block has either a Methodist, Church of Christ, or some varient of a Pentecostal church. However, there are only a relative handful of Presbyterian Church (literally probably about five percent as many PCs as BCs). Even among the Presbyterian churches, here in the buckle of the Bible belt, probably two-thirds of them were of the liberal leaning PCUSA. I was definitely not interested in a denomination that has to constantly debate the whether homosexuality is acceptable or not!
Well, I visited a couple of PCA churches – both of which I had to drive quite a ways to get to. Both were pretty nice. There was definitely a step up in Preaching in terms of Biblical exegesis. Doctrine was definitely important. However, and I couldn’t quite put a finger on it, there was something still missing. Other than the preaching, both were almost indistinguishable from most of the Baptist churches I had been to. I remember one of them dismissing the children for children's church. I remember the other one making the point that they had two services – a ‘traditional’ one and a ‘contemporary’ one. Not real crazy about that idea either.
Well, in the meantime, M had wound up in the ATL area and become sold on a particular church called Chalcedon Presbyterian Church pastored by Dr. Joe Morecraft. In talking with M, it seemed to me that a lot of what he was saying about his church matched with what I was looking for. He told me he would ask around and see if anyone there was familiar with a good church in the ‘ham.
He got back with me and said "Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church." Someone there told him that if you wanted a true Reformed Church in Birmingham, that was the ONLY place to go. Even Pastor Joe was quite familiar with the church, had spoken there before, and recommended it. I was vaguely familiar with it because my sister works directly across the street at a Barber shop and I saw the church numerous times from there. The only problem was that it was on the opposite side of town – probably a 30-35 minute drive.
Well, we visited one Lord’s Day. To the naked eye it would have seemed massively unimpressive. A small, old, not necessarily lovely building. Poor restroom facilities. The building does not sit on a very good lot. After church they had a lunch in an even worse building that seemed to be about to fall apart. However, to the open heart, we knew we had ‘come home.’
First, the first thing I noticed was the presence of a Dr. and Mrs. D. This was an older couple that I had known years before through some of our mutual political interests. They were a couple I admired greatly. Another thing was the friendliness of the people in general. We were immediately made to feel at home. Another thing was that one of the leaders just happened to stand up and make a point (before the beginning of worship) that they are not for a separate children’s church (how did he know that is what I wanted to hear?) The pastor mentioned things in his sermon that resonated with me regarding a preteristic postmil eschatology which was a whole ‘nother theological transformation that I was undergoing. Finally, though, the worship itself seemed to be more holistic, deep, and meaningful. I was too ignorant to put my finger on it, but there was something different. It was not just a couple of songs, a sermon, then we go. It was more structured. It seemed to have meaning, direction, purpose. They had communion, and it seemed that it was something they did every week. That was new to me, but somehow it seemed right.
After some time visiting there, we began to develop friendships. One thing we heard about again and again was that there was a very interesting history to the church. This involved a lot of ups and downs – trial and triumph. At the moment, it seemed, the church was in something of a flux, with a little bit of an unknown future. The ‘pastor’ who had been preaching was really a supply pastor, but he had a long history with the congregation. The leader who spoke about children’s church was in fact more or less the ‘pastor designate’ who was finishing up his seminary training. (For the record, I loved and respected, and still do, both of these men despite the changes that have since come up) However, I kept hearing about this former pastor who had more or less set the current direction of the church. His name was Peter Leithart.
In retrospect, it would seem humorous to anyone familiar with the whole Federal Vision controversy that Joe Morecraft and those at his church insisted that I must go to the church that had been set on its course by Peter Leithart. Peter is one of the big names in the whole Auburn Avenue controversy. Morecraft is one of the big leaders in the anti Auburn Avenue camp. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!
Now, in my early days at RHPC, I was not at all knowledgeable about the differing strains within Presbyterianism. I just assumed Presbyterians were all one big happy family. Turns out, they look more like the Addams family!
However, in continuing the relationship with M, and in the relationships I developed at RHPC, certain names of certain key leaders, pastors, thinkers, and writers past and present kept coming up again and again. Steve Wilkins, Douglas Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Jim Jordan, Steve Schlissel, and on and on. The supply pastor at RHPC had attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson back in the 70s and was quick to tell you that Greg Bahnsen was his favorite prof. While there, he knew DeMar, Wilkins, Jordan, David Chilton and others. In fact, the original relationship of the supply pastor with the congregation, as it turns out, was that he was personally recommended to the congregation by Rushdoony. At one time in the history of the congregation, both he and DeMar were utilized as preachers while they were attending RTS.
So, at a point around, say mid 2001, I thought I had found the one big happy reformed presbyterian family. All the people I was running with were more or less influenced by the same people (the names listed above and perhaps others) RHPC had, during this time scheduled Pastor Schlissel to come and speak in November of that year. I had forwarded this to M, asking him to come over and attend also. Unfortunately, Schlissel’s church being in the heart of NYC was affected greatly by the event of September 11 of that year and he had to cancel.
I do remember M, though, questioning Sclissell because he had had some negative things to say about the "regulative principle." Fair enough, but I think overall we take the person on the whole of what they’ve done, not on whether they already agree 100 % with us on 100 % of the issues.
However, let me reiterate to you that it was M who introduced me to the likes of Wilson and Wilkins. It was M who told me about some of the great work Wilkins had done both in theology and history. It was M who suggested to me once that Credenda Agenda (the magazine of Wilson) should be required reading in every Christian home.
All of this was reinforced with me by my own experiences. I continued to hear about Dr. Leithart. Apparently, he had left RHPC to pursue his PhD. Upon completion of that, he went to Moscow, Idaho to teach at New St. Andrews. This is, of course, tied closely to Wilson. Many of his books are published by Canon – Wilson’s puclishing house and he writes frequently for Credenda Agenda – must reading indeed! In fact, during this time, Dr. Leithart was a member of Pastor Wilson’s church. In addition to hearing about him, I got the opportunity to actually hear him and speak with him a couple of times. He occasionally gets to pass through town and when he does he usually speaks at our congregation. One time in particular the PCA GA was in Birmingham and they held a pre-GA liturgy conference at our facility. Dr. Leithart, Jim Jordan, and Wes Baker all spoke. This was perhaps the beginning of a great awakening for me concerning my views on worship. The concerns I had as expressed above were being addressed by some very smart people in very intelligent, and might I add, Biblical ways.
At any rate, I knew there were some differences within this group of leaders and thinkers. But, in my opinion they were peripheral. There were numerous things they held in common. This included centrally the idea that the whole word of God regulates our whole lives. This places God’s law on a higher plane. God’s law is not irrelevant to us, but is in fact binding. All the members of this group tend to hold God’s law, God’s Word in high regard. God’s word also regulates how we are to worship Him.
Another consistent viewpoint among this group tended to be that they were, I believe without exception, postmillenial and (orthodox) preterist. There may certainly be variations in the particulars of this, but I think they largely fell into those categories.
In addition to these similarities in peripheral issues, all these men were of course Calvinistic in soteriology, presbyterian in government, covenantal in their viewpoint of God’s relationship with His People. They all held to paedobaptism. In other words, these guys in addition to all being nominally some variant of Christian, were in fact in agreement on 98% of their theology. Where differences seemed to exist it involved the actual application of the theology. Just as an example, both Joe Morecraft and Jim Jordan have indicated that they believe in the regulative principle of worship. This means that in determining what we are to do in corporate worship, we are to look to the Bible and follow what it says. On that point these two are in 100% agreement. However, when they develop their ideas as to what it is exactly that the Bible instructs us to do in corporate worship, the two are miles apart. One could truly say to the other "I believe you are wrong in the way you develop and apply the regulative principle." However, it would be incorrect for one to say to the other "You deny the regulative principle." There are likely other topics where this type of application difference shows up. How do you deal with it? Especially, if you are all one big happy family how do you deal with it when your brother’s conclusion at a particular point differs from your own? This is where I found out that we really weren’t a big happy family.
I still remember opening the email from M some time in 2002. "Have you heard the latest about Schlissel, Wilson, and Wilkins? They’re denying justification by faith!!!!"
I have to admit that my initial reaction was not "Oh no, somehow these great men of God have suddenly all at once lost their mind and gone after false doctrine." Instead I thought, "I wonder what that is all about." That began my quest.
Now, admittedly I have not heard the full tapes of the original conference at Auburn Avenue, nor have I read the full transcripts. I have read quite a bit of it though. Initially, I was a little confused because I was still new to the whole reformed world. However, I have read substantially from the writings of not only Wilkins, Wilson, and Schlissel, but even more so from Leithart, Jordan, and others who have since been lumped into this camp. In studying all this, I also came across the name of Rich Lusk (more on this later!). I have read much of the writing against these guys as well. I have read the Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons book numerous times. I offer the following brief (maybe?) critique of the situation. I know this is wrought with over simplification and has gaping holes, but there simply isn’t time or space here for a full review. So deal with it!
From the very beginning, it has been obvious to me which side has been fair, even handed, Christ like and so forth in their behavior. For instance, the first big blowup was in a small presbytery of a small denomination (the RPCUS – Morecraft’s denomination) publicly calling for the repentance of four men from other denominations. The accused have claimed that they were not approached by the accusers and given the opportunity to sit down in private and defend their views. Is this scriptural? Any time any one from any branch of the church makes statements that I disagree with, can I publicly call them to repentance and ask for discipline? The whole tenor of this debate has been "Guilty until proven innocent, and, oh by the way, we’re not giving you a chance to prove your innocence. Therefore, guilty." A perfect example of this was the recent adoption of the committee report by the GA of the PCA. The ‘study committee’ was fully stacked with those who had been public in their opposition to the AA theology. In defense of this stacking, R. C. Sproul made the incredible statement that of course you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. There are two major problems with this statement that are readily evident to any first grader. First, this was not a trial by jury, but a study committee. A study committee should have people who are on both sides, as well as those who have no current opinion. A wide reading of the case should be made, then recommendations of both a majority and minority report given. Secondly, though, if this were a trial by jury then why is it stacked against the accused? True you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. But you don’t fill it with those who have already publicly stated their belief in his guilt! This was a grave miscarriage of justice any which way you slice it.
Now, it is true that Pastor Wilson does frequently use sarcasm and humor to make a point. I would even say there are times when he has carried it too far. However, I notice his biting sarcasm in this instance has always been in reaction to the incredible attacks made on him. Which demonstrates a lack of Christian charity more – boldly attacking an erstwhile friend and co-laborer for Christ, or responding to such an attack in a less that perfect manner?
So much could be said about the theological matters here, but I don’t have the time nor the ability to go into any detail. Suffice it to say, though, that the charge that any of the names associated with the AA theology are denying justification by faith are just plain silly. I can’t state that strongly enough. Its just plain silly. I don’t know how many times these guys have to make the specific point over and over and over again that they believe there is no way we could ever bring works to God and have a claim on salvation; that we are solely saved by an act of His Free Grace; that this is solely because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross; that this is obtained only by means of faith. They say all this, yet are still accused of denying these very things.
The fact of the matter is that the accusers and the accused, when their theology in total is reviewed, share almost the exact same theology in so many ways. In the broader Christian ‘pie’, they are all on the same small slice. Yet the most viscious of attacks have been leveled at the one by the other. It is sad, Sad, SAD!
I think the great sin of the AA crowd is that they dared to think. Especially, they dared to think outside the box of a 19th century interpretation of a seventeenth century interpretation of the teachings of Scripture. Read that sentence again. It is not a typo. The AA thinkers are truly Catholic (in the best sense of the word) learning from various strains of Christian theological tradition. However, virtually everything, if not everything, held by any of these men have been held by other leaders in the history of Reformed Christianity. The accusers want to make Reformed Christianity simply fit a tiny tiny little theological pattern. Anything outside of that pattern is not reformed. And, if a reformed leader steps outside that pattern, he is worse than someone already outside of that pattern. That is, these ‘true reformed’ leaders will still at least accept Baptists, Methodists, and sometimes even Roman Catholics as being, while theologically mistaken, Christian Brothers. However, let a Reformed leader vary his view slightly, and Whamo! he is damned to hell!
The great sin of the AA movement is also that it does not deny that the Bible does speak of works, covenant membership, apostasy, effectual sacraments, etc. Actually for the most part, their views of this fit within the teaching of the Westminster Confession (some hold to paedocommunion which is not taught by the WCF. Some also deny a covenant of Works) However, in other areas, the AA teaching are actually more consistent with the teachings of the Confession than the accepted interpretation by the "truly reformed" crowd.
In the end, though, can’t we simply in love debate these doctrines? Can’t we say "You know, I believe the WCF may be wrong in not allowing for paedocommunion." Can’t we use language that may be different that the WCF (especially if it is Biblical language??!!) Can’t we just sometimes agree to disagree and continue to be brothers? Can’t we sometimes learn from each other – as iron sharpens iron? Do we have to immediately condemn our brother whenever he says things in words different from what we might choose to use? Again, I think this is all just so sad.
Now, as I said earlier, I came across the name of Rich Lusk in my studies. Later, when we began searching for a full time pastor, his name came up. I did further research. I spoke with him on the phone at length. I drove to Monroe with two others from our congregation to meet him and his family and to hear him preach. (He was then Assistant Pastor at Auburn Avenue). I specifically asked him questions such as "Are you a five point Calvinist" and other pertinent topics. Not only I, but virtually our whole congregation was sold on him. He graciously agreed to become our pastor in 2004, and we have slowly, but steadily grown in numbers and in maturity. (As of 2003 our congregation was on the verge of disbanding, with only a tiny handful of families left. We are now strong and vibrant).
Btw, just this past week, and this was not an aberration but just the latest example, Pastor Lusk went to great lengths in his sermon to explain that our justification is by faith and not works. Hmmm. Strange from a guy who denies that truth!
I have sat under his teaching now for almost three years. I have learned so much. I have seen this "Dark Auburn Avenue" theology bring so much light and fruit. We have a congregation where everyone loves each other. We have a congregation that is beginning to become active in the community. You will know them by their fruits.
So, I invite anyone who has a problem with this ‘dark’ theology to simply come and visit us at any time. Hear the joyful singing. Hear the heartfelt confession. Hear the hearty shouts of "Amen!" and "Thanks be to God!" Celebrate communion with our Lord and with each other. Hear God’s word preached. Come on, I dare you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
