Love that Bob

Published on by D. G. Hart

In his new book on the so-called Escondido theology, John Frame tries to establish a link between the two-kingdom views of certain authors and Meredith Kline, who taught at Westminster California for almost two decades. This analysis fails in two respects. The first is that I, whom Frame includes as an Escondido “theologian,” never studied with Kline. If truth be told, I’m still only about one-fifth of the way through Kingdom Prologue (did someone say “fifth”?).

The other reason why Frame’s analysis fails is that he neglects the real source of Westminster California’s alleged uniqueness, namely, its president, W. Robert Godfrey. Bob Godfrey was Old School before any of us knew what Old School was and even before Bob himself began to lecture on the American church. He introduced his students to strands of Reformed Protestantism that were older than J. Gresham Machen and Abraham Kuyper. Students who heard his lectures on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries became aware of a world of topics and battles that had been vital to the Reformed churches. And some of those students, the Escondido “theologians” especially, learned from those lectures and tried to reappropriate for the contemporary church the faith and practice of the historic Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Most students were aware that some adjustments would have to be made. We cannot go directly to 1560 Geneva (we can’t have the state execute idolaters). But we also knew that Machen and Kuyper were not the last word on what it meant to be Reformed.

This is an important perspective to keep in mind — and which Frame entirely ignores — because so many of the hits upon Westminster California have come from people who are shocked, just shocked, to learn that some might call themselves Reformed who do not follow lock step with recent understandings of Reformed Protestantism. So if someone sounds different from Gaffin or Murray on union — horrors! — even if they can find historic Reformed sources that don’t say it the same way as Westminster Seminary theologians, they aren’t Reformed. Or if someone discovers that the doctrine of republication was taught and developed among older Reformed theologians, they will need to suffer for departing from Murray. If someone notes that Reformed churches did not believe in “every member ministry” but had a high view of pastoral office and the duties of ministers, they must be faulted for not following the advances of Jack Miller and Tim Keller. If someone brings up the fact that Reformed Protestants only sang psalms and did not tolerate special music, well they must be trouble makers because all of our churches today now sing hymns and sometimes have choirs. If someone finds that justification was more important than union in the development of Reformed soteriology during the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries, well they must be “Lutheran” because they are not following the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. Or if someone learns that Calvin and Rutherford did not construe the nature of the church, the state, and Christ’s kingdom the way Kuyper did, then they must be in error because Kuyper set the standard for all Reformed political reflection.

In other words, Bob Godfrey taught his students to read the past not by looking at the present and then cherry picking historical precedents, but by judging the present in the light of the past. He unlocked a door that allowed students to see arguments and practices that sometimes nineteenth- and twentieth-century conservative Reformed churchmen had themselves neglected or forgotten. This is not to say that Bob Godfrey is to blame for the Escondido Theology. It is to say that he deserves credit for rediscovering an older part of the Reformed heritage that his students have tried to recover for the contemporary church. And it is important to see that the opposition to Godfrey’s students comes most often from people who regard the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as THE AGE of Reformed orthodoxy.

38 thoughts on “Love that Bob”

  2. Darryl, in your opinion, is the law/gospel hermeneutic another example of Bob Godfrey influencing the seminary via the older reformed theologians?

    BTW, I suspect there’s a piece of text missing from your third paragraph where you speak of modern reformed theologians charging those “Lutherans” who prioritise justification over union.

    Like

  3. Does it bear mentioning that Godfrey is a kuyperian, as well? That would seem to gravitate against the notion that Escondido has some monolithic view of the church and society. Just sayin’.

    Like

  4. Daryl, I think the main beef with Escondido is not necessarily the particular positions espoused, but more of the attitude behind them. Many younger Reformed guys that I know have a negative view of Escondido since there seems to be this opinion that “Reformed” must submit to 2K, Olevianus, Law/Gospel dichotomy, and Horton’s understanding of soteriology. A question that is asked, is, why can’t church historians admit that Reformed Orthodoxy, while a singular tradition, has many variations and differences on these issues?

    Perhaps an affirmation to the previous question might make these debates more charitable and less personal?

    Like

  5. Really good post, Mr. Hart. My son-in-law would be nodding his head in “harty” agreement.
    Love that Bob, indeed.

    btw, first time anyone ever referred to me and Keller in the same sentence.
    … oh, that Jack Miller.
    never mind…

    Like

  6. I’m going to have to get caught up with this controversy, particularly since I’m very open to changing my mind on doctrinal issues and going OPC all the way; I’m particlularly interested in a Spanish speaking congregation here in southern CA. I guess that means I’ll have to read Frame’s critique as well.

    Like

  7. Dan,

    That may be true of some younger Reformed guys, but I’m not aware of professors at WSC claiming theologians from WTS to be Lutheran or semi-pelagian…

    Like

  9. Dan, well I don’t think I recall 2k people using “Lutheran” as an epithet. As for submission, all 2kers want is for believers to submit to the government of their Reformed churches.

    Like

  10. You do understand the difference between Rutherford’s use of the phrases Law of Nature and Natural Law right?

    Especially in a pre-Lockean world.

    Like

  11. (did someone say “fifth”?).

    Where is everyone’s sense of humor? I say we all drink a toast to John Frame sometime over the weekend with Darryl’s favorite cocktail- is that a Manhattan? Someone is going to have to come up with a good toast though.

    Like

  12. Jack,

    The charges of Lutheranism against WTS West are incredibly strange and quite laughable. Reformed 2k is distinctly different from Lutheran 2k. I suspect those who would oppose a Reformed 2k doctrine don’t want it for very different reasons than the faux charges of Lutheranism and semi-pelagianism. The 2k taught from the bible messes with their pet theories on theonomy, transformationalism, and their understanding of eschatology. It would require them giving up a theology of glory and that is a hard addiction to kick. Like all addicts, they’ll do almost anything for their next fix.

    Like

  13. I’ll toast with you, John. It looks like there is much to toast if there’s a fifth! But may I substitute a Guinness for my portion instead?

    Like

  15. Thanks, Nick. I think I fixed it.

    Godfrey taught his students to regard Luther highly. But I’m not sure that’s the only place where we found law/gospel.

    Like

  17. P.S. Jack, I’m assuming this is a party with lots of celebrants, so would you bring some ice, too? 😉

    Like

  18. I don’t think I worded my question well. I wasn’t merely talking about Lutheranism here. I was just wondering if Bob read the Reformed branch of the reformation as teaching the L/G hermeneutic every bit as much as the Lutherans? (I’m not saying he’s wrong in this; I’m not qualified to comment) Would the L/G emphasis of many at WSC be a result of Bob’s paleo influence?

    Like

  20. Here’s a toast that those who want to turn petty and spiteful relational issues into theological disagreements and issues would one day be exposed.

    Like

  22. Re: But I’m not sure that’s the only place where we found law/gospel.

    Darryl, I think it is found in Saint Paul. I could be wrong, but that was the original source, wasn’t it?

    Like

  23. My memory can be like swiss cheese, I kept thinking the beginnings of law/gospel writings were with the church fathers and specifically Tertullian and finally found a reference for it. I still need to find a reference for Paul, but if my swiss cheese memory is right, I think it is clearest in Galatians?

    http://tinyurl.com/7ydwn48

    Like

  24. So Daryl, would you admit that the particular construction of 2K in Escondido is not the uniform position of Reformed Orthodoxy dating back to Calvin?

    Like

  26. A question that is asked, is, why can’t church historians admit that Reformed Orthodoxy, while a singular tradition, has many variations and differences on these issues?

    Why is contending for a particular variation not to admit that there are many variations?

    Like

  27. Darryl,

    Outstanding post. I think it explains many of the tensions we see among the Reformed tradition.

    Your third paragraph is particularly helpful in explaining the tensions (and even strife) we are experiencing in the PCA. I have read the transcripts of the Peter Leithart trial and this approach is exactly what his defense used to discredit the prosecution. In the end you had the prosecution citing one set of theologians and their views of the WCF and the defense citing another set of theologians with their particular views of the WCF.

    As we all know the presbytery sided with the defense and exonerated TE Leithart. While that isn’t the final word on the matter it does illustrate the little game that is being played: My (newer) theologians trump your (older) theologians.

    Like

  28. Nick, I don’t recall that Bob stressed L/G other than presenting it as part of Luther’s teaching. In other words, I don’t think he was banging any L/G drum. Then some of his students found L/G in other Reformed voices.

    Like

  29. Dan,
    You didn’t mention “Lutheran.” But certain professors from WTS have, for a number of years, labeled the “theology of WSC” as Lutheran. Who is it that is trying to define Reformed too narrowly?

    cheers…

    Like

  31. Dan, nothing is uniform in the Reformed tradition among its proponents, which is why the confessions of the churches are the standard not a particular theologian.

    But I would say that the Reformed tradition is uniformly Augustinian and distinguishes between the temporal and the eternal powers and places the kingdom of Christ in the church, not in the state. That means that theonomy is not there (theonomy in the sense of wanting the laws of the state to do what the laws of Israel signified in its civil polity). But as for the application of the relationship between church and state, or preserving Christendom, there is great diversity. Just look at the revisions of the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms when it comes to the teaching on the magistrate. But none of today’s Reformed churches still believe that the magistrate has a duty to enforce the whole decalogue — as in prohibiting idolatry and blasphemy.

    Like

  33. John Frame: “I follow Cornelius Van Til, who taught apologetics atWestminster Seminary in Philadelphia for many years. Van Til was Kuyperian through and through, maintaining that the Bible ‘speaks about everything’ and encouraging his students and readers to apply the Scriptures to every sphere of life. So he supported Christian schools very vigorously. And CVT quoted passages like 1 Cor. 10:31 and 2 Cor. 10:5 all the time, to that effect. He emphasized that the real issues in every sphere of human activity were religious. No doubt he would say that the “common grace realm” of Luther, Kline, and Horton is a sphere of “religious neutrality,” a realm where human reason
    should seek to interpret the data of natural revelation without the aid of Scripture. And Van Til, following Kuyper, believed there was no such realm.”

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html

    Like

  34. I had Godrey’s class on The Counter Reformation in 1978 at WTS while Shepherd was charging his critics on the faculty as being Lutherans on justification. Bob went out of his way to highlight the similarities between Shepherd views and those established at Trent on justification. The late Wm. Stanford Reid wrote an excellent article in the WTJ on Calvin’s doctrine of Justification to demonstrate that the Reformer was a Lutheran as Luther on Sola Fide

    Like

  35. Mark,

    I find much to get annoyed about in that Frame critique. For example, he says:

    Horton’s article, at one point, even argues that we should not make special efforts to reach young people with the gospel. (He chooses some crass examples, but he evidently wants to exclude all such efforts, not just the crass ones.) He says “the Word creates its own publicity as it is preached… it creates its own relevance.” What this suggests is that since God’s own word is sovereign, powerful and clear, we need make no efforts to make it clear to people.

    So you think, “Wow, Horton said THAT?” Then you go back to Horton’s essay to see what he actually said:

    Capitulating to niche demographics and marketing, churches that once nurtured the young, middle-aged, and elderly together, with all of the indispensable gifts that each one brings to the body of Christ, often now contribute to the rending of this intergenerational fabric. If this is a worrisome trend in the social sphere, it is all the more troubling for a body that is constituted by its Lord as a covenantal community.

    To be truly countercultural, the church must first receive and then witness to Peter’s claim in Acts 2:39: “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” The promise is not only for us, but also for our children. According to recent studies by sociologists like Christian Smith, evangelical teens are only slightly less likely than their unchurched friends to adopt a working creed of “moralistic, therapeutic deism.” As the diet in our churches is increasingly determined by the spirit of the age, and as youth are treated as borderline cases to be cajoled into thinking God is cool, the church risks abandoning that promise. The “pumped-up” teens in our youth groups today are often tomorrow’s skeptics and burnouts. They don’t need more hip Christian slogans, T-shirts, and other subcultural distractions, but the means of grace for maturing into co-heirs with Christ.

    Recently, cnn reporter Anderson Cooper was asked, “Do you think part of your job is to appeal to younger viewers?” “I’ve never been in a meeting where people said to bring in younger people,” he replied. “I think the notion of telling stories differently to appeal to younger people is a mistake. Young people want the same kind of thing older viewers do: interesting, well-told, compelling stories. If you’re somehow altering what you’re doing because you want to get young viewers, that’s a little bit like when your parents go out to buy ‘cool’ clothes for you.” In our culture, relevance is determined—in fact, created—by publicity. But the Word creates its own publicity as it is preached, as the story is told. It creates its own relevance, and as a result, a community that spans the generations.

    Not terribly reliable reporting from Frame, to say the least. Makes you feel bad for those who won’t bother to read Horton for themselves.

    Like

  36. Yes, I am not a big John Frame fan either. He needs to get some new questions. I think he has a “constantinian” concept of an anabaptist “other” which is supposed to govern itself according to a “public” which still assumes Christendom. In other words, the “secular” gives him problems.

    Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 2003

    William D Hart, Edward Said and the Religious Effects of Culture, 2000

    Like

  37. If someone asks his session what the OP’s rationale is for rejecting the older Refromed/Presby view of close communion & confessional membership… they might get excommunicated.

    Like

  38. Pingback: The Evangelical Presbyterian W-w | Old Life Theological Society

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.