I would like to start a discussion concerning the movement that has come to be known as the “Federal Vision” (FV). My chief concern in doing this is for the people of my church, New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I want to be able to address this issue biblically, theologically, historically, and in an irenic spirit. With this in mind, we might establish a few ground rules:
1. Despite the temptation to do so, refrain from throwing around the “H” word, heresy. It has become trivialized in our day, when people substitute epithets for demonstration of facts. My favorite definition of heresy (and one that is biblical and historical) is provided by Dr. Harold OJ Brown: heresy (Greek – heresis) originally meaning party (Acts 5:17); later, it “came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal 5:20). It designated either a doctrine or the party holding the doctrine, a doctrine that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church heresy did not refer simply to any doctrinal disagreement, but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and Christ…” (Heresies, p. 2-3)
2. Document important points and assertions you make concerning various men. A lot of people have been misrepresented and taken out of context. Show where they’ve said what you’ve said they said and cite accurately.
3. I do not claim to know everything about every area of this debate and I am willing to be corrected and come to different conclusions. However, I also refuse to be intimidated by those who throw around epithets and insults and who behave like the lawyer advised to pound the law when he has the law on his side or pound the facts when the law is not on his side and, when neither the law nor the facts are on his side, pound the table. Too many pound the table because they have neither the Bible nor theology on their side.
The Federal Vision derives its name from those who see their overarching, thoroughgoing critique and retrenchment of reformed theology as Federal (having to do with every component of the covenant, thus federal from the Latin, foedus, covenant) and a Vision (having to do with the comprehensive reach of it). There are several important components around which this debate hovers. It gets complicated sometimes, and it is helpful to be able to break down the debate into its several constituent parts and deal with them one at a time.
1. The Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference – In January of 2002, Pastor Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA, sponsored a pastor’s conference at which Steve Schlissel (pastor, Messiah’s Congregation, NYC, Norman Shepherd (retired CRC minister), and Doug Wilson (pastor, Christ Church, Moscow, ID) joined Rev. Wilkins as speakers. Mr. Shepherd was unable to attend and Rev. John Barach (former pastor of Covenant Reformed Church in Grand Prairie, Alberta) took his place. In articulating “The Federal Vision,” this conference has ignited a firestorm. For example, soon after the conference, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the US (RPCUS) condemned the teachings of the “Auburn 4” (A4) as heresy. Additionally, a number of conferences and colloquia have taken place to try and clarify and understand, with mixed results.
2. Norman Shepherd – Dr. Norman Shepherd taught at Westminster Theological Seminary, succeeding the great John Murray. He was dismissed in 1982 after a protracted, messy dispute over his teachings, which contradicted scripture and the Westminster Standards (although the nature of the statement of his release certainly is utterly spineless in stating it; more on this later). He transferred to the CRC, from which he is now retired. Dr. Shepherd is held in high esteem by FV’s and is considered a kind of “godfather” of the movement and founding “martyr” for his treatment by the establishment reformed community.
3. The New Perspective on Paul – This is a post-WWII theological movement largely initiated by Krister Stendahl and propounded and expanded by men like EP Sanders and James DG Dunn. It is a wholesale revision of the traditional reformed understanding of Paul which taught that 1. Paul focused on the individual human being and his standing before God and his bar of justice and 2. He emphasized justification by faith because Jews were teaching justification by works. Of course, men like Luther, Calvin, and Knox held fast to this view. The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) teaches that 1. Paul focuses on the two great people groups of the gospel, Jew and Gentile (not individuals) and 2. Paul emphasizes the struggle of Christianity with the covenantal nomism of Judaism, which excludes Gentiles (not how a man might be just with God). Obviously, these are 2 mutually exclusive “perspectives” on Paul; one or the other is true, while the other is false. Many FV’s have either swallowed this revision of Paul’s theology wholesale or have flirted with various elements of it.
4. FV’s highlight the objectivity of God’s covenant people – Christianity is not only individual and subjective; it is corporate and objective. That is, salvation not only comes to an individual in a uniquely personal way, but also is viewed in the Bible as the property of the Church, which holds objective elements in trust (i.e., Word and Sacrament). This, of course, is not new to the FV movement, but is a grand tradition in the reformed tradition. No one can blame the FV movement for bringing this again to the attention of reformed and Presbyterian communions. However, some of the language and ways in which this has been done are matters of genuine dispute. A great deal of controversy and criticism has been self inflicted by the FV’s.
5. FV’s highlight the efficacy of the Sacraments – Once more, this is no shocking component of reformed teaching. All but the most Baptistic of reformed teachings affirm the efficacy of baptism and communion in some fashion. However, I have found some FV’s have adopted language that flirts with baptismal regeneration (though rarely, if at all, crosses that line) and its critics have been all too happy to paint all FV’ers with the broad brush of baptismal regeneration. One needs a scorecard to sort through all of the distortions and misunderstandings on both sides.
6. FV’s contend for the unity of God’s covenant with man – The major standards of the reformed tradition (e.g., Westminster) make a distinction between the covenant of works (cut with Adam and all his progeny) and the covenant of grace (cut with Christ and all in him). Instead, FV’ers see grace as the consistent principle in all the covenants, including that cut with Adam. They see no principle of merit being possible, such that Adam was never able nor intended to merit a righteous, covenant status before God through his obedience in his probationary status in the garden (by not eating of the fruit of the tree of the garden). In order to “soften up” the reader, this kind of approach is often accompanied by a critical assault on the inadequacy of the reformed confessions and the need to “go beyond” them, so that we may always be reformed and reforming (e.g., Doug Wilson’s Reformed is Not Enough). Thus, the way is paved to “transcend” the confessions and be willing to adopt positions that sometimes conflict with them.
7. FV’s ostensibly highlight the “Christ centeredness” of the gospel – While this might seem at first blush to be a tautology, it becomes clear why this is pointed out when one sees the eventual doctrinal consequences. Indeed, Christ is the center and sine qua non of the gospel. We are united to Christ and all the benefits of redemption flow from that union. No reformed man would dispute this. Nevertheless, some FV advocates use this to make two subtle moves thereafter. They emphasize that justification is organic, like a marriage union, and cannot be conceived as separate from this living relationship. Once this is accepted, the novice is prepared for the shift introduced thereby:
1. Some FV advocates deny or soften the once for all, declarative nature of justification as a strictly forensic act before the bar of God’s justice and
2. Many FV advocates insist upon a believer’s works as part and parcel of his justification (not his sanctification, as in traditional reformed teaching), only qualifying it as material proof of his salvation at the last day, before the great white throne judgment seat of God.
Perhaps I have telegraphed some of my own concerns in the above; I certainly find my greatest criticisms and deep concerns in those areas having to do with justification, “the material principle of the Reformation.” In any case, I would like to begin here and get some feedback and input. What do you think?
The School of Hard Knox 