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.
Surely you are not trying to say Rutherford was R2K?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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’.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Todd, he affirmed natural law (eegads!!).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
(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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
I don’t know JY and Lily. If you bring out a fifth, I may have to take it…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Aw, Jack, bring your own fifth! I’m bringing Guinness. 😉
LikeLike
P.S. Jack, I’m assuming this is a party with lots of celebrants, so would you bring some ice, too? 😉
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I can’t thank you enough.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Love that Barb…
😉
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Daryl and Jack,
Where did I mention “Lutheran”?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Lily, yes.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Dan, you didn’t mention Lutheran. But you failed to observe how all of Escondido’s critics are hardly charitable.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Mark,
I find much to get annoyed about in that Frame critique. For example, he says:
So you think, “Wow, Horton said THAT?” Then you go back to Horton’s essay to see what he actually said:
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike