A Response to Bryan Chapell
by Rich Lusk
Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church
Birmingham, AL

This paper is a reply to Dr. Bryan Chapell’s response to an ongoing controversy in Reformed circles. I have taken up this task only with great reluctance because I do not wish to even give the appearance of crossing swords with great and godly leaders in the Reformed community. I have every reason to consider Dr. Chapell my superior, a true father in the faith. But I also feel a compulsion to undertake this task because of the stature of Dr. Chapell and the fact that his paper is sure to be very influential in how these matters are handled in the PCA and in the Reformed world at large. Thankfully, Dr. Chapell has provided a voice of calm and deliberative reason amidst the cacophony. His “let’s talk it over” approach is welcomed, and this is my attempt to take him up on his offer. Of course, I extend the same offer back to Dr. Chapell and to all others who would like to engage in continued discussion over these issues.

I admire the way Chapell has taken a gracious, winsome, informed, and de-politicized look the theological controversy in our midst. No doubt Chapell is pulled in many different directions, given his position and influence. He has my respect and sympathy. I can only imagine how difficult his situation is when dealing with denominational controversy. But Chapell’s work reveals true “grace under fire,” for he refuses to cave into either “side,” simply telling this or that group what they’d like to hear. He also refuses to give way to acrimonious rhetoric, instead seeking to speak thoughtfully and charitably to everyone involved. Lord willing, his helpful paper will create an environment in which fruitful, trusting discussion can take place amongst Reformed brethren. My reply to Chapell is a humble effort to carry on that discussion and keep the conversation going.

The controversy is sometimes referred to as the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP) or the “Federal Vision” (FV) or “The Auburn Avenue Theology” (AAT). I’ll give my own assessment of how it should be regarded below. For the sake of the reader, I have pasted in the full text of Chapell’s paper. In the web version, quotations of Chapell are in text boxes; my comments are the main text. I have tried to limit my responses to those areas that are most important to the discussion, or where I think Chapell’s work needs most correction. Hopefully, this piece will contribute to better understanding and more fruitful conversation in the future.

The controversy in Reformed circles has been rather ugly at times . . . well, ok, it’s actually been ugly most of the time, unfortunately. In that regard, Chapell’s attempt to speak with clarity, charity, humility, and integrity is greatly appreciated by many. His style and tone are commendable. Again, I have nothing but the highest respect for Dr. Chapell, the institution and denomination he represents, and his Covenant Theological Seminary colleagues. While I will take issue with some aspects of his paper below, I hope to do so in a spirit of brotherly love, seeking to be one piece of iron sharpening another. While I will have to register some disagreements with his point of view, I whole-heartedly agree with his conclusion in the last three paragraphs. That agreement should color the way all my other comments are interpreted. In the nature of the case, negative comments will outnumber positive, but I found a great deal in Chapell’s paper to appreciate. Please keep that fact in mind.

Occasionally, I’ll speak in the plural, of what “we” believe. This isn’t quite fair to others who have been lumped in with me. In reality, I’m only speaking for myself, though I hope others who have been associated with the theological views Chapell seeks to analyze will see their own concerns reflected in my reply.

This leads to a further caveat: In this paper I have spoken (by necessity) as though there were two basic “sides” in this controversy. I dislike that language for at least two reasons:

[1] Even when Christians disagree, they should not think in terms of sides or parties. The “us-versus-them” mentality is simply inappropriate (cf. 1 Cor.1:10ff; Phil 2:1ff). We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord striving to embrace and live by God’s truth. For a vast array of reasons, we find things to disagree about. But, especially in the Reformed community, we must never allow those differences to outweigh the glorious and precious things we have in common. If it is truly possible to esteem others better than ourselves while debating their theology, we should find a way to do so.

[2] The “two sides” approach is way too simplistic. Contrary to what some have claimed, the “FV” is not some monolithic movement, nor is there an official checklist of FV beliefs. The FV is an amorphous blob, probably defined more by those who oppose it (and have therefore forced definition onto it) than by proponents themselves. Those lumped into the “FV” group do tend to share a basic set of concerns, but more than that, as friends and brothers, they share in an ongoing conversation together. Thus, it would be virtually impossible to articulate what makes someone “FV,” whether theologically or sociologically with any precision. But the same is true on the other side. Those who oppose the FV, even adamantly, often disagree amongst themselves. There is diversity all over place, making it very, very difficult to sort the issues out in a neat and tidy way. Of necessity, my paper has had to oversimplify reality for the same of communication and convenience. The reader should keep this in mind. The FV and its opponents represent a variety of subcultures within the Reformed world. This is not a binary discussion.

I did not write this response out of frustration but out of a desire to further the peace and purity of Christ’s church. There is no “boiling cauldron” underneath my response, ready to erupt at a moment’s notice. I have generally made it a policy to not respond to critics of my work (or the FV generally) unless the situation necessitated it. I’m much more concerned with setting forth my positive vision for the church. But Dr. Chapell has opened the door to conversation, and as an FV person he singles out in his report, I feel it is not out of line for me to contribute an FV response to Chapell’s assessment of the situation. I am not the most intelligent, persuasive, or articulate defender of FV-type views. But, Lord willing, this response will give interested people a chance to look at the present ordeal through the eyes of a FV proponent. The view might not be what the critics were expecting to see, but I trust it an accurate representation.

My hope is to offer a reply to Chapell that moves us all further down the road towards mutual agreement, or at least mutual understanding. Some matters continue to need clarification and that has been my aim here. I want to share Chapell’s conversational humility with regard to these issues, and thus I invite response and critique of my thoughts offered here. I’m quite sure I have not spoken the last word. But I pray it will be a word on the way to where we need to go. Read more. . .