Analyzing Auburn Avenue

Since I've posted reviews of Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough, and a couple of N.T. Wright books recently, I figured that I had better make a recommendation of a book that was clearly not in the vein of Auburn Avenue/New Perspective. Auburn Avenue: A Biblical Analysis by Brian M. Schwertley is a refutation of the errors made by the proponents of Auburn Avenue theology of the Federal Vision.

I wish I could recommend it more highly. While I agree with most (if not all) of the basic points that Schwertley makes, I find the tone of the book to be a little disturbing. You would hope that while defending the Reformed understanding of justification, the most gracious act of God towards sinners, that Schwertley would be able to correct the deviations of his brothers in Christ in a gracious and loving way. No doubt, he would respond with a warning about the danger false teaching in the Church and the need to root out those who spread error (the appendix is entitled Christ's Warning Concerning False Teachers). While I agree that this is true, I am also convinced that this can be done in way that is loving and seeks not only to condemn, but also to restore. I do not believe that Mr. Schwertley has accomplished this. He regularly refers to the proponents of the Federal Vision as heretics (an assessment that I don't disagree with, although I wish the would refrain from using the term until they have been more plainly confronted with their errors by those in authority over them) and about halfway through the book he begins to refer to them as the "Auburn Avenue 'theologians' " (using quotation marks around the term theologians). This was a tactic that I found to be annoying, to say the least.

While I am disappointed with the tone of the book and some passages that seemed to be less than fair in their representations of his opponents positions, there is some excellent content. Schwertley does a good job of laying out a clear, biblical definition of justification and then showing the nuanced but serious deviations from this position made by the Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkens and co. His refutation of their rejection of the distinction of the visible and invisible church is particularly strong, as is his discussion on the issue of assurance. I found the most valuable aspect to be his discussion of the relation of faith and works in James, a point of particular contention in this debate. He lays out the proper way understanding this relation more clearly than I have ever seen it explained before:

James, from the start of his discussion, emphasizes that he is rebuking a claim to faith, a profession of faith but not a real saving faith...If one proceeds on the assumption that James is criticizing true saving faith, then the passage not only blatantly contradicts the teaching of Christ and Paul, but also is self-contradictory, for a faith cannot be genuine and worthless at the same time.

It is clear and insightful passages such as this that make this book worthwhile despite its shortcomings in other areas.