Worse Than None

The official Federal Vision Damage Control Unit swung into action this morning, trying to rehabilitate James Jordan’s complete meltdown on the worldwide web. Accordingly, the Federal Visionists successfully compelled their Godfather to post a comment on two blogs to seek forgiveness for “several overheated posts” and for “having troubled your waters.” Here is his comment in full:

Gentlemen,

I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days. I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog, and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language, and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.

Sincerely,

James B. Jordan

As confessions go, this is about as offensive as Jordan’s original sin, which he happily affirms. So let’s take it point for point:

I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days.

Jordan seeks forgiveness for the sin of “several overheated posts,” though he leaves the word “overheated” undefined. What does he mean by “overheated”? Does he refer to a grown man throwing a sinful temper tantrum, or does he think he got a little too hot under the collar, so to speak? I once had an “overheated” engine, but I didn’t attribute sin to it, and my wife has “overheated” my coffee on occasion, but neither she nor the coffee committed sin. So we’ll have to see what Jordan means.

I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

Okay, he deleted all his comments from “John Armstrong’s Meddling Again” except the original comment, which is another way of saying exactly how much forgiveness he seeks because the original comment is no less offensive than all the reviling that followed it. In fact, it laid the foundation for everything else he wrote. Of course, this explains why he still believes the actions of the PCA are “shocking and scandalous.”

I was out of line . . .

This strikes me as an understatement. In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul does not instruct the Church to excommunicate “railers” because he believes reviling is merely “out of line.”

I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog. . .

Jordan believes that his language was “not appropriate in a public blog” and he clearly implies that his language is absolutely appropriate for non-public-blog discourse, such as we see on the Biblical Horizons yahoo Group. In other words, this stipulation — this one single condition — protects the soul of Jordan’s conviction, which makes room for the abundance of his heart. His entire so-called confession hangs on this one line.

. . . and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian. . .

Off point, but this is a clear admission that the CREC, where he holds his membership, is not presbyterian, and to my knowledge he is the first confederate to make this admission.

. . . and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

This admission is similar to Prince Blog’s admission that while he knows nothing about the PCA’s BCO, he still reserves the right to comment on the PCA’s proceedings. Of course, neither Beelzeblog nor James Jordan acknowledge that their Federal Visionist peers in the PCA affirmed the PCA’s form of government by covenant and all the boohooing in the world after the fact doesn’t remove their covenantal obligations. More importantly, however, when men admit their ignorance relative to a certain subject, it behooves them to refrain from editorializing on that subject. If a man does not understand presbyterian polity, then why would he pass judgment on the very polity he freely admits he doesn’t understand? In other words, Jordan shouldn’t even offer “general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted” when he does not know how these affairs are being conducted. One follows the other in logical sequence. But the working assumption with all the Federal Visionists is that THEY are the authorities on all things ecclesia.

I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language. . .

And if he was any kind of friend to Wilkins, he would urge him to honor his vows. Further, if Jordan had any brains, he would take a moment to learn presbyterian polity. It might keep him from using words such as “wrongfully persecuted.”

. . . and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

This apparently defines the word “overheated.” He “wrote in anger.”

So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.

The whole “troubled waters” metaphor strikes me as one more poke in the eye. First, it casts Jordan in the role of the angel in John 5. Second, it plainly diminishes the magnitude of his sin. What’s the big deal? — he troubled the waters.

Charles Spurgeon, writing under the pseudonym John Ploughman, coined the proverb, “A good excuse is worse than none,” to convey the point that when confessing your sins, it’s always best to come all the way clean, and refusal to admit the whole truth only aggravates your sin. In this instance, Jordan’s confession furnishes us with a good example of peacemaking Federal Vision style: Hold to your sins; humble not yourself; and concede no points of fact. In other words, his confession is worse than none.

Thank you.

filthy hypocrite

James Jordan hosts the Biblical Horizons website (which is a separate site from the Biblical Horizons Yahoo Group). If you go there, you can download for free Jordan’s newsletters and the books he published through Gary North’s Institute for Christian Economics (ICE). And if you’re really interested, you can purchase an autographed copy of his commentary on Daniel, which reminds me of the words, “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.”

Memo to Jimmy:
With all of your rants about “tyranny,” perhaps you should remove from your sidebar the name of the couple who refused to sign the “Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty,” which states:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

I am certain they would appreciate it, you abusive, filthy hypocrite.

Thank you.

James Jordan Is Loose!

U P D A T E # 2:
Jimmy took his show on the road, traveling to Green Bagginses territory in order to confirm that he penned the offending comments. And he added a few insults to boot (here).

U P D A T E:
Jimmy returned to pronounce judgment on his readers (here). This guy’s unbelievable!

Well, it looks like the Federal Visionists decided to let James Jordan out of his rubber room again, to see if he could behave himself and not embarrass them too much.

He couldn’t and he did.

The Magister Contradictus Jacobus Jordanius appeared on a blog named Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics to defend the new Reformation called “Federal Vision” and once again the “flumen magnus” demonstrated why the Federal Visionists kept him so well hidden for lo these many years. Here are his unabridged comments in all their glory:

James Jordan said . . .
The actions of the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that is makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison. All Christians in all kinds of churches should be appalled by this tyranny, and it is certainly fine for Armstrong, myself, and others to comment on it.

James Jordan said . . .
If you men cannot recognize the actions of this Star Chamber as tyranny and evil, you are really beyond help. The presbytery has twice examined Wilkins and said he is not out of accord with the Confession. Since this was not the “verdict” desired by the antichrists of the Star Chamber, they threaten the presbytery! I stand by my words. These actions are nothing less than demonic, and evidence that the PCA is being given over. The very fact that the PCA would set up such a Star Chamber, which is beyond appeal, is more evidence. Not even the Papacy has such power, nor claims such power. And you men cannot see this? You are blind, and need to pray for salvation from bondage. Also, the fact that the ignorant PCA GA blindly voted to accept the distortions and downright lies of the FV Report is only evidence that these men are easily misled and are too busy to investigate matters for themselves. The PCA is now virtually a tyranny, and I’m overwhelmingly happy not to be part of it.

James Jordan said . . .
This is a joke, right? The PCA committee, stacked from the start, produces a series of easily-provable lies, allows virtually no time for discussion so that not only FV person even gets to the mike, and you want to defend this? My language is not over the top. It is very mild. And if you are offended, good. Those of you who lie repeatedly about the beliefs of ordained ministers of Christ, and who rape and divide His church, are going to hear far worse in time to come.

James Jordan said . . .
Whenever someone points out liars, he’s obnoxious. Goes with the territory. The PCA committee was a pack of liars. The discussion at GA was a joke. I’m not PCA. I wasn’t there. I saw it online. I saw that clown Sproul lie about the FV, and I saw the cowardly committee try and explain why they did not interview anyone, and I saw them lie and say they had actually read and studied the supposed FV material. All out there for the world to see. No fear of God before their eyes. What I gather bothers you is that people outside the PCA can see this abomination and the tyranny of your evil Star Chamber and can comment on it. Yes, we can. It’s appalling. Luther was treated far better. But I assure you, lying about God’s ministers and tearing up the bride of Christ is far more serious than being seen as obnoxious on some blog.

James Jordan said . . .
Go to www.federal-vision.com and compare the joint FV statement with the report of the PCA committee. Or read the responses there. It was understandable that a bapterian group like the PCA contained men who misunderstood the historical Calvinism of the FV meetings, but after the matter had been explained dozens of time, and the FV people continued to be mischaracterized as undermining justification by faith alone (which we all affirm wholeheartedly), then it becomes a matter of lying.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, this is now just a joke. If you don’t think Sproul is a clown, you obviously did not watch his performance at GA. I don’t need to interview him. He clowned around quite clearly in front of everyone. For the rest, you chaps clearly are not interested in the Bible and the Reformed confessions, so there’s no point in continuing with you. And, you clearly despise Presbyterian church government, since the LA Presbytery has TWICE investigated Wilkins and found no ground for charges. You are not presbyterians at all. I wash my hands of you. Be offended as much as you want. If you wish to be treated with respect, cease your contemptable [sic] behavior.

James Jordan said . . .
The idiocy continues. Justification by faith alone has nothing to do with the FV matter, since all FV exponents affirm completely and wholeheartedly the historic protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. No matter how many times you men repeat your lies, we shall stand up and call you liars and rebuke your wickedness.

As for the Star Chamber, it’s true that the PCA, like a gaggle of fools, set this evil thing in place. It’s the opposite of any kind of Biblical and presbyterian government, as anyone can see, and it’s going to be pointed out as such by many more than Armstrong and myself.

You have to be amazed at the morality of the gods of the PCA. Among normal decent people, if you said I was beating my wife, and I said, “No, I’m not,” that would be it. Innocent until proven guilty. Not in the PCA. No, there has to be an investigation. So, the investigation conducted by those nearest to me comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Among normal decent people that would be enough.

But not for the gods of the PCA. No, they demand another investigation. The second investigation, by people close to me who know me, comes back and says, “Nope, he’s not beating his wife.” Now among normal decent people that would be more than enough. But not for you evil men, and not for your gods. Your gods come back and say, “Either find this man guilty of beating his wife or we will cut you out of our denomination.” THAT’s the PCA.

You regard your sect as a church of Jesus Christ? It is about like the church of Sardis, and EVERYONE CAN SEE IT!

You should really step back and take a look at your collective appalling behavior — your misrepresentations, your character assassinations, your lies, and your tyrannies — and do something about it; because if you don’t, the Lord of the Church most certainly will do something about it.

James Jordan said . . .
Well, it’s been fun, men. In the Psalm 2 sense. Your history of deliberately misreading and distorting the views of ordained ministers of the Gospel has not gone unnoticed in the wider world, and has not gone unnoticed in heaven. I don’t have to be a prophet to know that. And the viciousness of your Star Chamber has not gone unnoticed either. If there were an ounce of the fear of God before your eyes, you’d know this. Sadly, there is not. I leave you to your fate.

James Jordan said . . .
Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. The hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is worth fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian [sic] blogs hate it.

James Jordan said . . .
The question of why FV mean don’t leave the PCA has another aspect. Mr. Webb and others here assume that THEY speak for the majority of the PCA. That is far from demonstrable. The fact that in a few presbyteries the bullies have gotten false statements about the FV passed, and the fact that the GA was hoodwinked into the doing the same, does not prove that the PCA is in fact hostile to what the FV actually stands for. It’s entirely possible that the antinomians and two-kingdom haters of Jesus’ kingship are the minority in the PCA, and that the FV represents the majority. Why don’t you who deny that faith involves faithfulness leave the PCA? You’ve certainly left the Reformed faith.

James Jordan, you’re not obnoxious, you’re a freak.

Thank you.

“Meet the Theonomists”

Earlier today I re-read “Meet the Theonomists” for the first time in many a moon and was blown away at Dr. Roche’s keen analysis and incredible foresight. Eight years ago he identified the key players in the Federal Vision — Wilson, Jordan, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Schlissel, Smith, Bledsoe (I deleted his emails from “Bag o’ Snakes”) — before they ever had their Vision. He also identified their “high-church ecclesiocentrism,” their aberrant covenant soteriology, their depreciation of the new birth for “covenant children,” and in Wilson’s and Wilkins’ case, their absurd revision of Southern history (he even smelled plagiarism). Moreover, he saw from afar the rivalry between Wilson and Sandlin (if you don’t know how that one ended, read this), and back then he affirmed James Jordan’s “bizarre” hermeneutic.

Of course, since there was no Federal Vision when Dr. Roche wrote this essay (he wrote it two years before the 2002 AAPC), he categorized his analysis under “theonomy.” Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how the theonomists have recast their message since then and how events have unfolded. Take the time to read “Meet the Theonomists” by Dr. Thomas Roche. He saw the Federal Vision in its germ state long before the Auburn Avenue clowns saw its infectious value and hatched it into their disease.

Thank you.

What Doug hath joined together

Today marks the first day of this year’s Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference. Of course, the Federal Vision controversy began at the 2002 AAPC where the Monroe Four objectively announced their doctrinal innovations. Six months later the RPCUS resolved the doctrine heresy and called up the heretics’ respective church courts to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, two of the Monroe Four, Wilson and Schlissel, are essentially Congregationalists with no formal ties to any legitimate ecclesiastical authority; the third, John Barach, read the writing on the wall and abandoned accountability in the URC by joining the CREC; and the fourth, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, learned a couple of days ago that the PCA doesn’t “quibble” about the Westminster Confession of Faith. The PCA Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery cites Wilkins’ 2002 AAPC lecture “The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant” no less than seven times.

The theme for this year’s conference is “Liturgy and Life” and the church website describes it thus:

It is our great privilege to announce our Tenth Annual Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference January 7–9, 2008. This year our topic is “Liturgy and Life” and the speakers will explore the importance of worship not only for the church but for all of life. What is the role of liturgy in the life of the child of God? Why is the particular order of the service important? What is the relationship between liturgy and pastoral care? How do you bring liturgical reform in a congregation that has been heavily influenced by American, revivalistic Christianity? These and other questions will be addressed by our four main speakers in our conference this year: Dr. Peter Leithart, Pastor Douglas Wilson, Pastor Jeffrey Meyers, and Dr. James Jordan. . . . The purpose of the conference is to provide encouragement and instruction to pastors and church officers but we encourage all interested laymen to attend as well since the issues covered are of wide interest to all who are concerned for the well being of Christ’s Church. . . . We look forward to having you with us!

Steve Wilkins
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Pastor

Reading this, you can’t miss the bugaboo “American, revivalistic Christianity,” which is probably an early descendant of that other bugaboo “post-Enlightenment Gnosticism.” But the remarkable thing is that these men think themselves authorities on liturgy at the very moment the PCA indicted their host’s presbytery for failing to hold him accountable for the false doctrine driving his form of worship. It’s surreal. I am honestly surprised that none of them had the nerve to address the question, “What is the relationship between liturgy and contempt of constitutional standards?” or “What role does flaunting church discipline play in the life of the church?”

However, the magnitude of Louisiana Presbytery’s dereliction of duty is even more remarkable than these clowns’ hubris. The PCA has never indicted an entire presbytery (and to my knowledge no presbytery has ever pushed their communion this far). This is an historic event. But these clowns don’t care. They are the people and wisdom shall die with them. They believe that their high-church liturgy, which includes a stiff middle finger at the Christian church and a thumb on the nose directed at ecclesiastical authority, will reform the world. Ironically, they don’t see what everyone sees, i.e. their real message: “Reform as we say, not as we reform,” which means that their new Reformation must end in chaos.

Like begets like, whether the FVists like it or not, and their ecclesiastical defiance can only produce yet more defiance. The apostle Paul put it this way: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). But Mark T. puts it this way, “What Doug hath joined together, not even God will put asunder.”

Thank you.

Bag o’ Snakes

Here’s another update from the FVists’ “members only” war room, otherwise known as the Biblical Horizons yahoo group. It’s a rather lengthy email exchange, I’ll let you figure out the context. As you read it, notice that five years ago they were already in an “us vs. them” mode. Also notice the way that they strategize (when they’re not backstabbing) about how to advance their doctrine, and notice who keeps them together as a faction. The FVists are not “teachable,” they have an agenda and they intend to impose it:

From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:58 am
Subject: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHers —

Here’s Sproul Jr.’s latest discussion of the Auburn Avenue stuff.

John


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Once again, I ask: what the hell is Jr. saying? He was in a fog all through the conference and he’s still wandering in it, IMHO.

JJM


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I said the exact same thing Jeff about jr. He makes the vein on my forehead pulse so I guess he’s in the same camp since that is how we measure theological validity is by pulsing veins. Does he expect us to take him seriously?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Guess #1, aside from Robert Barnes’ utter insanity he is has noticed by recent piece by Hodge defending RC priests as Gospel Ministers for the purpose of baptism.

Basically, not only is Thornwell right, but anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the Gospel. Wright is the paper target but Hodge is the intended victim.

Mark


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

RCJr. follows papa in making anti-romanism the sine qua non of true Christianity, IMO. We were talking a few years ago, and he said Romanists aren’t Xians and aren’t saved because they don’t believe in justification by faith alone. I said that we aren’t saved by believing in justification in faith alone, but by faith in God, whether we understand the ins and outs of it or not. This was clearly a new thought, as I could tell by his face. Evidently it was a new thought that he did not accept. IMO the idea that you can only be saved if you understand that justification is by faith alone is heresy. It’s weird for someone who believes in paedocommunion to hold to such shit.

JBJ


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tim is right, and let me remind us that this is a private list and what I wrote below is not to be repeated. And, to clarify, I was not calling RCJr a heretic, just making the point that he really does not in practice believe you have to believe in justification by faith to be saved. I’m mainly disappointed, is all. Barnes refused to sell my Brief Reader’s Guide to Revelation at the Ligonier Conference on Preterism, even though my book was fully in line with their position, simply because I’m “controversial.” I was not too controversial to work for Ligonier for 5 years, but that was before he came on board, I guess.

JBJ


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Yeah, sure, but this is a private list and he’s not on it.

Speaking of Roman Catholics, after I spent a few months reading all of Walker Percy’s novels, I’m now most of the way through Flannery O’Conner’s works. I’ve yet to read her letters and I’m just now finishing her wonderful collection of essays and lectures Mystery and Manners. Wow, what a woman! If this RC chick is not in heaven, I don’t want to be there. A sample:

“Today’s audience is one in which religious feeling has become, if not atrophied, at least vaporous and sentimental. When Emerson decided, in 1832, that he could no longer celebrate the Lord’s Supper unless the bread and wine were removed, an important step in the vaporization of religion in America was taken, and the spirit of that step has continued apace. When the physical fact is separated from the spiritual reality, the dissolution of belief is eventually inevitable.”

Every page of Mystery and Manners is full of great stuff like this. See you in heaven, Fannery, baby!

JJM


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Here’s my off the cuff, unthoughtful analysis:

It seems that things are going to get hotter now that R.C. Sr. has come out against the “evil empire” (Shepherd/Wright/AAPC). It has certainly emboldened Robert Barnes (indeed, seemingly overnight he has been transformed into the theological equivalent of Rambo, no?) and that puts Jr. in a bad spot. I expect he will be forced to side more and more with Pop. (thus, he offers us this mumbled, jumbled “amen” to Robert’s rant.)

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw


From: Tommy Lee
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Sorry to ask something that seems obvious to everyone else, but where would one find Robert Barnes’ rant?

Thanks,

TL


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tommy,

This is what was sent to me:
sw

From Robert Barnes

The post leading to Dr. Leithart’s blog led me to thinking a bit about the New Perspective on Paul matter.

Every book in the New Testament (except for Philemon, I think) has a concern about false doctrine. And considering the existential situation of persecution, and considering the nature of written communication during that time (the necessary economy of words), this cannot be overlooked and must provide a meaningful nudge to us in this matter — and all matters relating to our emphasis on the purity of our faith.

What the NP controversy has revealed is that I am a disgusting knowledge glutton. If I appreciate some of what you are saying, I will, in an unlimited and non-critical fashion, fill myself with your goods. I will mute my voice against you and your reasoning; just give me a little more. I will pan through gallons of your mud for that one nugget about NT Palestine I didn’t know or some grace-acknowledging rabbi. I will appreciated your defining the boundaries of covenant implications (by error, but still), but your excesses bother me not. I will be happy with a re-aligning the nexus of justification by faith alone from the traditional central Lutheran position to a rightly positioning it as one of several organs feeding our Christology, but I will not be too bothered by your romantic Romanism.

I was wrong. And I think every one of you who continue reading/hearing the Auburn Avenue crowd in a spirit of unmolested charity are wrong, too. I have been guilty (and I suspect many of you are, too) of the same sort of damage to the English language as John Robbins does, only in reverse.

Quoting Jane:

“It would be interesting some time to sit John Robbins down and have him defend, in light of scripture, his implicit working ‘proposition’ that all writings must be analyzed in their most negative possible sense and the most negative possible implications must be drawn from them, in order for ‘truth’ to be served and ‘discernment’ to be exercised.”

I have been doing the same thing in reverse. I have turned away from my duty as a teacher and an elder by allowing the bad AA logic, irresponsible reading of Scripture, and apparent goal of union with Rome (yes, I said it) to go by unmolested by Scripture and reason.

I have to stop grieving the Holy Spirit and start participating with Him in my sanctification in this area by repenting of this sin of intellectual gluttony, of refusing to turn away from a filthy trough and refusing to lovingly make a Big Deal over the bunch of hockey coming out of AA.

I’m not sure if adding more public rhetoric to the situation will help either me or them. But I am sure that I am grieved that better people aren’t making a bigger deal out of this mess. Presbyteries need to swing into action NOW and start discipline against those who publicly boast that they no longer keep the truths to which they have vowed.

If you think about it, just that last point alone should make those who are on the fence concerning NP start to wonder about the integrity (yes, I said it) of those who are pushing the NP agenda.

Regardless, I repent. Let us pray for men like Ligon Duncan, who is reasonably voicing concerns about this movement, that he will be strong and courageous. Let us pray for men like R.C. Jr., who is in an unusual spot of influence, that he will be wise in his counsel to those in the movement. Let us pray that presbyteries will begin discipline, God’s way of cleansing the church of false doctrine.

Robert Barnes

From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Maybe I’m behind the times, but where has RC Sr. spoken out against us miscreants?

John


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:17 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Well, maybe I’m misremembering but it seems that I heard that R.C. SR came out against us at a recent Ligonier conference . . . . no? or yea?

sw


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:33 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I believe it was a conference in the northeast somewhere during a question and answer session. I believe he said that the NPP was probably the most dangerous doctrinal error that we are facing today or something like that. I could be wrong. Did he tie NPP to Norm Shepherd then too? Where does AAPC fit into that?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

It was Peter’s blog from 19 Dec that set them off:
“Strange Doings”

Pax,
Dale


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibhorizon/message/25171

Commenting on the Ligonier Conference in D.C. at the end of October:

During questions and answers, he was asked what is the most dangerous doctrine in the Evangelical camp these days, and he answered, “New Perspectives on Paul.” He also named Norman Shepherd too.

Pax,
Dale


From: “dpcassidy”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

There’s no fog there now, judging from what he’s written. He is agreeing with Barnes and suggesting (implicitly) that all should heed his warnings. In addition he is connecting the RCC to AA and that will of course only inflame things further. Generally one doesn’t dog the Westminster Assembly as ‘weak’ and get along well in Presby circles.

I suppose RC Sr. will soon come out with a book highlighting the dangers of the NPP. Since Shepherd used his work as something of a foil at the SCCCS confernce [sic], I hope he will first write on his differences with him . . . which is of far greater significance, at least to little ol me, in the present debate (on the covenant of works, nature of imputation, etc.) than Wright or Sanders or Dunn on Second Temple Judaism. Sproul Sr carries a lot of influence because of his widely used publications and I imagine that such will be the vehicle of choice to take the debate to the ‘public, man and woman in the pew’ level. JMO.

Now if we could just get everybody to read the latest issue of Credenda. . . .

DC


From: James Jordan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

One thing that hit me last night, and is probably olde news: These accusations that Wright has left the Reformation isolate the accusers not only from “us” but from the whole evangelical world, as far as I can see. NTW gets asked to ETS, is “answered” by Moo, but neither Moo nor anybody else in mainstream evangelicalism seems to be accusing him of rejecting basic protestantism, of rejecting just. by faith. Not that I’ve read everything coming out of evangelical circles! Are others besides Calvinistic extremists accusing him of departing from evangelical faith, or is this kind of rhetoric 98% limited to the Presby and Ref. worlds?

JBJ


From: burke
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Steve Wilkins wrote:

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw

Which means, of course, the good guys are winning.

Burke


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Morning, everyone

RCjr was just out here in Moscow a few weeks ago, checking out our Greyfriars ministerial program. They are thinking of doing something like that back at Highlands. We had him to dinner and had a great time, with Nancy even teasing him briefly about his Auburn 03 talk. He is in good fellowship with us. I gave him a copy of the latest Credenda, which had just come out, and he was appreciative (it seemed to me). I agree with (I think it was) Jeff, who said that he is by no means in heresy-hunt mode.

With regard to his Razormouth piece, I differ with him, but we have to be careful not to polarize in predictable ways. TRs can make me nuts, but that is nothing compared to what RC monkeyshines do to me. If we sit around scratching our ecumenical beards in discussions with people who think Mary is a functional goddess, and then slam the door on people who have a few chapters of the Westminster Confession wound tight around their axle, then we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Three metaphors wound tight around my axle!

My counsel would be for everyone to guard their virginity. NT Wright says lots of cool things that I do appreciate. But at the same time, his applications to the contemporary world outside appear to me to incredibly naive, and right in line with whatever Ted Turner thinks. And when he is Archbishop of Canterbury someday (as I think he will be), what will he do with women priests, and homosexuals? From what I have seen thus far, I honestly do not know. Reading the bottom line on the eye chart is not that impressive if you can’t read the big E.

Be cautious. Be wary. Keep some distance. If BH stuff, and Norman Shepherd’s stuff, and Auburn stuff, and NPP stuff gets all jumbled together in the public mind, and then a high profile guy within that jumble ordains a homo, then the next word we hear will be “checkmate.”

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I must have missed something. I thought Wright had condemned homosexuality.

In any case, I agree with you on proximaty [sic] and all that but I already know that the maryolators are heretics. I’m just sick of being denounced as one by my own brothers and of witch-hunting judicial process in the PCA. Your assurance about RCjr don’t really explain his column and especially his endorsement his slanderous friend.

As someone who is virtually a nobody in his denomination, and thus feels somewhat vulnerable since I now realize it is all about clout, this stuff looks quite dangerous. I simply don’t view the RCs as that sort of threat.

Well, God is my shield and defender. But that’s the worry that creeps through my somewhat less-than-trusting mind.

Mark


From: “Tim Gallant”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, a few points:

1. I don’t think you personally are R.C. Jr.’s target; I think he basically sees you as within the pale. But he is questioning the company you keep (i.e. your fellow Monroe speakers). His suggestion is not that the other gentlemen are heretics, but that maybe they are Lutherans and aren’t “coming clean.” (Note: as always this a closed list. This is information that I have received from Sproul Jr in personal communication.)


2. The Roman Catholic issue is much more complex than these sorts of men pretend. One of the supreme ironies in all of this is that it is Rome that theoretically have the infallible tradition, but many of Rome’s leading theologians are bending e.g. Trent every which way in order to be more biblical. (That doesn’t mean they are Protestants, but I think it does mean there are signs of hope.) Meanwhile, Presbyterians, continually shouting about Rome’s infallible tradition, act as if the Westminster Standards are inerrant and untouchable (actually, most of them think that their particular reading of the Standards are inerrant and untouchable). So which tradition is really irreformable? Somebody needs to expose this hypocrisy for what it is.


The whole notion that we need to be sure our theology and exegesis is a self-conscious affront to Rome is a dead end. I happen to believe (very strongly) that the biblical picture is very much opposed to Rome’s received dogmatic tradition. But it is just because of my assurance on that point that I feel no need to construe things just to make sure. When we go that route, we are no longer sola scriptura, we have absolutized our own tradition.

I would also add that the present treatment of Rome is at radical odds with the original view of the Reformers. Anybody who reads Calvin knows that he was deeply appreciative of Bernard. You can’t tell me that Calvin thought Bernard was in hell. Well, big news: Bernard, as Calvin well knew, was one of the most influential medieval figures in the promotion of the role of Mary. He was much more into Mariology than many modern Roman Catholic theologians. But now, meanwhile, we are supposed to measure our orthodoxy by whether or not we can judge whether recent RC saints (like Mother Theresa) are in hell. Give me a break.


3. Tom Wright has been very clear on the issues of both women in office and homosexuality. He is unequivocably [sic] in favour of women in office; we’re well aware of that. On the other side, he is unequivocably [sic] clear that homosexuality is a grievous sin, and I really can’t see him ordaining homosexuals.

Nonetheless, I agree with you on the point that we need to avoid tying everything in to one person. I keep saying this too: my task is not to defend Wright or Shepherd on every point. I task is to pursue the truth of Scripture, the edification of the Church, and the glory of God. Involved in that is calling men to account for violations of the ninth commandment. But mostly my interest in defending Wright is not to show that he is 100% correct, but to show that a lot of his work is legitimately usable.

tim


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Glad to hear things are not as bad with Jr. as they seem. I still wonder: he may not be going on a heresy hunt himself, but what will be do with the heresy hunters do get to work? And why is he is so pro-Barnes if he still has an open mind about this stuff (since Barbes [sic] obviously doesn’t)? And why is he making anti-RCCism the touchstone of orthodoxy? Jr. just confuses me time and time again.

I hate to offer a “yeah, but. . .” to your post — since I think I agree with basically erverything [sic] you say. But here I go anyway. . . . .

I don’t know that NTW will ever have opportunity to be Archbishop of Canterbury (though I think he’d be a great choice), and yes, I do wonder if he has the fortitude to do the kind of discipline that needs to be done (and often isn’t done in the PCA and other Reformed circles either!). Nevertheless, if he did someday offer his approval to, say, a gay bishop, it would be easy enough to show how severely he had compromised his earlier position. It would be easy enough to demonstrate he had caved in. As of right now, NTW is firmly on the record as one who oppooses [sic] homosexuality as a proper use of our God-given bodies. If NTW changes his view, I will change my view of him. But I’m not going to distance myself from him just because he might someday disappoint me. That’s just not a healthy way of doing things in the church.

On the other issues, e.g., the ordination of women priests, his fondling admiration of the UN, etc, enough of us who like NTW’s work in other respects have already registered our dissent. I don’t hear anyone (even Jeff Steel! :-) ) simply going along with whatever NTW has said, as though it were handed down ex cathedra. I think all of us are reading him with some degree of critical discernment. And as our own discussions of the Iraqi situation have revealed, some of these are issues conscientious and faithful Christians can and will disagree on. If we made one’s view of the war a test of fellowship, we’d have to disband the BH list. So let’s keep perspective. NTW might not be at his best when it comes to present world politics, but I don’t really know anyone who has that figured out.

Many (like me) have felt the need to defend NTW because his views have been so twisted and distorted and misrepresented in the Reformed world. But defending a true reading of Wright — and the benefits that come from it — is a far cry from buying into his every last word, hook, line, and sinker.

I do agree that the jumble of BH, Shepherd, Wright, AAPC, etc. could pose us problems, since there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out there and a lot of people who could potentially embarrass us. But I think these links are also inescapable to some extent, and are here to stay for the time being. After all, AAPC has had the cores guys in BH here to speak, we’ve had Shep, and we’re going to have NTW in ’05. The links aren’t imaginary.

RL


From: “cowley”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 12:21 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, Tim, Rich. . . :

Thanks for these comments. I must be the only one on the list who totally understood RC’s total confusion. While he wandered all over, I think he was expressing the angst of the “TR” in process.

I understand the urge to defend NTW. I’ve done so a bit in private, trying to disuade [sic] folks that are so scared about him to put him in perspective (no pun intended). Generally, I don’t think we need to “defend him.” His project is so massive, and speaks for itself. Anyone who has the right to really worry about NTW needs to have lots more experience looking at his material and taking a shot for themselves at answering not the NPP, but the real radical unbelief that has afflicted the world of NT scholarship . . . up through the Jesus Seminar.

But, the problem is that folks have a sort of “smell-o-meter” alarm. We should always read critically, but USUALLY not unsympathetically. But, there are some we should read with great caution, and others we should read only in order to refute. To refute, we must, however, understand. Some, we should not read at all, without great special reason to do so (think of Dobson’s time on President’s Council re: Pornography! I was looking at a Jesus-Only tract the other day. First I was trying to see if there was some orthodox way to take his statements, as I went on my smell-0-meter when from yellow to red. I decided it was not worth reading further, because I had no just reason to do so. . . I was just dabbling. Now, reading Swedenborg (for me) is a somewhat dangerous task — so I only read it when called thereto for special reasons — to help a Swedenborgian out of it, or to write in refutation. Still, I try to read Sympathetically.

Well, reading Wright is a pleasure, and a joy, and the areas of concern are generally secondary, if not trivial. Most of the time it is a breath of fresh air. Sometimes it’s hard to understand, but my own personal smell-0-meter does not go past general caution. In fact, this whole AAPC has changed my angle on things. . . NOW I read guys like Spoul [sic] and Piper and such with a view to seeing how they are wrong on secondary points.

Doug is right that the guys publically [sic] Identified with AAPC are going to be percieved [sic] as part of a Jumble of issues.

My guess is that this will play itself out a lot like Theonomy. . . Folks will look at the Shepherd/Wright/NPP material with their smell-0-meters in Orange to Red, but then as things play themselves out, I think they’ll start seeing that the TRs are chasing their own tails, and some are trying to save the whole reformed world by following Kline down his own rabbit trails.

Should we “defend” Shepherd? Here is a man in our own “circles” whom I’ve never met. When there is false witness, I think we need to defend him. I’ve oft repeated the “I wish he could be clearer, but. . .” Now I try not to say that. I think unclarity may be one of his points — to make us think, give us a pain in the brain.

Schlissel’s really dangerous in my circles. He’s punched every Sacred cow he can. But, I have met Steve and like him a lot, and I think he’s generally in “prophetic mode” when he goes overboard. And, he’s funny and self-depreciating. How one defends Steve depends alot [sic] on who you’re talkin’ to. He really offends RPW sensitivities! And, they have a hard time taking him seriously due to his tone. Too bad for them.

As for Jordan, guys like Schwertley have no clue what he’s up to. They are only dangerous when they think they understand him, and don’t. “Stream of consciousness exegesis” and such like. . . Didn’t Schwertley call it LSD exegesis once? I’m not sure. I hear Bahnsen wrote against Chilton’s Days of Vengeance for its (what?) finding something like 14 FUNDAMENTAL structures to Revelation. . . I don’t know about that. . . But, Jordan’s project, likewise, is pretty massive, and to have the right to hate him, you must know him first. . . And we all know, that to know, know, know him is to love, love, love him. . .

It “used to be” that the RPW types and the Jordanites were all folks who really cared about worship a lot and wanted to make sure it was done as well as possible. Now they are at loggerheads. Even the Stillwater guys gave semi-positive reviews of Liturgical Nestorianism and Liturgy Trap in Dick Bacon’s BLUE BANNER MAGAZINE.

Anyway, Thanks!

Cowpie


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

On another note: Where does RCjr get off simply equating Campbellites with Mormons and simply take it as a given that their trinitarian [sic] baptism is just as worthless? No wonder he thinks Moscow is lacking for not independently consigning Rome to flames; he does it on his own authority at the drop of a hat.

And then this:

“And aren’t the same Reformed folk who wanted to count Romish baptism, at least in the seventeenth century, the ones who called Rome anti-Christ? And yet at Auburn Avenue the Westminster Assembly was deemed not a sufficiently catholic body to have the authority to oust Rome. And so, according to this crowd, we’re stuck with them.”

But that’s the point. They didn’t oust Rome. They accepted their baptisms. The one who denies the authority of the council is RCjr. If they had ousted Rome, they could no longer call them antichrist. They’d simply be another false religion along the lines of Swedenborgianism.

The idea that this massive misreading of the WCF is a result of being TR demonstrates an awful lot static in the actual transmission of the tradition.

Mark


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue; NTW

Maybe I should add something else here. Those of us who “defend” NTW (and I agree that he needs no defense from peons like Horne and me) do so because we can use NTW as a springboard for defending a lot of other things. NTW is useful because he’s an outspoken preterist, he offers fresh BT insights into NT passages, he reads the Bible intertextually, he takes history and the “political” seriously, he has a high view of the sacraments and church, etc. In short, NTW helps us break free from the categories of scholastic, Enlightenmentish Calvinism. In that sense, he’s the ultimate anti-Gnostic theologian. Because he says these things in an unusually clear and provocative way, it’s helpful to hitch our cart to his and ride along. We have to get off the train at certain points, e.g., women in the priesthood, but the benefits outweight [sic] the costs. To this point, I think defending NTW has been a good strategy because so many people have had their eyes opened to things by reading his work with an open mind. People who have read a little NTW are far more likely to receive BHish kind of teaching than those who haven’t. In fact, as Mark has pointed out, a lot of stuff I gleaned from NTW I had already heard from Jim and Peter years earlier. But if the smear campaign against NTW is allowed to continue without challenge, a lot of people will never take the time to hear the good things he has to say — which are often precisely the things the Reformed world most needs to hear. I would say defending NTW is not an end in itself (though I suppose it is part of enforcing the 9th commandment), but really a means to a much larger end. Or, to put it another way, to this point, I’ve viewed defending NTW in Reformed circles as a way of being “against Christianity” and “for the church.” In time, I fully expect some other strategy to become more effective (maybe after Jan. ’05, when he’s had a chance to speak for himself to a Reformed audience).

RL


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHians,

Rich, I think we agree also.

Couple random thoughts. Sproul jr. is good friends with Barnes, and, from what I understand, Barnes was squeezed out of Ligonier some time ago by the suits and haircuts. Sproul jr. is no longer the editor of Table Talk, as of this January — another squeeze play. There are wheels within wheels, just like what Ezekiel saw. Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do. That happens on both sides of this fracas, and I think it is happening here.

I am not talking about creating distance with someone like Wright on the basis of what might happen, I am talking about how fast and how cautiously we close the distance — and I do think we should close it. But we have to be careful, and not act like teenaged girls in 1968 about to get a glimpse of John Lennon. I have unfortunately seen some of that.

Tim, I agree that RCjr is nervous about us, including me. Shoot, I am nervous about us, especially me.

I agree that the RC situation is complex. But the men who are bending Trent every which way are worse than the TRs because what they are doing is profoundly dishonest. At least the TRs affirm as the truth what they believe to be the truth. I had an RC friend tell me that the infallibility of the pope simply meant that the pope had the authority to take certain things off the table for purposes of discussion. They could always be put back later. But that is not infallibility, that is authority. More, it is dishonest. And we have to remember that the TR situation is complex also. People are complex — that is one of the sins of party politics, in that it tries to simplify what cannot be simplified.

Also remember N.T. Wright is not just a detached academic, with a right to his own opinions. He is in ecclesiastical authority, and this means that he is in a position to ordain, discipline, whatever. I hope he stands firm with his stated opinions when the time of testing comes. It will come. And he has already missed something important on the issue of women’s ordination. What do we do, for example, when one of the good guys over there, one of us, runs afoul of the CoE on some issue like that?

Anyhow, enough for now.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

PS: Please remember that this is a “private list.”

Thank you.

The War Room

The Federal Vision sectarians have a private email list called Biblical Horizons, which operates as a “members only” war-room club for the members to regularly let their hair down and say what they really think and what they really believe. All of the usual suspects are on the list — Wilson, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Horne, Jordan, Barlow, Shade, etc., and if it’s at all possible I encourage the opponents of Federal Vision to join this list and see what they say about you behind your backs. In fact, the Inquisition that Jeffrey Meyers loathes so much would do well to subpoena some of these emails — it would probably save the trouble of cleaning up all those entrails scattered on the floor of the Star Chamber. Get it straight from the heretics’ mouths.

Here is a post that Douglas Wilson wrote a few years ago. Please note his use of the phrase “principles of war.” This is not a casual or accidental reference; he is dead serious. This is how he conducts all of his campaigns — through the principles of war — and he has systematically advanced the Federal Vision according to the rules laid down by Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli. And his favorite principle is deception.

January 27, 2003

Gentlemen,

Sorry about filling up everyone’s box. I know I am the new kid here, and shouldn’t be doing this, but the exigencies of the case demand it. Actually, come to think of it, Burke told me that new kids had to post at least ten times daily.

Just a few brief comments about what I am seeking to do with the series of posts.

1. The most important thing in this fracas is the naming. By this I do not mean calling names, but naming in the biblical sense. Jesus was not calling the Pharisees names, He named them. And two thousand years later, His naming stands.


2. Another important thing is to refrain from fighting their fire with their fire. In other words, orthodusty loves prebyterial machinery, and knows where all the levers under the desk are. We must fight this primarily with word and sacrament. That word includes naming, and see above.


3. I also believe it is important in every conflict to observe the principles of war. In this case it is pursuit, but there are many other principles and factors to keep in mind as well. Strategic thinking is not the same thing as tactical thinking. Jim’s post on the big picture was important in this respect.

Cordially,

Douglas

Garbled

A special hat tip to Sean Gerety of God’s Hammer for catching Steven Wilkins’ new uniform. Personally, in my opinion, the collar matches the rug too closely, but this is not a fashion site so I shall refrain from further comment. Anyway, the pic piqued my interest enough to surf the church site and I noticed that the Monroe boys have scheduled the Godfather himself — Jacobus Jordanius — the Magister Contradictus, to speak at the upcoming Auburn Ave. Pastors Conference. Interestingly, he too dons a popish choker. I heard a rumor that the CREC actually gives their ministers a clothing allowance for these garbs, but I have not confirmed this. Finally, here’s an excellent site for all of you aspiring CREC ministers to peruse. It’s called Beauty Tips for Ministers. And as you shop, don’t forget the first rule of the Little Man Behind the Curtain, “appearance is more important than substance.”

Faces of Schism

My self-appointed mentor, DaFedSez, has criticized my blog for its deficiency in snide and smug. Hopefully this post will remedy that want, with a hat tip to the sick flick Faces of Death.

Here are the faces of the men who signed “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.” These are the men bent on disrupting the peace and purity of the Reformed church because they believe they understand better than anyone the true meaning of the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They claim they are teachable, but they refuse to learn. Seven Reformed denominations and a host of micro-denominations have repudiated Federal Vision for error, but the men behind these faces know better.

John Barach appeared out of nowhere when he was a last-minute replacement for Norm Shepherd at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, landing him in the middle of the Monroe Four and the worst doctrinal disruption to disturb the Reformed church in years. Barach received his training at MARS, which recently joined the swelling ranks of Reformed seminaries repudiating the Federal Vision, and he held his ministerial credentials in the URC until January 2006, when he found safe haven with the covenant breakers of the CREC.

Jon Barlow did not sign the Joint Federal Vision Statement, but you’ll notice his name on the pdf in Acrobat under “File”, “Document Properties”, “Description”, which means he served in a monkey-boy capacity for the Federal Visionists by generating their joint statement on his software. Additionally, Barlow runs the Reformed News — a lame attempt to put FV in a favorable light.



Randy Booth is the moderator of the CREC, most likely because Wilson has more dirt on him than on any other CREC minister (let’s just say the word “joint” carries special meaning for Booth), and dirt in this case translates into strings. According to Wilson in Mother Kirk, “Randy and I got to know each other by phone as we fell down the paedo staircase together, hitting our heads on every step” (page 95). This being interpreted means that when Wilson successfully split his church (CEF) in 1993, Booth failed in his attempt to split his church. Consequently, his elders sent a letter to the congregation identifying him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” probably because he didn’t sport a habit then.

Tim Gallant cut his teeth with John Barach in the URC and, like Barach, he attended MARS. This means that, while the FVists insist that no one in the Reformed world understands them, it’s safe for everyone else to insist that at least two FVists did not understand what they learned in seminary. From his bio, it looks like Gallant ditched the URC in April 2006, seeking refuge in the CREC. (Note to Tim: take heed to what you heard one week ago; it is a cult and there’s still time for you to get out.)


Mark Horne is an ordained elder in the PCA, but no one knows why.









Jim Jordan is a minister in the ARC, holds his membership in the CREC, and is identified as “the Godfather of Federal Vision.” However, I think DaFedSez got much closer in his analysis when he called him Magister Contradictus, and “big river” or “flumen magnus.”





Peter Leithart is a Roman Catholic who has not figured out that the PCA is a Protestant & Reformed denomination. Currently, he practices theology in the CREC where they have no standards, while the PCA contemplates how to uphold theirs.



Rich Lusk executed the Federal Vision agenda with perfect precision by hijacking a church out of the PCA and crash-landing it into the CREC.










Jeff Meyers spent a night in morbid introspection and discovered the offensive nature of “Reformed snobbery.” Now he’s a FV snob, which apparently is better. Recently he mistook theological defiance for “FREEEEEEDOM!” citing the movie Braveheart as his inspiration. Unfortunately, Pastor Braveheart had no courage at the PCA GA; he never screamed “FREEEEDOM” to the appropriate audience when it really mattered.


Ralph Smith got sucked into the CREC from Japan, where he pastors a church and writes books that tamper with the Trinity for Canon Press. Apparently he believes that his heretical position on justification by faith alone qualifies him to cast new light on the Godhead.



Steve Wilkins . . . well, I heard the man speak once at UI and it’s clear to me that he’s dumber than a sack of wet mice (I know, I know, everyone calls him “a gentleman”), and then I read “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” in Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons and I realized that the sack could be empty.



Douglas Wilson, also known as Beelzeblog or the Little Man Behind the Curtain, is the founder of the CREC, a sower of discord among the brethren, and a son of Belial (“SOB” — a primary subset of “NECM”). If he repented today or dropped dead tomorrow, the Federal Visionists would perish for lack of vision because the answer to the prophet’s question — “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” — is “Yes.”

Federal Vision: “Let It Be”

Two days ago, P. Andrew Sandlin made two declarations relative to the Federal Vision on De Regno Christi. First, he declared it “a movement”:

Darryl, it’s a movement, like the Charismatic Movement, Reconstructionist Movement, Emergent Movement and so on. . . . In all of these ways, the FV is a classic movement.

And second, Sandlin declared James Jordan the Godfather of Federal Vision:

If anybody has a right to claim godfather status of this movement, it’s Jim J. Why nobody acknowledges this publicly mystifies me, and since I’m not part of the movement, it doesn’t cost me anything to say it. Almost everything the FV guys are saying today, Jim was saying (and I was reading) 20–25 years ago. He is the proximate theological fountainhead of this movement.

These two declarations are noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Federal Visionists have recently denied — rather vehemently — that they are “a movement,” affirming instead that they are “a conversation.” You can confirm this fact here. And of course, this isn’t particularly noteworthy except for one fact — moments after Sandlin declared FV “a movement,” Douglas Wilson immediately agreed with him, writing:

Andrew offered the observation that FV is a classic movement — and he is exactly right. As a movement, it will suffer the temptations that movements do and exhibit the strengths that movements do. As it happens, one of the tenets of this movement is the need for a higher ecclesiology. (“Was the Reformation a Church?”)

Amazingly, this quote contradicts this statement by Wilson:

Just a quick point for the record. . . . The FV guys have been maintaining that the FV is a conversation, a shared set of questions, not a movement, and so on. Some of the critics have insisted on the opposite — that we are a well-oiled, deeply-funded machine, set to infiltrate and take over the federated Reformed witness in North America. . . . Once it becomes obvious that the FV is not the movement that it was claimed to be. . . . (“FV As the Death Star”)

Accordingly, we may conclude that words, and the ideas they communicate, are only a means to an end for Wilson, and he does not really believe what he says (or writes) from one day to the next, unless it serves his best interest at that point in time. Furthermore, he doesn’t appear to care whether he contradicts himself at all, presumably because he only needs a few more meaningless words to correct himself.

The second noteworthy point relates to this because right before Sandlin made his “Godfather” statement, James Jordan continued his worldwide meltdown by sinking further into denial and introducing yet another comment on De Regno Christi trying to reframe the Federal Vision “movement” as a mere “conversation.” Jordan wrote, “That what’s called FV is just a conversation is what we’ve been saying for five years,” contrary to Wilson’s revelation. (These guys really need to get their talking points together.)

I note this because, in addition to being downright nasty to some of the participants in this so-called “conversation,” James Jordan appears somewhat bent and quite a bit unstable, which leads me to think that we should not apply “Godfather” status to him. Rather, we should think of him as Federal Vision’s Yoko Ono — the twisted sister who threw a fly in the Beatles’ ointment, forcing their breakup. I suggest this because just as John Lennon attributed his (late) creativity to Yoko Ono despite her tin ear, shrill vocals, and hostile demeanor, so the Federal Visionists appear happy to own James Jordan as their creative genius despite his mean-spirited and utterly vacuous comments.

However, unlike the Beatles who chose to dissolve rather than let Yoko call the shots, I suspect that the Federal Visionists will refuse to throw Jordan overboard, which will result in their continued marginalization because the man appears resolved to discredit the “movement” he godfathered with his incredibly stupid comments. It’s just my hunch; I could be wrong. But if I’m not, then as Paul McCartney said, “Let It Be.”

Memo to Jimmy Jordan

I realize that at various times you deny the existence of the “Federal Vision” and you have even gone so far as to declare, “I have no idea what the ‘whole FV thing’ is.” So consider this memo a small reminder to jar your memory.

On July 30, 2007, less than three months ago, you signed your name to a document entitled “A Joint Federal Vision Statement,” which affirms, “Any doctrine mentioned in the sections before this one can be fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision.”

Therefore, I suggest that you reread this statement to clarify for yourself what “the whole FV thing is.” You can find it at the website called Federal Vision. It is subtitled “resources for understanding the controversy.”

Thank you.

Federal Schizophrenia

If you haven’t heard, the folks at De Regno Christi are hosting a virtual discussion on the Federal Vision. Thus far (and as expected) no one has achieved anything; however, someone from the Federal Vision camp needs to explain their talking points to James Jordan. Either that or he’s is in the middle of an identity crisis. Witness his own testimony regarding the Federal Vision faction:

First, on Monday, he alluded to the “so-called FVers” and implied that they don’t exist as a sect, group, or faction:

That and that alone is what was controversial about the original conference at Auburn Avenue called “Federal Vision.” . . When the Bible says “washing of regeneration,” so-called FVers say. . . . (9-17-07, 3:36 pm)

Two hours later, he reiterated his implication by referring to the “so-called FV business”:

And I think reducing the faith from confession to ideology (which is how our broad confessions are being treated in conservative circles these days) is a grave evil, tantamount to operating by intellectual sight rather than submissive faith — though this evil is one that the so-called FV business has exposed. My point was that the original FV conference was not a response to some crisis. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

But in the same comment, he acknowledged the existence of “people involved in FV.” And please notice his appeal to certainty:

But to be sure: The people involved in FV were involved in Christian Reconstruction 25 years ago. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

On Tuesday, however, his certainty waned and he denied both their existence as a group and their agenda:

Perhaps it’s worth remembering that those of us being grouped as “FV” by others (and we never grouped ourselves that way, nor had we any agenda as such). . . Perhaps some of the fuss over the so-called “FV” lies in. . . (9-18-07, 1:54 pm)

Exactly eight minutes later, Jordan had a moment of clarity and realized that “there is no such thing as Federal Vision”:

I have no idea what the “whole FV thing” is. I and everyone else has said for half a decade that there is no such thing as the FV. . . . (9-18-07, 2:02 pm)

However, this morning Mr. Jordan acknowledged that he contributed a long essay to the book titled The Federal Vision, which was written by a group of men without an agenda about a subject that they cannot identify because neither it nor they exist in any form or fashion.

I have a long essay on this in the book The Federal Vision. Most of us [FVers] believe in . . . (9-19-07, 9:41 am)

Jim Jordan, call a doctor. You need a reality check.

Thank you.