WSC appears to be the pimply, skinny, dorky kid at the beach on whom the buff guys kick sand in order to impress the babes. Remarkable indeed is the constant stream of criticism that seems to throw cautions about charity and slander to the wind. WSC is apparently so obviously egregious that committed (or maybe should be committed) Reformed Christians can ignore what goes on at the other Reformed seminaries.
So in addition to the recent assertion that Horton denies the gospel, the ongoing critique and misrepresentation of the two kingdoms, and a petty review of a publicity piece by WSC on Christian education, now comes a lengthy negative review in Kerux of a book edited by WSC faculty on the Mosaic covenant that has our good CRC pastor, Rabbi Bret, gleeful over the opportunity to kick a little more sand at his favorite target. (Whether Bret is obsessive is open to debate, but of all the items in his index, the Radical 2k Virus has 202 entries — and some think I’m obsessed with Keller. The next most frequent subject is government. Warning: pastor Bret is a Theonomist who ran for office on the Constitution Party ticket – does the Constitution actually mention the Lord?)
(By the time of this posting, WSC seems to have attracted more attention from Pastor Bret than the birth of our Lord:
Kerux Throws The Gauntlet Down By Challenging The “Escondido Hermeneutic” 12/21
Kerux Sounds Five Bell Fire Alarm Against Raging Fire That Is “Escondido Hermeneutic” 12/22
Dr. R. Scott Clark … Your Snide Reply To Kerux Has Been More Then Amply Answered 12/25
Kerux & Its Five Alarm Fire — Drivers Beware “The Escondido Hermeneutic” is a Falling Contradiction Zone 12/26
Escondido Hermeneutic and Natural Law Theory 12/27)
The tension between the U.S. Constitution and the idea of a theonomic state is only the beginning of the inconsistencies that afflict our good CRC pastor, and his posts about the latest “dirt†on WSC are no exception to the rule of “look for no coherence in my views.†Bret writes:
The Reformed Church is living in hazardous times. We are betwixt the hammer of Federal Vision and the anvil of the R2K Escondido hermeneutic. And if that weren’t enough we are being crushed from the left and the right with postmodern theologies and the continued chickification of the Church. D. Martyn Lloyd Jones (The Doctor) used to say that truth was a knife’s edge and that one could easily fall off either side. God grant us wisdom and perseverance to pass on the faith once and delivered to the saints to the generation that comes behind us. God grant us grace to defeat all heterodox theologies.
But then Pastor Bret backs up and begins to hedge:
the hour may well be to late to roll back this theology. Already acolytes of Escondido are pushing their agenda in Church courts in a jihad against Federal Vision. Ironically, I agree that Federal Vision, in its more feral forms, needs to be removed from Reformed Churches. What I am concerned about though is that many of those who are leading the way in eliminating this Federal Vision disease have a equally potent disease that should it become the majority report will enervate Reformed Theology, the Reformed Church, and individual Christian lives every bit as much as if Federal Vision were to become triumphant.
So let’s get this straight. WSC is opposed to Federal Vision Theology, and so is pastor Bret. But then, let’s sure hope that WSC doesn’t prevail against FV because WSC is as bad as FV. But if WSC is opposed to FV, why is it as bad as FV? Dunno.
Pastor Bret apparently has not considered that WSC’s teaching on justification is closely bound up with two-kingdom theology, as David VanDrunen recently argued in his inaugural lecture. In fact, in Bret’s own reaction to the Manhattan Declaration you see a laudable concern to protect the gospel from social activism. On the occasion of that statement, Bret wrote:
I believe the MD does a good job of articulating Christian ethics. However, I also believe that Colson and others are fuzzing theological identity for the sake of pursuing a Christian moralism that will not survive if it is not built upon the foundation of a Theological identity that clearly advocates faith alone.
As I have said before I believe in co-belligerence, but I believe in it only when it is of a nature where all parties realize going in that we are only agreed on the very thin slice of whatever it is we are standing together on and that our agreement ends at the water’s edge of Biblical definitions of the essence of the Christian faith.
So did Mike Horton, one of Bret’s favorite targets, get any credit for taking a similar position on the Manhattan Declaration? No. Is pastor Bret capable of recognizing that a strong affirmation of the centrality of justification is the basis for opposing all forms of “works righteousness,†even the ones performed by members of the Constitution party? Not apparently.
One other possible point of convergence between pastor Bret and WSC is the ticklish matter of women’s ordination in the CRC. Now, I suppose – charitable guy that I am – that Bret is opposed to women in office even though he ministers in a communion that ordains women to the office of elder and pastor. Bret is opposed to feminism in most forms (and used to show up at the Bayly Brothers blog to second their targeting of most forms of female insubordination). Well, wasn’t WSC the institutional face of opposition to women’s ordination in the CRC? But will pastor Bret give WSC any credit for its positive positions?
So let’s tally up the WSC’s scorecard.
They get an A from pastor Bret on FV.
They get an A from him on statements like the Manhattan Declaration when those affirmations apparently compromise the gospel.
They get an A for opposing women’s ordination.
That averages out to a final grade of – you guessed it – F. Boy, theonomists are a demanding lot.
Meanwhile, the inconsistencies are not pastor Bret’s alone. Kerux’s review is particularly opposed to the teaching of Meredith Kline even though Kline wrote for Kerux when he was alive and may have been responsible for giving the journal early on some much needed credibility. In addition, the flack heading toward WSC from N. Indiana fails to recognize the substantial common ground upon which both sides stand regarding the need to defend the centrality of justification in current theological discussions as opposed to the non-existent or weak responses from elsewhere. That leaves FV as the only consistent critic of WSC. Sometimes it is good to be known by your enemies.
But the jaw-dropping dimensions of pastor Bret’s anomalous shout out to Kerux needs to be appreciated. As mentioned above, pastor Bret is a theonomist, which is why some of us refer to him as the CRC Rabbi. Kerux is decidedly committed to the biblical theology of Vos and Ridderbos. Kerux readers contemplate the heavenlies; they don’t look for Constitution Party candidates to codify divine law into American policy and legislation. Indeed, Kerux follows an approach to theonomy similar to Meredith Kline’s, which means that Kerux, not only having gotten its start at WSC, shares with WSC a commitment to biblical theology and opposing the confusion of kingdoms that accompanies flawed eschatology. Where Kerux stands on the controversy over justification post-Shepherd is another matter, and that may be the source of Kerux’s opposition to WSC (despite the good work of WSC faculty on the OPC report on justification.) And that would put pastor Bret in the very awkward position of looking for support against R2kV from folks who disagree with him on theonomy and on justification.
The mind melts, not from fires at WSC, but from the hot air that bellows forth to assail that spindly kid on the beach in southern California.
Old Life 
I have flunked temptation, yet again. May I ask for help?
In Bret’s response to this post, he says, “..R2K attacks soteriology by attacking the doctrine of sanctification… dividing the offices of our Lord Christ (Chris the King and Christ the High Priest)… and R2K gives us a salvation without sanctification.”
Does this mean he thinks sanctification comes from obedience to the law rather than the sacrifice of Christ? Does he not understand that when we obey God, we are only doing our duty and even our best performances are but filthy rags? His view of sanctification seems to reek of works righteousness and seems to miss the depravity of man’s heart, IMO. Or am I being dense?
As for the charge of Eutychianism (huh?), is not Bret’s position the one that is in danger of sliding into making Christ insufficient for our salvation? And as for the charge of public square antinomianism, does he forget the mercy of God that leads us to repentance? Does he not recognize God’s patience and long-suffering with the world until his set day of judgment? His eschatology seems confused. Or am I being dense?
As for the dorky kids at WSC. God luv ya. If ya’ll ever throw the theology of the cross (vs. the theology of glory) into the debate, they might become completely apoplectic.
LikeLike
If opposing the Federal Vision in church courts is jihad, what is advocating for a religious overthrow of secular government?
Did McAtee ever really run for office? Or did he simply further debase our democratic system by using an election as a publicity stunt?
LikeLike
Lily,
I had the same thought as you concerning his doctrine of sanctification.
Let’s throw the Theology of the Cross into the debate! This seems like a good place to start:
“The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance humans on their way to righteousness, but rather hinders them.”
LikeLike
I’d say those are implications of pastor Bret’s views. But I’m pretty sure he’s sound on women-in-office, even if serving with distaff pastors in the CRC.
LikeLike
Looks like he did run
Click to access 2006senate.pdf
He received 24 votes, if I read the results correctly.
LikeLike
And let’s get some more here:
Living in a theology of the Cross never makes you any “better” than anyone else. Every day in every way you are not getting better and better. In fact, the preaching of Law and Gospel will not lead you to an awareness of your holiness, but rather to greater awareness of the depth of your sin. As a result, you will develop an ever-increasing faith in and appreciation for the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.
Your witness will focus upon the work of the Cross, not upon your experience of getting saved, sanctified, or becoming more spiritual. You have taken no step toward God or arrived at any higher level of holiness. You don’t talk about your spirituality. You talk about the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar51.htm
LikeLike
WO? You are kinder than I, Dr. Hart. I would first like to see what his arguments are before I grant a pass on that subject. IMO, too many teachers cannot seem to articulate the wisdom of God that prohibits WO without somehow inferring that women are less than human and thus not quite made in the image/likeness of God. Hence, they seem to only end up fanning the flames of feminism. There are times I find myself bristling at bad anti-WO teaching and would like to ask along with Dorothy Sayers, “Are women human?” Or, if the teacher is really bad, wanting to thump them over the head with the largest ‘Big Bertha’ bible at hand. Alas, I’m afraid my tactics would be wasted upon the types who teach that way. 🙂
LikeLike
Perhaps we should have compassion on Bret and send him Gerhard Forde’s book, On Being A Theologian of the Cross: Reflections On Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (1997). This is the best book I know of on this subject. Hopefully, Bret would read it and not burn it? 🙂
If you are interested, a portion of the book can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/ybskxpl
LikeLike
Bingo, Lily. Bret and I share the same denomination. From my experience in it, the issue is largely a cultural one and a fight between funda-evangelicals who want women to know their place and progressive-evangelicals who want men to know the world is flat. There isn’t typically a place at the evangelical table for a confessionalist.
Pr. Bret may be finally sound on WO, but, if the sort of cross-pollinization this post proper suggests follows, and to the extent that theonomists are Calvinism’s version of fundamentalism, something tells me he’s of the “sit down and shut up” variety. If you want a meaner rendition, I’d suggest Scott Clark using the B-word:
The ugly truth is that the refusal by many former cultural conservatives to ordain females to special ecclesiastical was never principled or biblical in the first place. Eventually that refusal became just an embarrassment. Without any basis in biblical revelation opposition to the ordination of females was truly only bigotry.
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/could-there-be-a-connection/#more-5405
LikeLike
Lily,
It was precisely that book to which I turned to get a reliable translation of the Luther’s First Thesis (above).
Reading through the book again, I’m pretty sure McAtee would have not sided with Luther.
Take Thesis 21 as an example:
“A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.”
And Luther’s proof for the Thesis 21:
“This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general good to evil. These are the people whom the Apostle calls “enemies of the cross of Christ” [Phil 3:18], for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross….Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the Old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified.”
Compare that with Bret:
“No, I do not forget that it is the mercy of God who leads us to repentance. I also do not forget that repentance looks like something in the public square.”
Sounds to me like he’s calling works goods and suffering bad, unless of course he means that “repentance in the public square” looks tortured, humiliated, stripped, spat upon, and murdered. I don’t think that’s what he believes. I think that Bret thinks “repentance in the public square” looks more like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee than Christ crucified.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. Enjoyed it.
LikeLike
Lily,
Forde’s book is a gem, but according to Dr. Clark at WSC, Von Loewenich’s out of print “Luther’s Theology of the Cross” stands as the magnum opus. Used copies can be found online the last time I checked.
LikeLike
Zrim, thanks for the links. Like Dr. Clark, I see WO as a symptom. IMO, the root of the problem is the loss of Christ and the gospel (or if you will, the theology of the cross) as the primary focus. As for Bret’s character, if you check Bret’s blog and his editorial mangling/re-writing my comment to suit his agenda, you can see the definition of wuss in action. Can I say wuss here?
LikeLike
RL, I was surprised to see that Bret had ripped my comment apart and rewrote it for a self-serving agenda (who’d a thunk?). I think you are right about his outlook on repentance (and his view of scripture in general). Sadly, it looks like he has swallowed the glory story feathers & all, and even worse(!), he cannot even be accused of being a Southern gentleman. Ugh. What a glory story.
LikeLike
Simon, I have not read Von Loewenich’s book and Forde pays a similar compliment to his book. Have you read it?
LikeLike
Lily,
It has been a while but I read Von Loewenich in my research for a paper on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation Theses 19-24. I used Von Loewenich quite extensively as a secondary source. I’d be happy to send you the paper with bibliography if you are interested.
LikeLike
Read the book several times. Loved it so much I phoned Forde and spoke w/ him a few minutes about it. Only time I’ve ever done that. I recommend it all the time.
From there I read Walther’s Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel and enjoyed that likewise.
I will leave all you Lutherans to your agreements.
LikeLike
However, your constant claim is that I ran on the Constitution Party … which I did not. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. If 24 people wrote my name in, is that really running for office?
LikeLike
Bret, I would appreciate an apology for being slimed. It was more than inappropriate.
LikeLike
Simon!
A research paper with bibliography? I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your offer! I would love to read your work. I am a poor theologian of the cross and would enjoy learning from your insights. Please send me a copy to sjb.cafe (at) gmail (dot) com. A zillion thanks for your generosity. 🙂
LikeLike
Ouch. You read it right.
How long has this McAtee fellow been around? He’s more than a little touchy, isn’t he?
After spending all of last week championing a farcical review of The Law is Not of Faith–a review that tries not only to malign a book to which you contributed but also to sully the reputation of many of your colleagues–McAtee trots out the timeworn country-preacher schtick and tries to feign surprise at your response:
“Dr. Hart flatters me. How is it that a Doctor of the church is wroth at a simple country preacher like me genuinely mystifies me….” (He even prefaced this banality with some supposed barnyard saying that his father used to tell him).
I don’t doubt that he is genuinely mystified–his theology provides more than enough evidence. But I do doubt that he is surprised that you responded? I’m reminded of a country adage warning young campers of the dangers of peeing uphill with no shoes on.
LikeLike
On the Constitution Party of Michigan’s website, there is an archived document titled, “Declaration of Candidacy–Bret Lee McAtee.” Its opening paragraph reads:
“My name is Bret Lee McAtee and as one speaking to my fellow citizens of Michigan and to friends who live outside the great state that is my home, I am today formally declaring my candidacy to represent Michigan in the Senate of these United States of America. I intend to run for that office on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket, which is the Michigan affiliate of the Constitution Party.”
Now, it’s possible that you made this announcement and later withdrew or lost in a candidate-selection process like a primary. If that’s true, it may be technically wrong to say that you ran on the Constitution Party ticket. I suppose it would be more precise to say you tried or sought to run on the ticket. That’s being a bit pedantic, don’t you think? We’d certainly tolerate someone saying that Rudy Giuliani ran for President on the Republican ticket, even though he officially withdrew before the primaries ended, wouldn’t we?
The document is available here: http://www.constitutionpartymi.net/cpmi/Patriot/McAtee/articles/Declaration.html
LikeLike
Once again … an announcement does not a candidacy make. Why is it that y’all can’t believe me when I tell you that I did not run for any political office on the Constitution party platform?
LikeLike
Because you’re wrong about so many things? Could that be the reason?
Here’s another web resource: http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bret_McAtee_Principles_+_Values.htm
But Bret, you may be right. All of those web sources are part of a grand conspiracy to deny the gospel. Or maybe it’s that your brilliant and the rest of us are slackers. Come on, lather on some more of that down home, folk spun wit, and then throw another hand grenade.
LikeLike
Having read Foorde twice and being well into Von Loewenich on Luther’s ToC, I can say that Foorde’s is a Cliff’s Notes version, as good as it is.
LikeLike