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:
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.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
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.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
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
----- 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