To begin, I suppose one of the truly difficult things in writing this article, is that in one very real sense, the answer as to how my late father "would have felt" about the current controversy should be, "Who cares?" He was a mere man, albeit a bright one, and he did not have any divine intercessions when he was alive, and were he here today he would have none.

Nonetheless, I have received over 250 emails in the last year regarding people's opinion on what my father would feel, should feel, did feel, etc. There is a sense in which I can relate to the people that have wondered about such a thing, because I do know that I hold him in such high regard (not just as a father, but also as a thinker), that whenever I do feel confused on some theological, ethical, philosophical, or political issue I often find myself wondering "WWDD" (i.e. what would dad do?) ... I Especially get tempted to think this way when it comes to matters of division amongst people whom I deeply respect. There is a naive and tender part of me that just wishes to myself, "Dad, come down here and straighten this thing out."

I have gone through such feelings since the middle of 2002 as it pertains to what I called in my title, "the Auburn Ave. Controversy". The RPCUS, a denomination founded and led by Pastor Joe Morecraft, circulated a "public pronouncement" that Pastors Schlissel, Wilkins, Wilson, and Barach were guilty of heresy, and asked that "God would have mercy on their souls". It may be difficult for one to imagine why I would particularly have such a hard time with this, though I am sure I am not even close to being alone. In my particular case, though, I found myself in a bit of a quandary. I have known of Joe Morecraft since I was a small child, and I have become endeared to him as a personal friend for 7 or 8 years now. I think the world of Joe. My father thought the world of Joe. I have met very few men who have the same conviction and skills that he does. He is a very hard-working pastor (that alone, is enough to woo me these days), and his preaching is as powerful and passionate as any I have personally ever heard in my life. Likewise, I hold Brothers Schlissel, Wilkins, and Wilson in basically the exact same light. While I do not know Pastors Wilson and Wilkins personally the way I have known Rev. Morecraft, some of my closest Reformed friends are dear friends of theirs, and I have read anything I can get my hands on that they have written (Commercial Break: If you have not read Steve Wilkins book on Robert E. Lee, it is your Christian duty to do so). With Pastor Schlissel, I do not merely look up to the man theologically, I consider him a mentor in life, one of the very rare men who holds to like theological distinctives, who actively "kingdom builds" every day. His real-life ministries to abused women, to unconverted immigrants, to 9/11 victims, etc. sets Steve apart from most in the Reformed world-he puts to practice the theological precepts he believes in. That has had a powerful effect on me from across the country. Additionally, Steve and my father were dear, dear friends. My late father had a special place in his heart for the Messiah's Congregation, and they for him. Those things are of lasting importance to the memory of my father.

So, when one person whom you deeply respect and love is calling three other people whom you deeply respect and love "heretics," it tends to be quite confusing and upsetting. It did force me to go to the Word. It did force me to analyze for myself what the nature of the problem was. And, yes, to an extent, the constant barrage of people asking me what my dad would think, or [usually] telling me what my dad would think, did put me in a position to question where he would stand as well.

Having just completed the listening of every one of the 2003 Auburn Conference tapes, I felt it on my heart today to share this article with those whom may be interested. For, it is not just my speculation, but my firm conviction that what is happening right now is exactly along the lines of something my dad spent his life and career warning against.

Brother Schlissel in the Auburn 03' presentation begins his message with a simple comment that, in a day and age where Islam stands prepared to do whatever it can to take over Western Culture (and indeed, is beginning to do so), We are sitting around fighting over "Who is more Reformed than the other person." The priorities of those in the Reformed church are skewed, and the brutally self-righteous reply of, "we must guard the church from heresy no matter what you say" is most unhelpful. For one thing, if people did spend as much time fighting against abortion, statism, divorce, and humanism as they have fighting against a certain definition of "baptismal regeneration" and "efficacy", my suspicion is we would have a better world. I certainly realize that this comment is not particularly relevant as it pertains to the subject of whether or not the men are sharing Biblical ideas. However, it is a reflection of where our Reformed world stands on the "cultural relevance" scale. Just as how, in 1990, Westminster Seminary published its first ever critique of something, it did not go after abortion, homosexuality, feminism, dispensationalism, Marxism, Unitarianism, humanism, or any other societal or ecclesiastical woe, but rather chose to attack the issue of Theonomy; so today, I feel very distressed that we must "eat our own", as opposed to finding those truly in the "crossbows" of our antithesis, and bring glory to God in the process.

There is no doubt that I will get replies from my above paragraph that I am "begging the question." "What if they are heretics?" "How can you call justification by faith a trite issue?" "If their doctrine leads some to Rome we must take it seriously!" I fully expect to hear all of these things and more. But here is the problem: they are not heretics, they assert justification by faith in a manner completely in accord with the Word of God and confessional orthodoxy, and their doctrine leads no one to Rome! While a good portion of the theological substance in these issues may seem to be quite difficult to discern, there is nothing in any of what they have written or read that suggests a denial of Biblical orthodoxy. These men have not denied any truths from the Bible, but rather have done a splendid job of teaching a full gamut of Biblical doctrines in a manner needed for today's culture. I believe that at certain times in the course of church history, a re-visiting of important doctrinal truths is a needed and vital thing! My father did not believe that Theonomy was a shockingly new revelation, as much as he believed that the continuity of God's Law was something the church had been drifting away from. As I listen to these tapes from these fine men, what I hear is a strong encouragement for us to refresh our understanding of covenantal responsibility, remember the blessings and seriousness that came with our Baptisms, and remember on a daily basis the need for our faith to be a living one, as the Book of James so clearly teaches. There is no teaching that we may earn salvation. There is no declaration of Roman theology. In Brother Wilkins' talk on Baptism at this year's conference, he reiterated over 75 times how these things are "in Christ," and "from Christ," and "founded on Christ," etc. If a Christian minister who has, for a couple decades, faithfully represented the Word of God repeats over 75 times in 30 minutes the reality that our blessings are "from Christ," I feel a need to believe him at face value for the time being! And therein lies a major part of what I believe my father's role in this would be: the needed reminder to give people the benefit of the doubt when they appear to deserve it. None of these three men have come out and denied any key tenet of the Reformed faith. All of them at least claim to still be in accord with historical Christianity, and confessional standards. There may very well be interpretive differences about God's Word, and as Brother Wilson points out at the most recent conference, about the Confession. But, no one is denying the teachings! I have often had to remind myself the difference between people who have wrong premises, and therefore wrong conclusions, as opposed to people who have right premises, but some times end up with wrong conclusions. For example, while I do not at this time hold to the paedo-communion view, I am well aware that the men who do are absolutely covenantal in their outlook; in fact, some would try to argue more covenantal ... My covenantal outlook and premise does not lead to a paedo-communion view (nor did it my father), but their outlook does lead to that. I consider that [minor] disagreement to be vastly different than one who simply holds no covenantal view whatsoever, and therefore does not draw various covenantal conclusions (i.e. baptism, etc.). These men have a variety of conclusions they have drawn. Nearly all of them seem extremely helpful and Biblically valid. Some, perhaps one would disagree with. But the key factor in discerning the teachings of these men is that their fundamental premises and foundations are most certainly covenantal, Calvinist, Reformed, and Christian. They assert so. Their teachings assert so. History asserts so (as they so diligently explained at the conference).

The clear and obvious dilemma at this point is, "if what I am saying is true, what is all the fuss about?" While reasonable men can often disagree, there are many brilliant and God-fearing theologians who are fit to be tied about this issue, and I want to offer my belief as to why this situation has happened. The whole essence of this article was supposed to be the manner in which I feel my father would have reacted, and this is where I want to draw these things together. I rest my belief on two key areas: (1) While the vocabulary used and the clarity of presentation may not have been perfect, the Godly men who spoke at Auburn Ave. are illustrating from Scripture the necessity of a living faith, and covenantal obedience. 400 to 500 years ago, the needed cry of the hour was much more centered around those who felt a need to "earn" salvation. Today, I doubt many of us feel there are a whole lot of people trying to do that; rather, the emphasis today is on "easy-believism," and a grace that people want to "abound all the more" while they remain in sin. I believe we are talking about a difference in emphases, and not a disagreement over the key tenets. The theological truism of election, and the decreetal nature of God, are not in question in the Auburn men's presentation. What is being offered up is a paradigm shift that better deals with the reality of our Baptism, our covenantal relationship with God, and what the entire Old and New Testament teaches about salvation. It is my belief that this shift in emphases is one my father felt very serious about, preached himself on a regular basis, and advocated in writing and teaching many times. All characterizing of Norm Shepherd's teachings aside, it was my own father who publicly and privately embraced such a Biblical reality. Even apart from his personal comments to me throughout my life about Professor Shepherd being one of his all-time favorite seminary instructors, his own sermons and writings uphold the very same need for an obedient salvation, and a living faith. If some have left the Auburn Avenue conference saying, "those men are really getting carried away with the human response part of the covenant," I feel I can confidently declare that my father would NOT have been one of them. On the contrary, their choice of emphases and their desire for paradigm shift is the crying need of the hour, in today's culture and today's church.

(2) Although Brother Schlissel made this point over and over again, allow me to indulge in what is truly happening in this case (in my humble opinion), and draw together where I feel my father's teaching has best assisted me. My father was quite fond of saying, "never be afraid to go where the Word of God leads you". I am a believer in the doctrines incorporated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Obviously, my father was as well. However, I agree with Brother Schlissel 100% (now, more than ever), that we are clearly at a time in Reformed church history where we are walking dangerously close to placing the traditions of men above and beyond the inspired and infallible Word of God. The language used to describe the bulk of these issues is what 90% of this discussion has been about. The specific vocabulary used is the heart of the fight. Those of us who have been catechized, and raised in Reformed homes, have a tendency to use the language that we are most comfortable with, and most familiar with. However, I learned from my father that the Word of God must be found true, though every man a liar. I learned from my father that when I discuss important issues with friends, colleagues, teachers, and co-workers, it is very important that I always make my ultimate appeal to authority on God's Word alone. The comfort most Presbyterians have with the language of the WCF, and the apparent venom some feel for any other standard, confession, creed, or interpretation has been the source of tremendous heartache, confusion, and disagreement for many, many people in this case. I listened to Brother Wilkins cite example after example after example of various Reformed support for his wording, and his position, as to the Biblical place of Baptism, Regeneration, Efficacy, and the like. As Calvin, Owen, the Heidelberg, and so many others were quoted, one almost felt like the widespread Reformed history on this subject is much MORE to the bend of the Auburn men, as opposed to the contrary. However, the WCF seems to have become for so many a "second Scripture". That was not the case for Dr. Greg Bahnsen. He loved the WCF. He taught a fabulous theology study through the confession (although it was cut short by his untimely death). He swore subscription to its standards in his OPC ordination. BUT, when the "you know what" hit the fan on various issues, my father blew me away with his dedication to sola scriptura. The WCF itself teaches from the very outset of the document its subordination to the Word of God. When men come to present an issue 500 years later, and the church's climate has changed, and the cultural tendencies have changed, it stands to reason that the language and approach they take may differ in context and vocabulary from the authors of the WCF. That no more makes them heretical than it makes Clarence Thomas a liberal for using different vocabulary in his modern interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I have often found it so interesting that, in the course of 25 years of criticisms of Theonomy, far and away the most prevalent critiques I hear from the Reformed detractors deal with WCF 19:4 (albeit wrongly), rather than Matt. 5:17-20. Friends--it ought not to be. If God is to be found true, let us explore the Scripture with our fellow brothers so that we might find fellowship, unity, and agreement. If there are to be disagreements, let us arrive at that point in a friendly manner. But I find it hard to believe that one's strict subscription to the WCF is the point at which we should discern whom our friends are, and who are enemies are. In the final 5 or 6 years before my father's death, he had the rare blessing of ministering to a charismatic group in Chatsworth, California. He trained their elders. He fellowshipped with them. He worshipped with them. And I assure you that he never compromised in his beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit that were different than theirs. These are men who really, explicitly believed anti-confessional teachings. Yet, there were other battles to be fought and other wars to be won for my father. With the Auburn Ave. situation, is it not apparent even more that these men's statements and teachings ought to be discussed in the light of Christian unity?

As I know the many different ways in which one might already be critical of what I have said, I will clarify that I do not believe we ought to have a disrespectful attitude towards our fathers in the faith who framed the WCF. If brothers Schlissel, Wilkins, or Wilson, are guilty of that, I certainly would not condone it. However, for those who have listened to the tapes and read the material, I do not believe that conclusion can be easily drawn. R.C. Sproul Jr. was quite critical of their treatment of the WCF in the 2002 conference. If, indeed, their points on Scripture were made while at the same time slighting the context, value, and spirit of the WCF, I know that any orthodox and humble Christian should not condone that. In this conference, though, it was quite clear to me that these are men of humility and contrition, simply seeking an obedience to God's Word. I would hope that as future dialogue takes place, all these things will be kept in their proper place.

This article was meant to be exactly what it is-simple reflections from my heart and my mind on what seems to have happened, what I am observing in God's church, and what I believe my father taught me in his life and ministry that are of value to me now. This was obviously NOT meant to be a theological treatise or a profound essay. I have no pretensions that there are not serious theological matters here that need to be addressed, further clarified, and continually exegeted. However, I feel that were my father alive, he would want that exegesis, that discussion, that clarification, etc. to take place in a context of love, and grace, and benefit of the doubt. He would want that to take place in a spirit of respect and openness. The detractors of Norm Shepherd appear to have been unwilling to do that for over 20 years. The detractors of Theonomy seem to have almost always been unwilling to do that. (Please know - there are exceptions to everything and I am not intending to make sweeping generalizations). As dear Christian brothers like those in the RPCUS, or even elsewhere throughout the Reformed community, seek to clarify and discuss matters of justification, baptismal regeneration, and covenantal application, with other dear Christian brothers like the Monroe men, I pray that it will take place differently than it has thus far. I do not deny that the Monroe men are endorsing a paradigm shift. As a matter of fact, I embrace it and am certain my father would as well. However, they are orthodox, Christian, Reformed gentlemen. They have valuable teachings to share here. At the end of the day, many may still disagree. At the end of my father's living days, he certainly had theological differences with many of his best friends on a variety of issues. I learned from him how to behave when such disagreements exist. In 1994, he spoke at the 20th anniversary weekend of Rev. Morecraft's church in Georgia, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church. I consider these sermons to be among the best he ever delivered. (I consider Pastor Morecraft's introduction of my father to be one of the most touching I have ever heard). In these messages, and in his careful exposition of Scripture as it pertained to Law and Grace, he also addressed the disgrace that so often takes place in our Reformed community. I consider these sermons to be a magnum opus in his preaching ministry. And what I learned from those messages was not a doctrinal reiteration from the WCF, but rather a sincere plea for those of us who love God and love His Word to love one another, above and beyond the call of duty. We ought not let this disagreement hinder our mandate for cultural evangelism. It most certainly is doing so now.

In the mid-80's, Greg Bahnsen gave a Reformation Day sermon entitled, "Reformed, Still Reforming". I am glad this particular sermon was not taken to be as controversial as the Monroe messages were. Fundamentally, I believe they teach the same thing. We must renew our understanding of the church's place in the covenant, and we must apply those Biblical teachings (include the Biblical teaching that we are saved by grace through faith) to a vigorous Christian life, and a covenantal obedience. If we all agree on that (which we do), perhaps there is not much disagreement as some would say.

(For those not as interested in my personal blather about this subject as much as they are my father's super-smart theology stuff, I strongly encourage you to read chapter two of The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, in which my dear friend, Rev. Randy Booth explores Bahnsen's views on Covenantal Antithesis. I read it two nights ago and it caused me to begin putting together my thoughts for this article).