PCA GA follow up

Since I did a post on the PCA a while back, I ought to just follow up briefly.  If you are interested in what happened take a look at the Aquila Report.  They have nice round up.  No real bias shown.  Very news like.

However, the GA did not bring back hopes of life for the PCA.  They failed to do anything about Meyers or Leithart.  The two men now stand clear and free of charges.  Not only that  but the PCA allowed paedocommunion exceptions in what is probably the start of something new.  They had to recommit a report because it said Jehovah and Allah can be the same (although in an admittedly vague and maybe you can read it another way manner).  They also struggled with a report on child abuse in the church.  Difficult to understand why the removal of some mandatory reporting language was done in the first place.

But perhaps a better exercise to see the state of the PCA is to follow the PCAGA hashtag on Twitter.  Scroll past the good byes and had a good times down to the days where the debate was taking place.  A lot of vitriol and anger from both sides.  There was one in there about Dr. Pipa's mustache being alive and the reason he was so confused right above one thanking Pipa for pointing out confusing language.  And the weird thing is that it was probably not as bad as last year on Twitter.  The PCA is a denomination divided.

I wait to see if the conservatives will do anything, but I am betting they will do nothing.

I pray for the PCA, and I have a lot of friends in it.  But it is hard for me to say the GA was anything other than a disaster for conservative historic Reformed theology.

Dark Knight Trilogy

Perhaps I should review a movie positively since I just usually write reviews for movies I hate as I did with Les Mis.  However, this will let everyone know that I am a very low class kind of guy.

I really enjoyed the Dark Knight Rises, and in fact the entire Dark Knight Trilogy was great.  Dark Knight Rises stress the freeing and important nature of truth.  "Maybe we should let the truth have its day." Alfred states at one point.  The lies ultimately proved to be the undoing of the city.  Lies are shown to have a short term gain, long term loss.  This of course ties into the way the second movie ended where Batman was taking the blame for someone else's crime.  The point was to give Gotham hope.  But hope cannot continue built upon a lie.  A lie is a foundation that hope cannot grow upon.  Seldom do you see movies today take the theme of honesty seriously (outside of the romantic comedy where the lie alway causes problems).

In fact, looking back over the entire Trilogy each character is defined by his view of truth and morality in general.

For example:
Commissioner Gordon has a pragmatist view.  Truth is less important than outcome.  He fakes his death and lies to his family in the second movie.  He lies about Harvey Dent in order to clean up Gotham.  He bends the rules to get things done.  In the second movie he is constantly telling Harvey Dent that he works with what he has, even if what he has is a group of corrupted old policemen.  He does not turn on them when they take bribes (in the first movie).  His view breaks down in this final movie.

Harvey Dent's view changes.  Originally sticking to the truth and rules, but goes to a view of determinism and fate when his rule keeping literally blows up in his face.  Interestingly one of his big complaints is that he had to lie to the woman he loved as she died.  He is complaining about truth all the way until his death.

Catwoman is looking to hide from the truth.  She has a past she regrets and wants to get away from or out from under.  She does not know how to do this (no idea of forgiveness and repentance), so she looks for a computer program that will erase her past from the computers of the world.  Then the truth will not matter anymore (or at least that appears to be her hope).

Joker of course had no place for truth.  Lied regularly.  His lies lead to people making decisions based on faulty basis, and the trouble that creates is what makes the second movie so fun.

I could go on, but overall the Batman trilogy is very good and very fun.  And best of all . . . no one breaks into 3rd rate singing.

When is it time to leave?

As a follow up on the previous post for conservatives to leave the PCA, I will enter into a short discussion about why and what I think governs the decision of when it is time to leave.

The decision to leave a denomination hinges upon the marks of a true church: faithful preaching of the word, right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline (as found in Belgic Confession of Faith second paragraph of Article 29).  The reason it is time to leave the PCA is because they have forsaken these marks.  And as Article 29 somewhat lesser known continues to state a true church should "in short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of God, and all things contrary thereto rejected . . ."  The PCA has failed to reject things contrary to the Word of God.  

The situation in the PCA is a good example to us all about knowing when we should leave.  It started with people who were professing and preaching doctrine that was unfaithful and heretical.  Now just because it turned it that the denomination had a fairly sizable minority that disagreed on the basic premise of salvation is not in and of itself grounds to leave the denomination.  This is because there are three marks, one of which is discipline.  The correct thing to happen to bring these unfaithful preachers up on charges, to begin discipline.  One might could argue that the PCA waited to long to start this process, but it was a process they started eventually.  And the wheels of discipline grind slowly.  I would argue purposefully slow.  The slow speed gives people a chance to catch their breath, biblically evaluate, and if need be repent.  The goal of discipline after all is restoration and reconciliation.  So, one must wait for the process to finish before conclusions can be reached.  

However, what has happened is the highest and final court in the PCA has declared the Federal Vision theology of one of its preachers to be acceptable preaching and beliefs in the PCA.  Thus, there not only has been a failure to practice discipline, but that failure has enshrined a unfaithful preaching as acceptable, and many of these questionable beliefs are also about the sacraments.  So what mark of the true church is left?  If there are no marks left, then why stick around?  

There are others who have a much more gracious opinion to what has happened than I do, such as Rev. R. Scott Clark.  He presents a nice syllogism that he thinks got confused somewhere.  I suppose I think the only way this verdict can be read is that the PCA no longer rejects the doctrines of the Federal Vision.  It does not matter what happened in 2007.  Judicially this is the first big challenge, and the PCA has accepted rather than rejected the FV.  

Are there still plenty of faithful, biblical churches left in the PCA?  Absolutely.  Could I recommend the PCA church to someone who was moving to another town?  No.  Because even if the PCA pastor there now was faithful, who would be next?  And what does it say about a church that stays in communion with other churches that have a fundamentally different gospel?  

That is the question for conservatives to answer (and for anyone who is thinking of switching denominations), is the Federal Vision of Peter Leithart a fundamentally different gospel?  If so, then how can one continue to be in the same denomination with them, and now with others who think that it is an acceptable gospel?  If it is a different gospel (and if it is not why was he on trial), then at least two of the three marks of a church are missing, distorted, or ignored.  When that happens it is time to go.  

PCA: 1973-2013

The Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA has handed down its decision in the case against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery and their decision to clear Dr. Peter Leithart of all charges.  The SJC of the PCA has agreed that Leithart is confessional and orthodox.  The PCA is now the only church in the NAPRC to not condemn Federal Vision, or at least to judicially clear its biggest proponent.

Add to that the slow removal of conservative influence on important PCA committees.

Add to that yet another group seeking to direct and lead the PCA in an obvious non-confessional direction.

And I am not even going to bring up intinction or Biologos or the denominations inability to make a stand on Genesis 1 or 2.  I could go on.

The main point here is that it is time to leave.  The conservatives probably won't, but they should.  The time is now.  Join the OPC.  You could easily double the size of that denomination, and could help the OPC avoid the same mistakes the PCA made.

You would think a denomination full of Southerners would be quick to leave a union they had no control over, but they are not quick to leave, and that is okay.  The fight was fought.  But it has been lost now.  The Study Committee Report was always a distraction.  It was the conservative view and it passed widely, but it passed widely because it was pointless.  The only thing that ever mattered was the judicial process.  And that process is now over.  Leithart and the FV won.

The PCA is now about inclusivism rather than confessionalism and Gospel Eco-Systems rather than . . . well there really is not an opposite of Gospel Eco-Systems, that is how bad that idea is.

I have a lot of friends in the PCA.  I feel for them.  Most of them probably would not make good fits in the RCUS because we are not Westminster based, but I think neither is the PCA anymore.

Scholar Pastors and the decline of Conservative Presbyterianism

I want to interact for a moment with William Evans's article about the Decline of Conservative Presbyterianism.  I want to interact with it because I think it has missed the boat entirely by misplacing where the influence flows.

You should read the article, but in summary he has 5 reasons for the supposed decline: declining prominence of conservative scholarship, intramural squabbles, unfinished theological business, tenuous situation of Presbyterian seminaries, splintering of the Presbyterian and Reformed presence into denominational locations.  

Do you notice anything about these complaints?  Let me help.  They all revolve around the academic world.  If one can draw conclusions from his list of problems the solution to greater Presbyterian and Reformed influence is fewer seminaries with greater cooperation among denominations in order to produce great scholars who focus on finishing the Reformation rather than petty debates.  Is this really the way churches grow?  I hate to break it to Dr. Evans, but the days of the Princeton Review are gone, and the days of people reading that review are not coming back.  The culture is not drifting away from Christianity because we do not have a strong intellectual arguments.  Churches are not going away from the Reformed Faith because we lack a new Calvin.  

Let me quote a sentence from his article.  "Concurrent with this we see the rise of the "scholar-pastor" model in Presbyterian circles".  While I was at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary they often talked of the importance of the "scholar-pastor", so I agree with him that this model is on the rise and in the ascendency in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  However, unlike Dr. Evans, I see it as the problem.  

The scholar-pastor breeds the intramural squabbles (though I disagree that some of the things he has listed are intramural, some are quite fundamental).  It also leads to the breeding of Presbyterian Seminaries.  If I am a scholar, then I am able to teach at the seminary level.  And if no seminary currently supports my view, I can start my own.  It is really quite logical.  And thanks to rose colored glasses we use to look at Princeton Seminary, we all think a good seminary can do great things.  

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a strong academic rigor to our theology.  But, I think it is time we split the "scholar-pastor" back into "scholar" and "pastor".  Or at least get the order right and be "pastor" first because ultimately that is where the influence is best applied.  It is the pastor not the academic who is on the ground fighting the fight.  it is the church planter who is out in the field gathering the harvest.  It is the church to which Christ has entrusted the Word of God, not the seminary.  

Too often we forget this important fact.  We forget it everywhere.  Take for example our great love for Calvin.  And love him we should.  But do we realize that Calvin never took a city from Romanism to Reformed.  Geneva had already declared for the Reformation long before Calvin came to town.  Does anyone even know who the pastor was who helped led Schaffhausen into the Reformation?  The Reformation happened not led by a seminary or a scholar from afar, but rather pastors on the ground, often working together, to transform the world for Christ by the gospel.  And that is the hope for the future too.

If it were up to me, I would encourage less small seminaries, and instead use Log College models or better yet Swamp College models, and return to the mentorship model of educating men for the ministry.  Sure there would always be a few of those grand professional educational institutions, and they play a role, but not THE role.  No, that is done on Sunday mornings from the pulpit and by the members of the body Christ "equipped for the work of the ministry" not by reading scholarly works but by the "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11-16).  

2K Discussion Points?

An interesting point-counter-point has developed.  It seems like a good place for discussion to start, and it still makes me think I don't fit either group.  However, it appears to be a series of points based off solely Van Drunen.  I still think the 2K/Transformationalism is a spectrum  or a sliding scale.  But, it is a nice thing to read if you want a starting point for discussion.

That is not to say I think it is great.  Because I also think that the Counter-Point is occasionally squarely and unhelpful.  Take points 8-10.

Point 8 lays out the 2K claim that Lex Talionis governs the Common Kingdom.  Point 9 then admits that it is flexible, imprecise, and capable of softening.  Point 10 is then "Principles of Mercy and Forgiveness do not govern the common kingdom".  Straight forward enough.  The Counter-Point is "Principles of mercy and forgiveness do operate in the common kingdom, if one understand the common kingdom to include families, personal relationships, etc."

Now that is unhelpful in my opinion.  First, "govern" and "operate" are not exactly parallel.  Saying one governs does not mean that the other cannot operate.  Second, Point 9 admitted that mercy and forgiveness can and do operate, they just don't govern.  At least that is how I read  Point 9.  So, I feel that sometimes the guy wants to disagree and make a point and does so in less than upfront ways.

Still, it is a place to start the discussion.  Enjoy the reading.

Movie Review: Les Miserables

You are not supposed to be against classics.  It just means you are a jerk if you say what everyone is thinking about Les Miserables (Les Mis from now on).  But I don't mind being a jerk.  That movie was just plain awful.

Look, I knew it was a musical.  Fine.  I have seen many a musical.  West Side Story for instance.  People randomly burst into song.  It is what it is.  However, in Les Mis no one talks.  Every other musical I have ever seen (like Grease) people speak and then sing and speak again.  No, not in Les Mis.  Only song.  I guess I can chalk that up to taste, but if you are going to make a movie where there is only singing, get good singers.  Forgo the big name actors and focus on people who drive home your song.  No offense to the guy from "A Beautiful Mind" but he can't sing.  While everyone else in the theater was crying, I was rooting for Jean Valjean to die so he would stop singing.  I had had enough.  I know, I am heartless.

But there is more, and it gets worse.

Everyone raves about the Christian message of Les Mis.  And there are clearly some very beautiful moments of grace.  Of course the abbot purchasing Jean Valjean freeing him from going back to prison, Jean Valjean confessing they have the wrong man in front of a crucifix.  Yes, grace is clear and presented.  Of that there is no doubt.  But is it clearly a Protestant message?  I don't think so.  I still think this is a Roman Catholic message of grace and works.  Now, I confess I have not read the book in ages, so I am only speaking of the movie.  But the Valjean death scene where the dead are returning and conversing with him he sings a line about "did I do enough".  They comfort him with the assurance that he will see heaven.  And that is the problem.  Jean Valjean was trying to earn his salvation and on his dying day he still does not know if his good works were enough to out weigh his bad ones.  And the movie down plays his bad ones.  Jean Valjean did steal bread.  But it is portrayed as something the poor do because they have to do it.  This is not how God's law operates.  He stole.  He also ignores Fantine when she needs someone to aid her.  A sin he has to pay for.  He was too worried about himself.  In fact, he is worried about his lies unraveling.  Another sin.  

I could go on, but the point is that Jean Valjean is constantly asking himself what must he do, can he let someone else bear his punishment.  Can he let Javert go?  Can he save the boy?  Should he?  He makes the right choices, but not out of thankfulness for the salvation he has received, but in hopes of paying off his sin.  At least that is how I saw it.  Which led me to believe Javert had the appropriate response to a world where salvation was based on doing right.  Javert killed himself because he knew he could not pay of his debt, and he realized he had debt for the first time.

So I am not gaga over Les Mis.  Victor Hugo as a Roman Catholic, and I think it comes across in this movie.  Sure, it is a better message than "Brokeback Mountain", but that is not the same as being a movie about true redemption.  We do not earn anything.  In a movie culture that is starved for a message of grace and forgiveness, let us not accept a Romanist version of it.

Go and enjoy the movie if you like singing that much, but do not forget the shortcoming of Catholicism while you watch it.  

Heidelberg Anniversary

This year, 2013, is the 450th Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism.  It was printed in January with the seal of Frederick III of the Palatinate, so this is the month to celebrate.  I do intend to put some stuff up here about the catechism throughout the year, but let me encourage each and every one of you to read the Heidelberg.  See how the Catechism again and again points to Jesus Christ.  Over and over, it turns to the only comfort in life and in death . . . Jesus Christ.

Go read it now.

And yes, I do plan on posting more this year.  I have decided that occasionally working things out by writing can be a helpful skill.  One that I need to develop a bit more.

October 31st - Reformation Day?

Today is a day that many will celebrate as Reformation Day.  Now, I don't have problems with people and churches looking for days to remember and celebrate the Reformation.  I want to be clear about that.  In fact, the church I pastor often has a celebration, a joint service with the OPC church in town, and it is great.

  But historically, is this the day the Reformed ought to be lifting up?

No, I think we have to say no.  October 31st is the day that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, so it is a nice and easy day to point and say here it begins.  But, really the 31st is the day the Lutheran Church is born, and in reality that has little to do with the Reformed Church.  In fact, the Lutherans hated the Reformed Church for centuries.  Luther said we were of a different spirit, the Lutheran teamed up with the Romanists to try and kill us in the 30 Years War.  Some of their ministers actually said we were worse than Islam. 

Our Reformed forefathers always pointed to a different day . . . January 1st, 1519.  This was the day that Zwingli proclaimed he would preach straight through the book of Matthew throwing out the Lectionary.  The 100th Anniversary was celebrated at the Synod of Dort on January 1, 1619.  The RCUS Directory of worship suggests that churches may keep several days if they wish, and one of those days is January 1.  Now, I have always assumed it was because of the New Year, but it may actually be because it is the anniversary of our Reformation.  Hard to say.

In the end, the point is remembering October 31st only points to the Lutheran Church, and it is very different than the Reformed Church.  Very different indeed.  Remember this in a few years when people want to celebrate 500 years of the Reformation in 2017.  That celebration has to be focused on Luther.  The day we want is January 1, 2019.  That way we can focus on the Reformed Church. 

Two Kingdoms Escondido Theology Wrap Up

I ought to come back and offer some concluding thoughts on the Frame book.  Let me start by just stating again that if you are wanting a book to deal with 2K in a serious way from a Transformational view point this is NOT your book.  If you are looking for a book that is a deep insight into Frame's hostility toward his former employer then this book is worth the money.

So in my quest to look into 2K deeper this book was not all that helpful.  It did point out one very big problem in trying to learn more about 2K Theology, and that is Westminster West itself.  Let me explain.

The book is called Escondido Theology, and it is a common name for the 2K teaching because those guys are pushing it and publishing about it.  However, it really clouds the issue.  Mainly because the Westminster West guys teach and push other things that are not necessary to 2K theology, and often not even related to 2K theology, yet because it is often called Escondido Theology they get mashed up together.

The full title of Frame's book is "The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology".  The problem is the Escondido theology and Two Kingdoms really can be two separate issues.  And in my opinion, often are.  Go back to the introduction.  No, not the first introduction.  Not the second or the third.  The one entitled Author's Introduction.  Frame gives a big list of grievances.  They include several points that are what we would call Redemptive-Historical Preaching.  A few more are simply about traditional worship.  There is at least one about the interpretation of the Sabbath.  And a couple more about the "absolutizing" of a certain traditions and declaring them to be the only Reformed tradition.  He does actually have a few about 2K such as whether or not the cultural mandate is fulfilled in Christ or by us still today, and whether or not the Christian has a mandate to seek change in the political order.  But the majority are simply lies like saying that Escondido teaches "We should take no interest in our inner feelings" or that "Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones are not Reformed".

Frame does not prove most of these points, and thus his book should be considered a failure.  But more importantly, Frame spends a lot of time on the worship complaints and the Absolutizing complaints.  These have nothing to do with being a "Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology" as the sub-title advertises.  Frame does not deal enough with the Two Kingdoms.  And it needs to be separated out from some of this other stuff.  Horton's book on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms.  And I can agree that Recovering the Reformed Confessions seeks to absolutize certain positions that the Reformed world has never agreed upon (no hymns for example and framework creation).  I can agree that Redemptive Historical Preaching is off in its understanding of preaching (although I think Frame does not deal with it fairly in this book).  So, in a lot of ways, I am not in line with the Escondido Theology.  But Frame does little to convince me to be a transformationalist.

If anyone out there knows of a decent book criticizing Two Kingdoms, let me know.

Escondido Theology Chapter 10 - Christian Activism

The title of this chapter is called  "A Defense of Christian Activism" and is really the most important chapter in the book.  This is not Frame reviewing a book, but rather putting forth his defense of Transformationalism.

He begins by simply trying to point out some of the important ways Christianity has influenced the world.  And while there is no denying that Christianity changed the world that is not what is really at issue in the Transformationalism and Two Kingdoms debate.  Rather it is how that influence and change is brought about that is debated.  However, I did have a slight problem with one of Frame's examples.  He claimed Christianity brought about democracy.  I don't think that is right.  He cited Lex Rex but the pagan Athenians had something akin to Democracy, and Parliament existed long before the Reformation got to England.  This one I think is stretching it quite a bit.  Christianity existed quite well under rulers such as Charlamagne without a hint of Democracy.  To prove that Christianity produced Democracy is a large task that Frame does not try, and in fact, I think it impossible.

Frame does get around to discussing the question of how God changes a society when he begins to interact with Horton's article in Christianity Today.  Frame holds that Horton misunderstands changing a society with a sword and influencing it with politics.  Horton holds that there is no such thing as Christian politics, and Frame seems to disagree.  The two men really talk past each other as  Horton states things such as Christians should not seek to transform their workplace, nation, or neighborhood into the Kingdom of Christ.  Frame agrees if what Horton means is transform the workplace into the church, but disagrees if what Horton means is make it a better workplace through taking every thought captive to Christ.  But Horton does mean transform it into the church!  I think the two men fundamentally disagree on what "the Kingdom of God" is in reality.  Horton and the Two Kingdom men seem to equate this with the church or at least link it so close that the difference is hard to find.  Frame and most Transformationalists separate the Kingdom of God into something different from the church that involves the Kingship of Christ in society at large.  Horton and the other Two Kingdom men would never ever advocate not living by Christian standards in the workplace, but they would argue that is not the same as bringing in the Kingdom of Christ.

Frame does point out that Horton and other Two Kingdom men do criticize culture, and he finds that at odds with their theology.  I think it is again a case of not understanding the Two Kingdoms fully.  As I read men like VanDrunen and Horton I think they very well can criticize the culture even in a Two Kingdoms way especially on things that go against the Noahic Covenant such as sodomy and sodomite marriage, and even abortion.  I think what Two Kingdom men are trying to do is twofold, not bind the conscious of people on questions that are not violations of the Word such as Democracy.  One does not have to believe Democracy is the best in the world or even a Christian product!  One does not have to vote Republican.  But the main thing they are doing is trying to return the emphasis of the church to the gospel and saving souls.  Transformationalism puts emphasis on changing the culture, and it either clouds or distorts the gospel, in their opinion.

The main question between these two camps remains to be is the culture changed by a church proclaiming the gospel and lives being changed by conversion to Christ, or is it changed by a Church being salt and light in the political and cultural sphere keeping and even upgrading the lives of everyone through the wisdom of God.

Escondido Theology - Chapter 9

Frame spends chapter 9 examining the book Dual Citizens by Jason Stellman. Stellman is a blogger and pastor by trade. But as Frame points out that Stellman is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California and was completely in attendance there after the whole sale changes that ran out Professor Frame. Thus, he stands as an example of the kind of thinking one might could expect from WSC grads. Frame and Stellman disagree first on the definition of worship. Frame has a strict definition, which is the corporate gathering of the people of God, and then the broad definition that all of life is worship. It is this second definition that Stellman disagrees with. Stellman wishes to draw a distinction between the sacred and the secular. The Patriarchs are often used such as how Abraham interacts with the pagan rulers of the land in which he lives. He buys land from them, lived among them, and even fought along side of them. Frame counters with Melchizedeck at that fight blessing Abraham, and focuses more on the theocracy set up by Moses.

 But it is in the worship section that they really start to disagree. And while I am not sure I like all Stellman has to say about worship, Frame's arguments about worship just cannot be forced to fit into the Three Forms of Unity and the understanding of the Second Commandment at all. Frame argues here that anything that brings the gospel really is okay. Drum sets are mentioned, but he goes far beyond just instrument selection. Frame advocates video clips, power point presentations, and Frame really leaves no room to reject such things as puppet shows and drama although the last two are not specifically endorsed. How that fits wit the Catechism's desire that the people be instructed by the "lively preaching of the word" is beyond me. In fact, one thinks of Psalm 115:1-8 about the idols and how they have no ears, or eyes, or mouths, and so is everyone who trusts in them. The phrase comes up again in Psalm 132 if I remember correctly. The Bible seems quite clear that the teaching of God's people ought to be done how the Lord pleases, not according to our own fancies, lest we become like what we worship.

 Not all of Frame's arguments are bad. I do think Frame is right that Chapter 4 about Christianity working best as an underdog and a minority is not right. Frame rightly points to the blessing of Abraham and the countless number of the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore. One could have also pointed to history. Christianity is in the minority now, and are we truly better off than when we were a majority say in Charlamagne's time? Hard to call all of history when the church dominated as bad simply by converting more than were unconverted or at least attending. Was the church doing something wrong by being the majority? I can't buy it.

 I would have liked to see Frame interact more with the book of Ecclesiastes. Stellman brings it up, but Frame just mentions a difference of opinion and goes no further into the matter. I think the book may have very helpful insights into this debate about Christian living in the culture. Yet, Frame gives no real exegesis to the book at all. A shame.

 The third use of the law comes up at the end of the chapter. I have trouble evaluating this section because I am not sure I understand Setllman to be saying the same thing Frame thinks he is saying. Frame paints it more as a complete denial of the third use, and mocks the important qualifiers such as "usually" that are often thrown in. I do wish Stellman had developed it more himself as the Heidelberg clearly has a section for the law under Christian living of thanksgiving. But I am not prepared to see the WSC men as completely denying the third use of the law. I just don't see it.

Escondido Theology Chapter 8

Chapter 8 was easily the most pointless of the entire book. It is a review of three books about worship. The title of Frame's book is The Escondido Theology, but the subtitle is A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology. This chapter on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms. And this is a major point. I think we ought to start seeing a difference between the Escondido Theology and Two Kingdoms.

I say that not because I disagree with the three books reviewed. The only point Frame makes that I find even remotely on target in this chapter is that he points out that a book by Marva Dawn entitled Reaching Out without Dumbing Down claims to be a new path through the worship wars, and it really is nothing new. Marva Dawn argues for traditional worship without being up front about it. Frame does not like this because Frame favors new stuff in worship. I don't like it because they ought to just say out loud that the traditional way is right and then argue for it. We don't need a new way through the worship wars we need to win them. But then Dawn is not associated with the seminary, I don't think. The book did get a nod from Horton's worship book A Better Way.

The most interesting stuff came in the review of D.G. Hart and John Meuther who co-wrote With Reverence and Awe. Here Frame seems to deny the idea of a dialogue form of worship. He does not come out and say so, but seems to have his "snark" on full blast when complaining that Hart and Muether believe reformed worship does require that form. I think that Hart and Muether are right, and in fact, it is hard not read the Reformers are requiring it in worship. Modern worship has no support among the Reformers. Now, Frame refuses to actually interact much in this chapter. Rather he complains and then directs people to his book Worship in Spirit and Truth. He does make sure to add that Hart has failed to overthrow the argument of Frame's own book. No bias there I am sure. Overall this 6 page chapter adds nothing to the book, and really should have just been left out. One gets the idea it was not left out because Frame refused to leave his pet subject alone.

Another Bayly Bros Excursus: A case study

The Bayly Bros really hate the 2K Theology. They show it again in this post on Escondido Theology. This post is the epitome of all that is wrong with this debate. This post makes Frame look sane and in control of himself.

Just take the name "2K Sanhedrin". Wow. Horton, VanDrunen, and the others are modern day examples of people who put to death Stephen and whipped Peter and John? Really? That is insane. I still don't understand this vitriol.

But the majority of the post is a screed against Reformed ministers as a whole for not speaking out against social ills and basically calling the Escondido crowd liars for pretending it is a real problem. That is clear from this line: "These R2K men working hard to gag Reformed pastors and elders really have no one at all to gag. And they know it." I find it hard to believe that these guys manufactured this stuff. But I guess the Bayly Bros know best.

They insult all of us by calling us cowards and claim there are no men who preach against the ills of such things as abortion. Never mind the RCUS has passed something specifically stating that God will not long hold back judgment on a country that slaughters its young. But I guess that does not make the Bayly Bros point, so they get to ignore it. I know pastors who write letters to papers, and make phone calls, and yet the Bayly Bros think such men don't exist. There is nothing like someone throwing around insults of cowardice without actually having any proof.

But more important to our current line of investigation is the picture of the Christian ministry painted by the Bayly Bros. It is not just abortion they think should be denounced from the pulpit. In addition to abortion he mentions euthanasia, picketing nursing homes (that have been "Third Reichified"), and politics in general. Perhaps an argument can be made for some of this, but then they go to NSA wiretaps and possible data mining. This I don't get. Preaching against NSA wiretaps. Preaching against data mining. Now, I can agree that these wire taps are against the Constitution. But let us not confuse the Constitution with the Holy Word. What text should one choose to condemn such behavior? Surely not the "be quick to listen" verses of James. That might be taken wrong. And what application is there for the people in the pew? What exactly are they going to do? Not pay their taxes in an attempt to send the NSA out of business? Throw away their cell phones?

This is the sort of extreme behavior that make the 2K guys look very attractive.

Escondido Theology Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is a review of A Secular Faith by D.G. Hart. Hart is of course one who often gives as good as he gets, so one might could expect some fireworks. I am not a fan of this new type of communication where the one with the sharpest barb wins, but perhaps it is just because I am not so good at it.

Frame does make an odd attack at the beginning where he points out derogatorily that the Escondido group is mostly historians. He does not explain why this is awful, but clearly implies it. It is even stranger because Frame admits the book is an excellent history book.

Hart's book hits on the most upsetting aspect of 2K theology to most people: politics. Hart states "that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless in solving America's political disputes" (Hart pg. 11). Although he does admit influence from the church on society but one that is mostly "indirect and unintentional" (pg. 233). Frame obviously takes issue with such an idea and especially the idea that this is the historic reformed position. It fits with Frame's absolutizing accusation against the Escondido theologians. Frame further complains when Hart allows for implications and motivations taken from Scripture for secular activities, which is apparently different from teachings or commands. This Frame rightly points out would make it hard to enforce if it truly is the only acceptable position when you are dealing with implications and motivations.

The interesting part of Frame's critique comes in interacting with Hart on the Biblical text especially in John. John 18:36 where Jesus says that HIs kingdom is not of this world is the first major battle ground. Hart takes this as evidence that Christ's kingdom is indeed different from the secular political kingdom since he is saying it to Pilate, a Roman official. Frame counters with counting up the references to "world" in John chapters 14-18, which he totals at 43. Most refer to the earthly physical realm, not politics. Frame then argues that Jesus is saying that the Kingdom is from the Father above the earthly realm rather than Hart's assertion that the kingdom is of a different character entirely. The reading and understanding of this verse has great implications for other places in John such as 15:19 and 17:16 where the disciples are said to be "not of the world". Does this mean the disciples are to be of another character entirely or are they from the Father above. Can you see the difference now of Frame's Transformationalism? The kingdom is not of a different nature, it is just from a different origin. Hart would rather it be of a different nature than the human politics and human power. Frame goes on to discuss the Kingdom coming to earth in places like Luke 17:21, where it is said to be amidst them already. For Frame this kingdom coming to earth is simply coming from the Father, but can come in the same manner as an earthly kingdom. It is not different in its nature, only its source. Thus, Christian political parties are a good thing because they help usher in the kingdom. Christian labor unions can be good because they too bring the Kingdom of God from the Father. Hart sees unions and governments as not instruments capable of bringing the Kingdom because the Kingdom of God is not of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It comes about through foolishness of preaching and through the power of the Suffering Servant. They end up being wildly different.

The second biblical discussion is about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" in Matthew 22:21 and Luke 20:25. Hart sees this verse as a 2K separation. Caesar is a pagan and yet his government is legitimate and to be lived under and submitted to even in taxes, an odious thing. Frame thinks the passage teaches rather that God is the ultimate ruler of everything and has simply granted Caesar some of it for a time and that is why he is to be submitted to at all. In fact, Frame points out that simply because it might be legitimate does not mean that is the ideal way to live. In other words, Frame is saying that Jesus's silence about transforming the government to a Christian one means nothing, but Hart is saying Jesus is silent, and it means everything. For why would Jesus be silent if he meant for us to try and transform the government?

One other part that needs to be noted is that Hart does state the Bible is the guide only for "church life" and politics is supposed to be guided by "reason and prudence". Frame attacks this as a reduction of Christ's sovereignty and Bible's place in a Christians life. And I have to say here I agree with Frame. It is hard to read II Timothy 3:16-17 as a guide only for church life.

But Hart is militating against the use of Scripture for a particular political stance, and really what Biblical text can you point to for a program of reducing taxes? What about opposing Social Security? Or supporting it? Hart in fact points out that Christianity is an intolerant exclusive religion, how then can it support a government that is tolerant of differing faiths if transformationalism is true? And here I think Hart is right. Frame of course disagrees and actually says "I do in fact believe that in a general sense government should be theocratic. . . . [acknowledging] Jesus Christ as king of kings." (Frame pg.265). And there you have the main difference. I think it comes back to Hart's "implications and motivations". But we ought to be able to fellowship with someone who has a different political opinion than we do. I am not sure Frame' view allows for such things. Churches ought to be all of the same political persuasion, the Christian political one.

This chapter was very good for the biblical arguments, but I think Frame goes to far afield when he advocates government spreading the Kingdom of Christ.

Escondido Theology Chapter 6

It has taken me a little longer to post this review because I believe this chapter is a very important one in the book. In this chapter Frame deals with Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology. This is a 42 page review of Horton's book, but 32 of the pages deal with Horton's first chapter. This I think is important as it shows a methodological difference between the two camps. Horton in his book argues for five methodological tools, and Frame takes them one at a time.

1. Post-Reformation Scholastics
Horton wants to take seriously the Reformed Scholastics. Frame argues that Horton does not do so and points to the volume of quotes from others. This also fits nicely into Frame's mantra that the Escondido Theology is absolutizing a portion of the Reformed Heritage and claiming it as the only orthodox solution. I do think also that this applies to others in the Escondido group. There does appear to be an affinity for 17th century theologians of the Reformation. One thing that I think Frame and Horton both do not do justice to is that the Reformed Scholastics were Scholastics because of a method that they used. The Scholastic Method. I think it is probably better to just view this as 17th century Reformers rather than actual Scholastics. Too often that term is used broadly to mean the latter portion of the Reformation, but it is not really accurate to do so. Frame is rather brief here.

2. Redemptive Historical/Eschatological Method
Horton here speaks of a Promise-Fulfillment methodology where we see the centrality of God acting and God speaking. Horton sees it in contrast to Platonism. We see the present age and the age to come as opposed to Plato's two worlds. Horton brings in Theology of the Cross and Theology of Glory. Theology of Glory being an overrealized eschatology here and now in the present and the Theology of the Cross being an already-not yet mentality. Frame points out this is related to Horton's emphasis on visualization (Theology of Glory) and proclamation (Theology of the Cross). Theology of Glory and Theology of the Cross just set Frame off anytime they are used, and here is no exception. Frame does see glory for us here and now, and sees the link between glory and the cross. Frame also sees an ontology in the Bible, and it is the Creator-Creature distinction. Frame then speaks of Presuppositional apologetics and the critique goes on from there. However, it is not clear to me that Horton actually rejects Presuppositionalism. In fact, I know VanDrunen affirms it in several places. So this critique seems more of a Frame overreaction to terms he does not like than an actual critique of something in Horton. True, Horton does not specifically bring up the Creator-Creature distinction here, but he also does nothing to suggest he rejects it.

3. Analogical Mode
This was a weird section to read. It seems to me that this is one of the places where Horton is coming down on the side of VanTil against Clark, without ever directly speaking to it. Horton claims our knowledge is more dissimilar than similar to God's knowledge and it is not univocal, but rather analogical. If my understanding of the Clark-VanTil Controversy is right, this is one of the disputed topics. Horton fails to define analogical which is enough to lose me. I need a good definition, and not one that is simply a negative, but one that contains positive light. Frame one would think would be in agreement here with Horton, but not so much. Frame argues for some sort of similarity in knowledge. Saying "God is good" is affirming something real, something we can know. Not just in how God is different, but in something about God himself. Not perfectly or absolutely, but it is still knowing God. Horton seems to agree with Clark's "certain degree of falseness" in our knowledge and speech about God. I think Frame may actually be right here.

4. Dramatic Model
Horton here wants a "history-centered" method as opposed to "text-centered" one. Frame spends a lot of time nit picking at such things as how unfocused words like "centered" are, but in reality he has no major objections. Frame does eventually admit this. He could have trimmed about 5 pages off the book, if he had just said that up front.

5. Covenant Context
Horton here moves on into the Covenant as an important methodological understanding. We are in covenant with God. He speaks and acts in covenant. Thus, the covenant becomes a very important thing for us to understand. Frame points out that Horton follows Klein on covenants. And this again is a major area of disagreement between Frame and the Escondido group. Frame believes that we are saved by grace in all the covenants, and that in all the covenants there are rewards that we merit. He points to Matthew 5:46, 6:4, and 10:40-42. And as I have pointed out earlier Horton has no problem with Shepherd. So, on this point, I tend to agree with Horton. I am not sure how Frame would line up his view with the Heidelberg Catechism's answer that even our best works in this life are tainted and stained with sin, but it would be interesting to know.

The rest of Frame's chapter covers quickly Horton's book. It boils down to two main problems. Frame continually hammers the lack of emphasis on the Creator-Creature distinction, which again I cannot find denied anywhere. Frame just thinks it ought to appear. And then the aforementioned analogical debate. Frame does I think hold to an analogical knowledge, but one with a univocal core (pg.234). This way we are able to actually affirm truths about God. Although Frame does work in a shot at the Law/Gospel distinction of Horton in the last page or two.

Ovearall the amount of time Frame spends on this is striking. I believe that a lot of Frame's objections stem from methodological differences. The disagreements about the Covenant Context appear to have a major impact on this debate. The analogical problem leaving a "degree of falsehood" in all we say and understand about God is a bit troubling. So, I think Frame has pointed out an epistemological problem, but the Covenant dispute seems more important in this Two Kingdom debate. VanDrunen states a couple of times in his book that a consistent view of Justification by Faith will lead one to a Two Kingdom understanding, and while Frame would obviously reject that point, Frame does bring this doctrine back to the forefront of the debate with his critique of the Covenant Context. An interesting chapter to say the least.

Escondido Theology Chapter 5

Chapter 5 I am just going to briefly touch because I will admit I have never read Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. This is easily the most scholarly chapter as Frame shows a great deal of respect for Kline. Frame also views Kline as the fountain head of the Escondido Theology.

Interestingly despite a great deal of respect for Kline, Frame believes the Absolutizing (rejecting other views as Reformed) even comes from Kline. He explains that Kline's reaction to the Shepherd Controversy and opposing the Theonomy of Greg Banshen. This is the beginning of the problem for Frame. Kline goes to Escondido, and the faculty ends up preferring Kline's view of things to Frame and the acceptance of divergent views that was characteristic of Philadelphia.

One can see the influence of Kline in Escondido. The acceptance of Framework hypothesis for example. Frame argues that the Two Kingdoms owes a lot to Kline, and maybe so, but even Frame admits it was around with Luther, so Kline is hardly a lynch pin in that equation. Kline held to a post-fall split between Cult and Culture (cult being worship). Culture was a common activity for both the believer and the unbeliever, cult was only for the follower of Christ. This is how Kline ties into the Two Kingdoms, and Frame rejects it claiming "We can find no passage (or biblical principle) that suggests that our cultural labors are anything other than an offering, a living sacrifice, to the glory of God." (pg.171).

Frame rejects Kline's reading of Genesis 9. Kline does not believe Genesis 9 reinstates the Cultural Mandate. Frame, of course, disagrees. Frame's argument really has two prongs. One is that he believes it is simply the natural reading to see Genesis 9 linked to Genesis 1. The main part of the argument (at least here) is that holiness is a matter of degrees. This is a concept I had not really thought of before. Frame uses the illustration of the temple. There was the Most Holy Place where the Ark was kept. And in relation to that everything else is profane. However, the room next to it was known as the Holy Place, and there the was altar of incense and the showbread. And of course the temple itself was seen as a holy place as a whole. He points out that holy ground occurs where God makes an appearance like the burning bush. Thus, for Frame holiness is a matter of degree. This goes against Kline who sees a strict difference between sacred and profane, cult and culture. Frame uses it to claim that everything must be done for God's glory, and everything is in some sense then a holy activity. This really seems to be the underlying point of much of Frame's chapter. The sharp distinction is rejected in favor of degrees of holiness and spirituality.

Again, this chapter is probably better if you had read Kline's work, but I am not planning on doing that so you have to just bear with me. This chapter makes the most effort to interact in a scholarly way. And it is done with a pleasant tone with the obvious exception of the Appendix. This could be seen as a funny joke, but considering the rest of the book, it comes off more as mocking. It is a chart to help you come up with your own Klinian Terms. Just mash any two terms together and viola! Apparently Kline must have been big on this. It adds nothing, and I would have thought a decent editor would have taken this out.

For me (remembering my limitations) the chapter hinges on the discussion about holiness as degrees. And while I am ready to concede that Judaism has degrees of holiness, I am not sure that it is right. The temple may indeed have a Most Holy Place and the Holy Place, but the temple itself is a type pointing to Christ. The question becomes whether or not there is any holiness outside of Christ? And then whether or not that means our service in daily jobs is a degree of holiness simply because the temple had holy places? Frame pushes the idea often of a strict and broad definition of worship with the broad definition being basically equal to service. That way by definition all of life can be said to be worship. This sort of requires a view of degrees of holiness because that statement is only true if we take the broad definition of worship. It also requires a rejection of 2K and Kline's theology because with the broad definition of worship there can be no separation of anything in worship. But if we just agreed to use a different term for the broad worship category (like maybe service), would this rejection still be so mandatory? I feel a little like his terms lead him into certain conclusions.
And just as importantly if the Heidelberg Catechism says even my best works are stained with sin in this life, can they rightly be considered sort of holy? Would we not be able to look at one another say, "I am more holy than you"? Because holiness is a matter of degree and thus the statement is completely possible.

I will say this that Frame has given me something to think about in this chapter. And again, if you have read Kingdom Prologue you will probably benefit more from the discussion.

Escondido Theology Chapter 4

This chapter Frame examines David VanDrunen's A Biblical Defense of Natural Law. This chapter does not quite contain as many clearly choppy responses, and I think it reflects the fact that Frame does not quite have the problem with VanDrunen he has with some of the others. In fact, Frame admits up front that he agrees with VanDrunen's view that Natural Law exists. He also seems to agree with the traditional interpretation of Romans 2, and thus agrees with VanDrunen on that point as well. Frame has some quibbles about VanDrunen's discussion of the image of God in Adam, but nothing really major. Primarily the disagreement lies in the application of Natural Law, namely in the Two Kingdoms and how Scripture fits into Natural Law.

VanDrunen seems to argue that Natural Law is governing of the civil or secular kingdom, and the Special Revelation is the governing of the spiritual kingdom or the church in particular. At least that is how Frame sees it and Frame disagrees with this point. I am not quite sure that is a fair representation of VanDrunen, but it is the representation he gets in the book. In the end, Frame just does not see a biblical distinction of Two Kingdoms. Dividing the religious and the civil (or secular) is rejected by Frame. He argues that even political matters have spiritual aspects. He gives an example of a political ruler who is evil and tyrannical. That ruler idolizes the state and is out for his own gain and pride. Thus, he is committing spiritual sins. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom are listed and their false worship a reason for their evil. Thus, Frame believes that there are not two realms, but rather only one. Although I think it is debatable whether VanDrunen is speaking of realms or rather rule. VanDrunen never denies that unbelievers are guilty for rejecting Christ and asserting themselves. In my understanding VanDrunen argues rather for things that are common or simply human, which includes then a natural law from the image of God, and by the way from God, and then another set that is distinctively Christian. And in world that includes both believers and unbelievers the distinctively Christian cannot be imposed on activities that are simply human. One can expect your plumber to live by Natural Law, but not fix your sink to the glory of God. I am over simplifying but that seems to me to be part of the argument.

Frame runs into problems on page 135 in my opinion. He states, "It either comes from the wisdom of God or the wisdom of the world, and these are antagonistic to one another (I Cor. 1:20-21)." This is the sharp distinction that Transformationalists posit in their rejection of Two Kingdoms. The wisdom of the world is wrong and must be replaced by the wisdom of God. But Frame on the same page backtracks when he examines the line of Cain. "That is not to say that everything in Cainite culture was bad. . . . Music and Metalworking are certainly good activities. But these activities should have been done to the glory of God, within the family of God." Here is part of the problem I think Two Kingdoms avoids. If it is of the wisdom of the world it is bad. Cain's line includes many things that then should be rejected as bad. Metalwork and music among them. In VanDrunen's model metalwork and music are simply human activities and so can be learned even from unbelievers.

Frame briefly touches on the main exegetical debate, in my opinion, the covenant with Noah. VanDrunen argues here is a covenant with all mankind. Noah's covenant is not religious or for the church only such as the covenant with Abraham. Rather this one includes a sign common to all man (the rainbow), blessings for all mankind (no more flood), and rules for social behavior and justice (capital punishment for murder). Frame counters that the only family alive was Noah's and thus it is not with humans in general, but with the church. He points out the sacrifice made by Noah and how that was a specifically religious act. And while the blessings are for the world in general, Frame argues this is true with all the covenants of the Bible. Thus, it is of the same nature as Abraham's covenant. Although Frame does not account for the presence of at least one clear unbeliever in Ham. One's understanding of Genesis 9 seems rather foundational for the difference between the Transformationalist and the Two Kingdom-ist (if I can make up a word).

Frame's problem is not with Natural Law, but with two kingdoms. Frame admits a distinction between Church and State, but not one between Christ and Culture (pg.146). Frame does point out that VanDrunen should have dealt more with the suppression of truth in unrighteousness of Romans 1, which is a fair point. VanDrunen did mention it, but never really goes into detail. In light of Frame's main objection being to the Two Kingdoms it would have been more helpful if Frame and critiqued Living in God's Two Kingdoms rather than the defense of Natural Law. But the publication date of both books made that impossible. Still this chapter made the debate appear to be one of application of an agreed upon Biblical principle of Natural Law. Hardly the cause of such division as we see across the Reformed world today.

Escondido Theology Chapter 3

Frame moves on to R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Again the tone is quite upset, and one can easily see the complaint about the Absolutizing nature of Escondido theology rather easily in this book. In fact, it is a much more effective criticism here than with Horton who walked back the title of the book in the first few pages. Clark's book revolves around the Quest of Illegitimate Certainty or Experience, and there is no walking it back or toning it down.

Interestingly, Frame often makes the claim that the Escondido Theology is done by historians rather than theologians. This critique seems unfair, but again with Clark's book, it might actually be true.

Clark attempts to hold forth the Confessions as the only legitimate ground for the church. Where they are silent, so too should we be silent, and where they speak, we must speak. Sounds good in theory. However, I agree with Frame that Clark fails at his own system and really falls down into a subjectivism and then makes it the absolute model for being "reformed". For example, Clark believes it is illegitimate for churches to require a certain belief on the days of creation despite the fact that the Westminster does say "in the space of six days". But Clark then goes on to state that churches ought to have two services every Sunday despite it never showing up in any confession, and they ought to sing only the words of Scripture despite that never showing up in a Confession. Clark does try to argue that it is a legitimate inference from the Regulative Principle of Worship, which does show up in Confessions, but then could we not also argue Six Day Creation is a legitimate inference from every confessions' discussion about creation and then also the 4th commandment? Of course we could. Frame does not use these exact examples, but does point out the inconsistent application of Clark's own view. It ends up being nothing more than the absolutizing of Clark's subjective take on things. Frame tends to focus in on things like Clark's rejection of Transformationalism, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Confessions, neither is the Two Kingdoms view (which Clark never directly argues for, but Frame believes is assumed in the book). Rather than viewing this as a place of liberty and any attempt to demand one over another as a Quest for Illegitimate Certainty, Clark views Transformationalism as part of the problem in the reformed churches today.

Frame spends most of the time defending himself, as Clark does quote Frame occasionally and basically labels him as unreformed. Most of it revolves around Epistemology, and the discussion in this section is interesting. I do think Frame has placed his finger on a troubling aspect of Clark's thought. Clark believes that there is a "degree of falsehood in human speech about God" (pg. 130 in Clark's Confessions and pg. 98 in Frame's Escondido). Here I side more with frame, that while human speech can never full exhaust God nor explain it in the way God knows things, I do not think that implies "a degree of falsehood". We can truly know, I believe. And if there is always falsehood in our speech about God such as "God created the heavens and the earth" then we cannot truly know what is true and what is false. I may not know exactly how God accomplished it or fully understand the power behind such a magnificent act, I do not think that makes the statement even slightly false.

I don't always agree with Frame in his critique. Clark I believe is right in the beauty and joy of strict Confessional subscription. Frame here worries that it limits too much, but I disagree and side more with Clark. Why Clark would then go on and advocate a new Confession to be written is beyond me. If the old Confessions are not wrong, and it is so wonderful to adhere to, I see no need for a new one. Still, Frame here tends to lump strict subscription into the dangerous Absolutizing tendency of Escondido theology, but I don't think they are the same thing.

In the overall scheme of things, Clark's book does not address a large portion of the Escondido Theology. It revolves around the main point of Absolutizing a certain tradition, mainly the 16th and 17th century (and only portions of that!). Discussing anything outside of that tradition is not Reformed or illegitimate. This makes people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones unreformed. Clark's book is narrow in its focus, but I think Frame does a descent job in criticizing it.

An Excursus on the Bayly Bros

I am still composing the next chapter review. Frame is getting into serious reviewing now, so it take a little longer. But, I read something on a blog that was sort of related and kind of upsetting at the same time. So might as well blog about it.

The Bayly Bros blog is a Transformationalist blog. They have a post comparing Ron Paul and R2K Theology in a rather disparaging way. It is this sort of thing that is rather hard to understand. Why the venom? Why the vitriol? And where is the proof?

The point of their post is that R2K people are sissy-boys just like Ron Paul. Ron Paul won't condemn homosexual marriage with federal legislation, so according to the Bayly Bros he is running from a fight. Same thing about abortion. I can understand that these are issues that the Bayly Bros want to fight about. And they want that fight on a federal nation wide level. Fine. I can respect that. But does that mean Paul and his libertarian friends (describe by them as silly girls) really not want any fights? Or does it simply mean that Paul is fighting his fight, a fight to make the federal government less important. It is simply just not the same fight the Bayly's want to have. I am sure Paul feels just as strongly about his fight. It is matter of what is important. And the groups disagree, but I think that hardly makes one a fighter and one a sissy. Is Ron Paul probably unrealistic about the government today? Absolutely. Is he fighting a fight he will not win? Yes. Is he wrong? That is a separate issue. After all the success rate on Gay Marriage and Abortion is much better on the state level. Maybe if the Bayly's really wanted to win they would aid Paul, and then they would win some battles. Maybe.

The blog almost makes the R2K point for them. Here is the Transformationalists Bayly Bros calling everyone else names. If you don't fall into lock step with them, then you are a coward who doesn't want to stand up for Jesus by fighting abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that Jesus would much rather support the Marriage amendment to the Constitution than argue governments should not have anything to do with marriages at all. The Bayly Bros at least give the impression that Christianity is defined by a political position. Manly Christianity is not possible without politics. Just preaching from the pulpit not enough anymore. The ballot box as a means of grace. The Kingdom of God advanced through Christians in the White House, except that the Bayly Bros just called the only remaining Christian, confessionally speaking, a sissy and not deserving of their votes. Details, details.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Baylys will call R2K men feminized Christianity and then give a hat tip to Doug Wilson. Really? Those guys writing about justification by faith are bad, but the guy teaching justification by works is a good guy. Come on!

I may end up agreeing with Transformationalism, but I can promise you it won't look like the Bayly's view of Transformationalism.