Category Archives: PCA

Update on the PCA Federal Vision report and other FV news

2 Replies

I haven’t been keeping up very well with my postings on the Federal Vision report and controversy over the last few weeks and there have been a couple of interesting developments.  First, in preparation for the 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, the report has now been posted on the web site for the General Assembly.  The report is no longer available from the online magazine byFaith but that site now has a link pointing to the official GA site.

In addition to a conversion to PDF and a reformatting to look like a GA report, people who have compared the two note that at least one paragraph was corrected or clarified.  If you want more on that you can check out the entry on the blog Reformed News.

This week news started circulating of a letter signed by ten PCA pastors urging the GA to proceed with caution and not approve the Federal Vision report at this time.  As best as I can tell, the on-line source closest to the original is a posting on Joel Garver’s blog Sacra Doctrina.  There are also comments and information on each pastor’s affiliation on Reformed News.

The pastors emphasize that they are not proponents of the Federal Vision Theology, but are concerned about several aspects of the report.  They raise procedural questions and several theological questions.  They begin by saying:

We are not FV men. We are PCA pastors and elders who believe that it
would be premature and unwise to ratify this report as it now stands.
We also have procedural questions related to the forming of this
committee. In this letter, we cite statements from the report followed
by related questions that we believe the report fails to answer
adequately.

And they conclude with:

Fellow presbyters, until the committee clarifies these issues, it would
be premature for us to ratify their report. We encourage you to
carefully and prayerfully think through these issues and not enter into
this vote hastily. We are convinced that the report as it now stands
lacks the quality and scholarship of a PCA General Assembly position
paper.

In general the response in the blogosphere to the letter has been positive but with a couple of comments along the lines that “the ten pastors are sympathizers” or “if you have problems with the process why didn’t you speak up at last year’s GA when the process was approved.”

Finally, in an interesting twist there has been a flurry of writing in the past week about the Federal Vision Theology and Roman Catholic Theology.  An ex-Reformed and now Roman Catholic blogger, Taylor Marshall, back on May 22, posted an article on his blog, Canterbury Tales, titled “The Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision.”  In this article he writes:

The [PCA] leadership and pew members are basically Evangelicals that read R.C. Sproul, maybe believe in infant baptism, and have worked “the five points of Calvinism” into their worldview. And when the last word is spoken, the Federal Visionists will be sidelined and ridiculed as crypto-Catholics and adherents to “salvation by works.” Fundamentally, the PCA fears that the Federal Vision movement is “just too Catholic.” All this talk about sacraments, covenants, ecclesiology, robes, candles, weekly communion, just gives your typical Southern Presbyterian the heebie-jeebies. They want that old time religion of three Wesleyan hymns, the pastoral prayer, and a 35 minute sermon
proclaims the “sovereign grace of the Gospel.”

Ultimately, I
think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal
Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it
wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true
home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal
Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church.
The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but
they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

As you might expect this article has also lit up the blogosphere with a number of writers on both the “He’s right” and “He’s wrong” side.  Among those who think he fairly characterizes the Federal Vision Theology are R. Scott Clark at Oceanside United Reformed Church and Matt on his blog Berit Olam.

On the opposite side I would note a post on the Puritan Board discussion forum titled “The View From Rome is a Little Fuzzy.”  However, I would encourage you to read the comments to the article.  One in particular caught my attention where the author, Anne Ivy, writes:

I was RC (Roman Catholic), too….an adult convert, AAMOF….and have been struck for years by the similarities between the FV and RC doctrine.

And you know what else? Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single ex-RC-turned-Reformed that doesn’t see those similarities.

So we’ve got those who have come out of the RCC issuing warnings
regarding how much it resembles the FV, and we’ve got new converts to
the RCC chirping about how the FV’s doctrinal distinctives resemble the
RCC’s.

But the ex-RC’s and the new RC’s are assumed to not know what they’re talking about and are shrugged off by FV supporters.

Y’know, that’s really rather irritating.

Just some more to ponder about the Federal Vision Controversy.  The PCA GA starts June 12.  We will see what wisdom the Holy Spirit gives the commissioners about this.

Comments from others on the PCA Federal Vision Report

1 Reply

I must admit that I have been surprised at the relative lack of comments on other blogs about the Presbyterian Church in America‘s (PCA) Study Report on Federal Vision. (That is the short title.)  While I made my initial comments about it when it was released, after a detailed reading of some of the sections I have decided to not make any more comments right at the moment.  While I still believe it is well written, this report takes a very detailed and scholarly approach to several of the topics and I have decided I am out of my comfort zone with much of it.  I am a polity wonk and not as versed on some of the subtle nuances in the theology.  If I get a chance to re-read it a few more times and make some use of my theological dictionary maybe I’ll be better able to comment.  But if I am having difficulty, maybe I should not be surprised at the lack of comments on the content by others.

There have been a few substantive responses to the content beyond the “it’s out, here is the link” response found on many blogs.  I would first point out the comments titled “Some Standard Misunderstandings” on Doug Wilson’s Blog and Mablog since he is one of the principles of the Federal Vision Theology and his work is analyzed and criticized in the report.  In reading through the comments I think that he makes some valuable points about the exclusivity of terms, or lack there of.  He does a good job of pointing out that a term can be used in multiple senses or have additional meaning in a sense without negating the other meaning.  In addition, he responds to the study group’s criticism of his writing by pointing out that they took it out of context and actually took it as the opposite of what he intended when he wrote it.  He concludes by saying that he will probably write more later.

I have not yet found comments by any other principals in this theology/controversy.  I have also found it interesting that in my reading and searching around I can find no sign that it has been picked up by any news organization.

As I read through those comments that have been posted on other blogs, three in particular jumped out at me.  One is by the Bayly Brothers on their Bayly Blog.  In their comments they clearly suggest a biased process by all but one of the members being from the south and therefore more “old-line” and that as they read the report they see some of the Federal Vision views being mis-characterized.  On the other hand, they do express their discomfort with some of the aspects of Federal Vision Theology.  Another interesting comment they make is that this report is distracting from more important doctrinal problems.  One of those they cite is that some churches are skirting the church’s polity to not ordain women by hiring women with M.Div. degrees, giving them the title “minister,” but not actually ordaining them.

The second comment is by Jared on the blog Civitate Dei.  There he makes an item-by-item rebuttal to each of the declarations in the report.  For me this was a whole lot easier to quickly grasp than the more scholarly body of the report itself.  The ‘Cliff Notes” version of what the report is about, if you will.

Finally, I appreciated Martin’s comments on Musings of a Bystander.  His were the very first comments I saw on the topic, and the only one’s I could find before I wrote my first post.  He actually brings up the possibility of those that can not agree with the PCA’s understanding of the Westminster Standards leaving the denomination.  While I am still seeing some attempt to understand exactly how the Federal Vision might conflict with the Standards, I respect his candor and courage to bring up the topic.

I would also point out the entry on the World Magazine Blog.  While the entry itself is just another pointer to the report, a lively and mostly informed discussion has followed on that page.  The discussion has included a lot of polity about the PCA establishment of the committee, especially some comments about the lack of balance on the committee as if the group was stacked so as to have the desired outcome.  That in particular will be interesting to follow at the PCA General Assembly next month.

Report of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies

Leave a reply

The report of the Presbyterian Church in America‘s Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies has been released in advance of their upcoming General Assembly.  The report is published in the PCA’s web magazine byFaith online.

The Report

The report is 28 pages long when I print out the printer friendly version, contains a preface that serves as the transmittal letter, six sections including the analysis, declarations, and recommendations, and extensive footnotes.  From an initial scan of the document it looks well written and in general I found it to read well and the analysis and conclusions were understandable.  Not everyone will agree with the conclusions.  The committee was composed of four Teaching Elders (clergy) and three Ruling Elders.

There are nine declarations which the committee unanimously agrees upon.  In each case the decision is that the particular area “is contrary to those [the Westminster] Standards.”  These declarations include the Federal Vision viewpoints of 1) rejecting the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture, 2) that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church, 3) that Christ does not stand as a representative head, 4) that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary, 5) that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant, 6) that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ, 7) that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, 8) that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation…and yet not persevere in those benefits, and 9) that justification is in any way based on our works. (emphasis theirs)

The final content section of the report has five recommendations for the General Assembly.  This includes the usual type that the GA commend the report to the church for careful consideration and study and that the Study Committee be dismissed with thanks.  One recommendation is that the GA reminds the church that while the Westminster documents are subordinate to Scripture, they have still been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”   The report also recommends that elders be reminded that they need to make know to their courts where they differ with the standards and the Sessions and Presbyteries responsibility to condemn erroneous opinions.

In a related development, over the weekend Louisiana Presbytery has adopted and issued a Rational For Louisiana Presbytery’s Decision Regarding The Vindication Of TE Steven Wilkins.  (this links to a MS Word file)  This document was prepared for the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA which is now dealing with Louisiana Presbytery’s examination of Steven Wilkins.  That decision is still pending.

Response

I don’t see a response yet from TE Steve Wilkins or his Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church or the Louisiana Presbytery.  The blogosphere has however come alive, sort of.  So far the posts are mostly just “it’s out,” and one of the more interesting of these is Anglicans Ablaze where the author, Robin G. Jordan, reminds us that one of the developers of the earlier New Perspectives on Paul theology was Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright.  This earlier work is addressed in the report.  Several of these blogs also repeat the Declarations and/or Recommendations and one prints the report in full.  The report was released only about 24 hours ago and I suspect that it will take a day or two for some digestion and critical analysis.  Also, I am expecting comment shortly by Doug Wilson, one of the Federal Vision theologians, on his blog “Blog and Mablog.”  I see nothing posted there today as of my writing this over lunch hour.

I can’t say that I will be able to keep up with all the responses in the blogs but will provide links to any I find especially insightful, particularly those from primary sources or that have significant polity implications.

Action by Louisiana Presbytery on the Steve Wilkins examination

Leave a reply

Without a lot of fanfare, at least that I see, the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, at their January 20 meeting, passed a resolution that says:

“Louisiana Presbytery, after thorough examination and investigation of TE Steve Wilkins as per the SJC directives regarding allegations made in the Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial, finds no strong presumption of guilt in any of the charges contained therein and exercises its prerogative not to institute process regarding those allegations.”  [Clerk’s note: See BCO 31-2.]

So, the Presbytery finds no problems and the ball is back to the Standing Judicial Commission. The resolution is posted on their front web page with little additional comment, only the historical context.

The Auburn Avenue Church, where Steve Wilkins is the senior pastor, has echoed the resolution on their home page.

Outside of that, and the brief echo or mention on several blogs, the web has been pretty quiet on this.  I guess others join me in seeing this as an expected step in the larger drama that is playing out and the tension will increase this month when the SJC meets to consider Louisiana’s response to their earlier decision.

Now, this is not to say that the blogosphere is quiet about Federal Vision Theology.  The conversations, analysis and criticism and response continues full tilt out here.  Rev. Wilkins examination is a present a side bar in the larger discussion of this topic.

Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA Re-examines Rev. Steve Wilkins regarding his Federal Vision Theology

2 Replies

Last Saturday, December 9, the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America had a called meeting for the purpose of examining the Rev. Steve Wilkins, Senior Pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA.  This examination was required by the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) when they found the previous examination did not fulfill requirements.  This is part of the developing controversy over Federal Vision Theology which I summarized in an earlier post.

The examination was in two parts:  there were both written and oral responses.  The written responses to questions are available from both the church and the presbytery web sites.  At the time of this writing, Auburn Avenue PC has made MP3’s of the oral exam available on their church web site, look for the links at the bottom of the main page.  The required examination is now completed.  The committee is expected to issue its report in January.

More interesting is the response to the examination.  I have seen no mention of the examination yet in “conventional” news coverage but the blogosphere has lit up.  I will mention two blogs that provide more light than heat. (No pun intended on the first one.)

First, the blog Post Tenebras Lux has a helpful post on this examination titled “A quick review of some Presbyterian politics.” The author has included some extra details on this specific situation which I had not paid attention to before, such as the fact that Rev. Wilkins’ first examination was completely voluntary and that the SJC asked the presbytery to redo the examination on the technical grounds that proper records were not kept while the blog author says that the requested records are not required for a committee report.

The second blog is Barlow Farms, a blog I mentioned previously in connection with this topic.  He has posted two entries, the first on Dec. 13 with excerpts from Rev. Wilkins’ written answers, and the second the next day with a discussion of some of the extended discussion that has since arose about this examination.

I should probably mention the blog “Blog and Mablog” written by Douglas Wilson who is another significant proponent of Federal Vision Theology.  In an entry on Dec. 14 he gives his take on the current developments.  There is a lot of good information and good discussion in the comments on that post.  Included in there is a comment by Mr. Milton Dale Peacock who is the clerk for both Auburn Ave. PC and Louiasiana Presbytery.  He says that the committee will report back to the regular presbytery meeting on January 20 and then the report will be sent to the SJC.  The comments then get into a heavy discussion on a couple of the fine points of the theology but not the polity.

Federal Vision Controversy

2 Replies

While the PC(USA) and Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand have been occupied with controversy over ordination standards, and the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have been discussing blessing same-sex unions, over the last five years controversy has been building in the conservative branches of American Presbyterianism over a new resurgence of a covenental theology known at “Federal Vision Theology.”

I mentioned this back in August commenting on the General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church and their warnings against it and in looking back at the  PCA GA and OPC GA I see that they both dealt with it as well (PCA GA Summary, OPC Report on Justification) including church court cases that were pending in the PCA.  Since that time I have read some more about it and found the heights to which this controversy has risen and the number of denominations that are dealing with it.

If you are wondering about the origin of the name a footnote in the OPC Report discusses this:

[210] Perhaps it is helpful here to note that “federal” is employed in this respect to indicate “covenantal.” The word “federal” derives from the Latin “foedus” which means “covenant” (cf. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], 119-120). It has most commonly been used in this adjectival form to refer to the covenantal position of Adam and Christ as being that of federal headship.

It is impossible to properly describe the Federal Vision Theology and a related movement, the New Perspective on Paul, in this posting.  However, to greatly simplify this topic it revolves around the view of the covenant community and to what extent the “visible church” represents it and whether membership in a church is sufficient for justification.  In other words, if you are part of the community are you part of the covenant?  With discussions about justification by faith alone and ecclesiology you can see that it is a debate with implications for reformed theology.  As one good article from the PCA on-line magazine byFaith puts it:

To critics, the theological systems redefine the classic Reformation
doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, which proponents of the New
Perspective dismiss as, among other things, a Lutheran misunderstanding
of the teaching of Paul. Federal Vision proponents place a strong
emphasis on the efficacy of the Sacraments, some embracing giving the
Lord’s Supper to baptized children and a view of baptism that, critics
believe, makes it a “regenerating” ordinance. Additionally, these
systems emphasize that final salvation has more to do with continuing
membership in the covenant community than with a personal salvation
experience. Critics believe the emphasis in all of these new paradigms
has shifted from the classic evangelical question “Are you saved?” to
“Are you in the Covenant?”. Proponents of the Federal Vision assert
that they are simply reaffirming a higher view of the sacraments as
advocated by Calvin before the church was later influenced by American
revivalism.

Another good, fairly neutral, and much longer article “Within the bounds of orthodoxy? An examination of the Federal Vision controversy” was written by Joseph Minich.  That and other resources are available on a dedicated web site: www.federal-vision.com.  There is also an entry in Theopedia.  Finally, the OPC report on the Doctrine of Justification mentioned above is also a great resource with several pages of background on both the Federal Vision Theology and the New Perspective on Paul as well discussion of where some of the concepts can be traced back to the earliest history of the Christian Church.

But, this blog is about the Politics of Presbyterianism so a quick recap of the denominational responses to this.  The first major presentations associated with Federal Vision Theology were delivered at a pastors conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana in January 2002.  The presenters (and their denominational affiliations) at this conference were John Barach (United Reformed Churches in North America), Steve Schlissel (independent reformed?), Steve Wilkins (PCA and senior pastor at Auburn Avenue PC), and Douglas Wilson (Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches).  In addition, two other writers who have been doing related but not identical work have become associated with the pro-Federal Vision group:  Anglican scholar Rev. N. T. Wright is part of a nearly 30 year old movement known as the New Perspective on Paul and the Rev. Norman Shepherd is a former OPC pastor and professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) who switched to the Christian Reformed Church when charges about his teachings were pending in the OPC in about 1981 (before the current Federal Vision controversy).

Probably the first formal response was from the Covenant Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States which issued an official caution about some of the tenets of the Federal Vision in June of that same year and a message to the four presenters declaring their points heresy and calling for repentance.  (Note:  The RPCUS has a great web page documenting that denomination’s involvement in the controversy and providing links to articles about it in The New Southern Presbyterian Review.)  Since that time there has been significant discussion in that denomination about the theology but nothing that I see as new formal actions.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church formally responded next with the formation by the 2004 General Assembly of a Committee To Study the Doctrine of Justification.  The committee reported to the 2005 GA and received an additional year to complete their study.  The 91 page study was presented to the 2006 GA and in addition to a detailed discussion of the history and points of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision it listed 20 points where the Federal Vision Theology departed from orthodoxy.  The GA commended the report for study with little debate as well as a list of 14 points on which candidates for ordination should be examined and the distribution of the report to the denomination including seminaries.

The response in the Presbyterian Church in America has been more extensive since Steve Wilkins and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church are part of that denomination.  The earliest formal action appears to be the formation of a study committee in early 2004 by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery.  The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee was critical of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision and was unanimously adopted by the presbytery in February 2005 but the 2005 General Assembly declined to send out one presbytery’s report as a denominational statement.  The Louisiana Presbytery, the home presbytery of Auburn Avenue PC, responded with their own study which was adopted in July 2005 and was more favorable toward the Federal Vision advocates.  At it’s 2006 GA the PCA formed a study group on the controversy.

However, the controversy has entered the PCA church courts.  In January 2005 Central Carolina Presbytery communicated to Louisiana Presbytery their concerns about the orthodoxy of Rev. Wilkins’ teachings and the July 2005 study was part of the response to that.  Central Carolina Presbytery decided that Louisiana had not fulfilled its oversight roll fully and filed a complaint against them with the Standing Judicial Commission in January 2006.  The hearing was held in October 2006 and the SJC, in a decision issued about November 1, sided with Central Carolina saying:

It is the conclusion of the Standing Judicial Commission that Louisiana
Presbytery has not demonstrated either by formal records or informal
recollections that it has “with due diligence and great discretion”
(BCO 31-2) dealt with the allegations that TE Steven Wilkins’ views are
out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized
in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter
Catechisms, which are “standard expositions of the teachings of
Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.” (BCO 29-1, 39-3) As
a result, Presbytery has not met its responsibilities under BCO 13-9.f
and 40-4,5, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and purity
of the Church.

Thanks to the blog A Submerging Church for posting the whole SJC decision.  The acronym TE in the report is “teaching elder.”  The remedy is to examine Rev. Wilkins on the specific points and report back to the SJC by February 16, 2007.

So, I think this is were the controversy stands at the moment.  I am surprised that it has not hit the “mainline” radar screens but then we are occupied with other things right now.  Over the next few months we will see how this controversy continues to develop.

Another blogger’s comments on PCA leadership

Leave a reply

In researching an upcoming posting on this blog I have followed some interesting trails.  One of those led me to the blog “Barlow Farms,” a blog written by a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. Lots of interesting and intelligent perspective on there but one in particular, about Presbyterian polity, caught my attention.  Entitled “The Presbyterian Bishopric” and posted on November 30, it looks at a concentration of power at the national level of the PCA.  In particular, the author writes at one point:

We find ourselves in the PCA right now in a peculiar position. The same
man is moderator of the GA, chairman of the Standing Judicial
Commission, and editor of the online denominational press. In the
current Federal Vision brouhaha (a controversy about theological
positions taken by some ministers), this one person has:

1. Nominated the men who make up the investigative committee
2. Chaired the standing judicial committee that has recently forced a
presbytery to investigate one of its ministers because some other
presbytery complained about the way that a voluntary investigation of a
minister was conducted a few years ago.
3. Decided when to advertise and when not to advertise in the weekly
news email the existence of books written by pastors in the
denomination based upon the theological content of the books

By controlling the courts, the legislative branch, and the press, this one person has quite a bit of power, to say the least.

Not only does this one example suffice to demonstrate how
presbyterianism can very easily become a luscious democratic candy
shell on an episcopal chocolate filling, but there are other things we
all know to be true that illustrate our de facto episcopal system.

Got to love that visual about the candy shell and chocolate filling.

Another Call for Withdrawl of Christian Students from Public Schools by PCA GA

Leave a reply

The Heartland Institute is reporting that the Rev. Steven Warhurst, associate pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee, is trying once again to bring an overture to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America that calls for, or encourages, members of that denomination to withdraw their children from public schools in favor an educational setting that allows for an education in line with their Christian faith.  For several years resolutions like this have been a staple of the Southern Baptist Convention but Rev. Warhurst’s unsuccessful attempt at last year’s PCA GA was the first for that denomination.  The movement is supported by one of the most prominent PCA pastors, The Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Coral Gables, Florida.  The article reports that at this time the Rev. Warhurst is working on presbytery approval for his overture to GA.