# The Amazing JBJ: Godfather of the FV



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

Some interesting analysis/comment on James Jordan and the Federal Vision was posted on the Warfield list. It got hate mail, so it must count for something.
The analysis is below, and can be found here and here on the Warfield list.

*The comment/question was made:**A Most Illuminating Comment*
Hey Guys:

Am I right in observing the significance of Jim Jordan's "god-father" role in the FV (JJV) is somewhat of an "aha"?

At least, in all the discussions and interaction to date, the debate at De Regno Christi is the first time I've seen him take a lead role, and one to which all the other "leaders" of the FV willingly submit themselves. 

Have I just not been paying attention?

Regardless, his critical involvement does seem to explain some things better than the Shepherd-Wright proximate source of the FV.

reed
​*Getting the following answer.*Re: [bbwarfield] A Most Illuminating Comment 

Reed,


You make an excellent observation here. In many respects, the Pope is to Rome what JJ is to the FV.


Jordan has a Reformed pedigree of sorts, in that he took two degrees from Westminster Philadelphia in the 70's. I think that explains something of his defense of Norman Shepherd. It might well explain the antagonism you sense against the Reformed world -- he's always been something of an 'outsider' to the Westminster community, dating back to his days as a student. I've actually talked to a couple of older ministers who knew him at Westminster, and they said the current trajectory of Jordan is not at all surprising from what they remember of him. It sounds like (from the people that knew him way back in the day) he was known to be something of a 'renegade thinker' from the very beginning.


Thus, it's not surprising he ended up in Tyler, Texas from 1980 'til 1990 with Gary North. And if you recall, Tyler was a significant outpost during the real zenith period for 'christian reconstructionism.' They "liked" Westmisnter for one reason, and one reason alone -- Van Til. Once Van Til was gone, they really had *no* place at the Reformed table.


After 1990, you get more of a 'post-theonomic' rhetoric from Jordan, as if to distance himself from being known as a theonomic idealog. [No one seems to want to be known as a 'theonomist' these days!!!] As the 'North Project' was going sour, Jordan started to change gears, move his Biblical Horizons 'ministry' out of Texas to Florida, and (gradually?) turn his focus away from 'civil law' and focus more on 'liturgics'!


All of this historical background explains why you haven't been paying attention!  Unless you were really following Gary North's thenomic agenda in Tyler, Jordan's involvement with him, and then it's eventual meltdown, you might not have even realized he existed, let alone what he was teaching. That's why I frankly find it humorous when speaks about his desire to be 'broadly catholic' -- does his history give you *any* indication of a kind of broad catholicism? Has 'theonomy' ever been known for it's broad catholicism? Does his rhetoric at De Regno Christi strike you as someone who is 'broadly catholic'? These guys have always existed in tiny circles, almost purposely in opposition to the broader Reformed world.


You don't have to read very many 'Biblical Horizon' newsletters to realize that JJ's agenda is not so much 'broad catholicism' but 'anti-Reformed establishment'! It's been that way for him from the beginning, the legacy of theonomic thought, post-theonomic thought....or whatever Jordan now goes by.


The reason why he's 'resurfaced' recently is due to the fact that the North-implosion sent a number of guys back to the broader Presbyterian church. Jordan may have left for 'greener pastures' in the Anglican tent, but he still had (and has!) his dedicated followers in the PCA. Go back and look at some of the names writing for Jordan in the circa-90's 'Biblical Horizons' issues....and, shocker of all shocker(!!!), you'll see many of the names now associated with the Federal Vision.


I think back to something Peter Leithart wrote a few months ago:
"On the one hand, the FV might be a passing fad that vanishes within a generation. It starts on the margins, and it remains on the margins forever. On the other hand, its challenge may dislodge the center of the Reformed world and create a new center. It's happened before that today's margins become tomorrow's mainstream."


Note that language well -- "starts on the margins" and "dislodge the center of the Reformed world." That's the theonomic/post-theonomic/Jim Jordan legacy that we're dealing with today -- (a) on the margins; and (b) us vs. the Reformed world. The Federal Vision is simply the current and most-recent version of that mentality.


What the Knox Colloquium did was take what had largely been "on the margins" (i.e. Jordan and his followers) and bring it into the purview of the mainstream. And that's why we've been dealing with it ever since.


Hope that helps!


Peace,
Matt Morgan
Berkeley OPC
Berit Olam

​*Which received the following reply.

*Crossing the Jordan 


----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Morgan
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [bbwarfield] A Most Illuminating Comment


>>Jordan has a Reformed pedigree of sorts, in that he took two degrees from
>>Westminster Philadelphia in the 70's. I think that explains something of
>>his defense of Norman Shepherd. It might well explain the antagonism you
>>sense against the Reformed world -- he's always been something of an
>>'outsider' to the Westminster community, dating back to his days as a
>>student. I've actually talked to a couple of older ministers who knew him
>>at Westminster, and they said the current trajectory of Jordan is not at
>>all surprising from what they remember of him. It sounds like (from the
>>people that knew him way back in the day) he was known to be something of
>>a 'renegade thinker' from the very beginning.<<

Matt, I thought your post here an excellent analysis, and I"d like
permission to post it at my blogsite, if you don't mind.

Jordan was before me at WTS by a good decade or so, but I met him when a
professor (now retired), invited him to guest lecture on theonomy. I was
especially interested because I was working on Rutherford towards
demonstrating that the Reconstructionists' use of him and other Scotts and
Puritans to provide a pedigree for their movement was mistaken. This was
shortly after he had publically declared his break with theonomy, something
probably only the professor knew (I think he deliberately wanted to surprise
us). As a recent "insider," he gave several very interesting critiques of
the movement. He also read and critiqued the the first draft of my paper
for that course, which not surprisingly was about theonomy. He offered
several valuable critiques, and I was quite impressed. I joined his
listserve, the precourser for his current Biblical Horizons stuff. Peter
Lightheart, Brian Abshire, and a number of other "post-theonomic" leading
lights were on it.

What happened was that I found myself at theological odds with Jordan (and
some others, but mostly Jordan) far more often than not. He reminded me of
Kline, in that he would make intriguing and provocative statements, and then
fail utterly to support them exegetically or historically. Kline in his
better writings would make real effort to support his arguments, sometimes
succeeding better than at others, but getting it out of Jordan was like
pulling teeth from from an old lion. Not only doesn't it have many teeth,
but it was hard work! I remember one exchange where he confidently, as
though the entire world should agree with the obvious, declaimed that the
language of heaven (and Adam/Eve) was Hebrew. He had constructed a kind of
valid argument that worked only if one completely ignored reality, such as
the fact that not only is there not only no evidence for the hypothesis, but
plenty of linguistic evidence to the contrary. Finally I unsubbed from the
list, but got post mailings of "Biblical Horizon's" for a while. That rag
got stranger and stranger, and after we moved it failed to find us, and I
was quite glad.

The other thing that bothered me was what I can only describe as theological
hubris. More than once he implied, and occasionally directly stated, that
no on who hadn't studied as much as he had would get it, and so they had
better just humbly listen. If somebody had so studied, it didn't phase him
at all -- he simply pointed out that it took many years of study and
meditation to arrive at his conclusions, and his opponent simply hadn't
studied to the same depth. "Do that," he would argue, "and you'll make the
same connections as I" [not an actual quote, but a paraphrase of what I
remember].

Well, I don't want too get personal or gossipy, but I have reported nothing
that hasn't been publically displayed over the years. But I share my
experience with him to demonstrate why I am not suprised at the direction he
has gone.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Professor, WRTS
http://www.wittenberg.reformed.org
Classics Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net​


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 28, 2007)

Godfather or Clown Prince?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 28, 2007)

> I think back to something Peter Leithart wrote a few months ago:
> "On the one hand, the FV might be a passing fad that vanishes within a generation. It starts on the margins, and it remains on the margins forever. On the other hand, its challenge may dislodge the center of the Reformed world and create a new center. It's happened before that today's margins become tomorrow's mainstream."



Sounds like Hegel: thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis (and around and around she goes!). 

Very insightful analysis. I hope more people read this and see from where the FV movement is coming. It has it's own presuppositions, many of which are flawed and unbiblical. 

On another note Matt was my roommate at WSCAL. Not too significant to the discussion at hand but an interesting tidbit nevertheless.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

*The FV's Yoko Ono?*

This in from the Federal Schism blog, commenting on the De Regno Christi FV discussion:


> I note this because it tells me that, in addition to being downright nasty to some of the participants in this so-called “conversation,” James Jordan appears somewhat bent and quite a bit unstable, which leads me to observe that we should not apply “Godfather” status to him. Rather, I suggest that we think of him as Federal Vision’s Yoko Ono — you know, the twisted sister who threw a fly in the Beatles’ ointment and ultimately forced them to breakup. I suggest this because just as John Lennon attributed his (late) creativity to Yoko Ono despite her tin ear, shrill vocals, and hostile demeanor, so the Federal Visionists appear happy to own James Jordan as their creative genius despite his mean-spirited and utterly vacuous comments.
> 
> However, unlike the Beatles who chose to dissolve rather than let Yoko call the shots, I suspect that the Federal Visionists will refuse to throw Jordan overboard, which will result in their continued marginalization because the man appears resolved to discredit the “movement” he godfathered with his incredibly stupid comments. It’s just my hunch; I could be wrong. But if I’m not, then as Paul McCartney said, “Let It Be.”


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 28, 2007)

Like I said on another thread, if it weren't for the internet no one would pay any attention to him.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Sep 28, 2007)

Law, Gospel, and Justification | De Regno Christi

*James Jordan
September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm*
I’m justified because Jesus died for me.

*W.H. Chellis
September 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm*
James… according to FV doctrine, you cannot know that. You might commit apostasy and be seperated from Christ.

*James Jordan
September 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pm*
Yes, I know it totally and fully. It’s true as long as I’m in union with Jesus. If I sin and apostatize, then it’s no longer true for me. The NT says this about 25 places, so it must be true. Salvation is in Jesus Christ.

What you are asking me to know is the future, which is impossible. To know the future is to operate by sight, not faith. I trust Jesus, my Savior, Lord, Brother, Husband, and Friend. That’s faith.

*W.H. Chellis
September 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm*
Since you cannot know the future, by your own standards, you cannot know that Christ died for YOU. You can only have a suspicion that He might have since you are presently confessing Him.

I am just going by what you are telling me.

*James Jordan
September 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pm*
Nope. I know that Jesus died for ME.

I don’t deny mystery here. Perhaps someone else could put it better.

I can say that Jesus died “for” everyone alive in the world at present, for He is the Hilasterion, the Ark-Cover, which is the Firmament between heaven and earth. He is the New Sky. God sees all the world through Him and His blood/death. I can freely say to any person, “God loves you and Jesus died for you.” That’s 100% true. It’s clearly taught in Lev. 16, for anyone acquainted with the Levitical imagery (which I freely admit takes some time to learn; at least it’s taken me many years!). And it’s in Romans 3. Of course, if a person dies without faith, then he moves out from this world, out from under the New Sky, and is lost. But as long as he’s here, he benefits from Jesus’ death, which took place up in the air between heaven and earth and put blood on the four corners of the earth, covering it.

I trust that, so Jesus died for ME.

“You” (the Chellis who asks, not necessarily the Chellis who exists) want to know if Jesus died in the (very true) “particular redemption” sense for me as an elect person. But that’s known only to God. To seek to know that is, I submit, to seek to operate by sight. I must operate by faith.

I believe that the framers of our confessions knew this. They knew that in their decretal theology they were operating apophatically, doing negative theology, preserving the Godness of God against the Arminians. All 100% necessary, and a great advance in our corporate Churchly understanding. But they also knew that no “verses” in the Bible expressly deal with this matter (except, I would say, Gen. 1:1). It is a matter of arguing by eminence, analogy, and negation. When God says in Ephesians 1 that He has sovranly elected people from the foundation of the world to be baptized into His church, this by way of eminence also means that He has elected people to be found at the end.

They did NOT want to submit prooftexts. But what has happened is that the WCF has wrongly been made into an hermeneutical guide for reading the Bible. Passages footnoted (at the demand of Parliament) as EVIDENCE for a given teaching have been taken as MEANING that doctrine. But Eph. 1 is not about election for eternity, but about election into the historical community. Similarly, the doctrine of particular redemption arises from (by way of eminence and analogy) from many things in the Bible, but it is not a “comfort” teaching since I cannot know it. I can only know “that” it is true. What I “know,” as the Vrijgemaacht realized so well, is the promises of God.

And believe me, “FV” is pretty much “Liberated” all the way; well, most of the way.
______

_Jesus "is the New Sky"?

“'You' (the Chellis who asks, not necessarily the Chellis who exists)"?

"When God says in Ephesians 1 that He has sovranly elected people from the foundation of the world to be baptized into His church, this by way of eminence also means that He has elected people to be found at the end."?

"sovranly"?

"Eph. 1 is not about election for eternity"?_
HUH?

THIS is the godfather of the Federal Vision?

Are you kidding me??


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2007)

Well; the CLOWN prince was suggested. Seriously, this event may have been more useful than many thought; just not in the way 'some' may have hoped.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 28, 2007)

Jesus is the "New Sky"?

Jimmy gone bye-bye.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Jesus is the "New Sky"?
> 
> Jimmy gone bye-bye.



To be fair, he is speaking the language of biblical theology, which notes the creation account employs the language later assocated with the tabernacle and its services. Hence creation is presented in terms of the sanctuary of God, and the firmament is the "beaten out" thing of similar import with the brazen altar. To his detriment, Mr. Jordan applies this sanctuary language to every man in the world, whereas a true biblical theology requires particularism, so that the new creation/tabernacle are those in whom the Spirit of God dwells. So he has the right idea, but the wrong focus. He shows quite clearly he has deserted the particularism of reformed theology.


----------



## Gryphonette (Sep 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus is the "New Sky"?
> ...



To be truthful, it still strikes me as a stretch, to get from the creation account and a later description of the tabernacle to the assertion that Christ is the "New Sky."

Sounds like the sort of thing the Re-Imagining, "Sophia" people would latch onto with enthusiasm, deeming it preferable to the "sacrificial Lamb" language that Scripture uses so often.

And clearly he's no adherent to the doctrine of the limited atonement. Not that a belief in it is necessary for salvation, but it's a pretty hard-core Reformed doctrine.

So far he's thrown individual, permanent regeneration and limited atonement under the bus.

Not going to be a whole lot of "Reformed" left, the way he's going.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 6, 2007)

I have had a hard time with the Federal Visionists statements regarding catholicity. Arguably the most divisive group among the Reformed today and one of their contentions is we need to be more catholic.

Sounds like someone arguing for PETA while frying up a steak.

I posted this quote from James Jordan in a different thread but I think it is especially relevant here.

James Jordan wrote this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...

"The Calvinistic churches are little more than extensions of the academy. The black robe is the robe of the scholar, not the angelic white robe of a worship leader. The heart of the meeting is the long lecture-sermon. Candles? No! Colored paraments on table and pulpit? No! Flowers? Maybe. The darkets part of the room is the center where the dark wood table and the dark wood massive pulpit and the black-robed preacher are. *It is like looking into hell itself.*"

How very 'catholic' of him.


----------

