The next chapter, “Reflections on Auburn Theology,” is by T. David Gordon, and I would like to return a compliment in the same words he uses. My father used to quote this poem when I was a kid, and Gordon applies it to us. I, not surprisingly, think that it is more apropos when swiveled around and pointed the other way. “It is like the girl who had a curl right in the middle of her forehead: When it was good she was very very good, and when she was bad she was horrid” (p. 114). But in the version I learned, it was the little girl, not the curl, who was good or otherwise.
Anyhow, Gordon has more polemical voltage directed at the FV than many of the others, but he contextualizes it in a way that I really appreciated. This is one of the places where he was very good. He attacks the FV through the theologian he considers to be the grandfather of the movement, John Murray. And he has some strong things to say about Murray, about which there will be more shortly. But when it comes to “actions that must be performed,” Gordon is positively judicious.
“Rather, I would like to indicate that I think his view ought to be given due and serious consideration because of Murray’s stature within the Reformed tradition, and because of his otherwise orthodox views on most matters . . . I think we should discuss his views for a few generations” (pp. 120-121).
“I also think we should always be open-minded about our tradition, and when an individual of Murray’s ability and stature suggests a recasting of our tradition, we should consider that challenge seriously for at least a generation or two” (p. 121).
And then, a few pages later, talking about the FV, he says this, and I think it is probably the most significant contribution coming from this book.
“Again, I do not wish us to remove advocates of Murray’s view from Reformed church courts; in this I deliberately distinguish myself from those who views are identical to mine, but who feel the Murrayans must go. But I do wish us to be candid about his own candid disagreement with the historic covenant theology, and I wish us to stop regarding Professor Murray’s recasting of covenant theology as we do the drunk uncle, as something we cannot discuss openly. And further, I’d like to retain the right, after a generation or two of discussion, to remove Murrayism if we discover that his views are genuinely fatal to consistent federalism” (p. 123).
We need a lot more of this demeanor. I believe that Gordon gets some things really wrong, but he is not doing it in a lynch mob. And it is because of this that his polemical voltage is appreciated, at least by me. I can answer it, perhaps in kind, but neither of us is getting ready to slap the horse’s rear.
Consistent with this judicious temperament, Gordon objects to the role of the Internet in advancing these discussions at breakneak speed (p. 124, 125). We can take his point without necessarily seeing the history of the dispute the way he does. He says “the Auburn men must accept responsiblity for the controversy that has ensued” (p. 125). This overlooks the little matter of a “may God have mercy on their souls” judicial statement by the RPCUS, unimpeded by any discussion with the men concerned, which was then heaved by John Robbins, via the Internet, into the middle of the Reformed world, in much the same manner that a couple twelve-year-old boys might heave a dead cat over the fence into the middle of a ladies afternoon luncheon. Nevertheless, however he applies it, he is right that abuse of the Internet has played a role in this.
I want to spend a little bit of time on a short list of claims that Gordon makes, and then lay me down and rest a while.
“Generally, those who think they are working within a new paradigm have a tendency to dismiss counterarguments without engaging them or refuting them” (pp. 114-115).
Okay, where do I go to start engaging? I am resolved to do better on this. Maybe we could set up a debate or something.
Gordon says that we insist on using biblical language only (p. 115), and then points out that our widespread use of the phrase the covenant violates this rule. The Bible speaks of covenants in the plural (p. 116). The problem is that we do not object to historic terminolgy, or systematic terminology. We do not insist on using biblical language only. We are fine with theological language. We object, however, to the language of systematics when it disallows the use of biblical language at any time. We are not strict biblicists; we don’t believe that we have to talk in biblical language all the time. But, and here is the rub, can we speak in biblical language some of the time?
Gordon quotes Cal Beisner’s observation of our “anachronism of perceiving the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries as influenced by the Enlightenment” (p. 116). That would be anachronism aplenty, were it true. But there is a stark difference between maintaining, as we do not, that the Enlightenment influenced the writing of the Westminster Confession, and maintaining, as we do, that Cal Beisner’s reading of the Westminster Confession is influenced by the Enlightenment. The former is silly. The latter is self-evident.
“Calvin Beisner has additionally (if pointedly) criticized the Auburn objection to logic or careful definitions” (p. 116).
Right. This is why I am the co-author of a logic textbook? This is why I sit on the board of Logos School, which teaches a year of formal logic to our eighth graders? This is why I am working with the Association of Classical and Christian Schools, which requires all member schools to follow the curriculum of the Trivium — grammar, dialectic (logic), and rhetoric? And, to seal the point, I wish that Cal would carefully define what it means to object to logic.
Gordon believes that Murray jettisoned the wrong things from covenant theology, and one of the innovations that he accused Murray of is the idea that all covenantal relations are gracious (p. 119). This is just breathtaking. The idea that all God’s covenantal relations are fundamentally gracious is, in the Reformed landscape, as old as the Reformed hills.
In an interaction with an unobjectionable comment by Rich Lusk, Gordon says something remarkable. Rich said, “the Mosaic law was simply the Gospel in pre-Christian form” (p. 119). To this Gordon responds by saying it is analagous to saying “early 1944 Hiroshima was simply a Japanese city in pre-nuclear form.” This is funny, but those who live by the analogy die by the analogy. For the bombadier apostle Paul, when he was about to drop the big one, was asked by a comrade, “Do we then destroy the pre-nuclear Japanese city?” replied, “Nay, but we uphold the pre-nuclear Japanese city. Geronimo!”
Just one more. He attacks John Murray’s monocovenantalism with an appeal to Galatians 3 and 4. But please note. In responding to Gordon here, I do not share Murray’s view that there was no covenant with Adam in the garden.
“Paul contrasts the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants and illustrates them at the end with the figure of Sarah and Hagar, saying, ‘These are two covenants'” (p. 120).
They are two covenants all right, but which two? There is the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic, clearly, but what was the form of the covenant from Sinai here? Was it the covenant at Sinai as God actually made it, or was it the covenant of Sinai as construed by those who desired to be under the law (Gal. 4:21). The Judaizers, by their self-righteousness, transformed an historic manifestation of the covenant of grace into a contemporary covenant of works. This is why they were condemned. Elswhere, Gordon tells us his rule of thumb for identifying Auburnites — anyone who speaks generally of “the covenant” (p. 116). The problem is that this would include the Westminster Confession, which plainly identifies the the Sinaitic covenant as a manifestation of the covenant of grace. So, my questions at this point for Gordon would be these: did the Westminster theologians misread Galatians 3 and 4? Do you take an exception to the Westminster Confession when they identify the Sinaitic covenant as an outworking of the covenant of grace?
Be all that as it may, in conclusion, let me say that this chapter was a good one in the context of this controversy. Gordon displayed a real judiciousness, mentioned earlier, and even where he got a bunch of things wrong, he was actually seeking to interact with FV stuff, and was not content with the kind of oblique critiques employed in the other chapters. If we have a couple generations, this kind of interaction could make real headway.