Category Archives: Federal Vision

PCA SJC Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and other developments

Leave a reply

Within the last couple of days the initial documents related to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission case against Louisiana Presbytery related to their examination of Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins have been published on the web.  We are indebted to Bob Mattes for the documents as well as an analysis.

The story so far:  The Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the 2006 PCA GA that Louisiana Presbytery had as a member TE Steve Wilkins who held theological views that differed from the Westminster Standards.  The GA SJC ordered Louisiana Presbytery to examine TE Wilkins, which they did and the GA SJC reviewed the case in October 2006 and said that they did the examination wrong.  Over the winter of 2006-2007 Louisiana Presbytery did an exhaustive reexamination of TE Wilkins and found that his views did not differ substantially from the Standards.  The GA SJC ruled again that this time the examination process was appropriate but in judging the examination the presbytery did not properly examine the differences in theology.  The result was that the Louisiana Presbytery is going to trial concerning their examination finding.

The prosecuting team has now issued their indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and Mr. Mattes has posted it on his regular blog Reformed Musings.  Specifically, the indictment has two counts:  1)  That the presbytery “failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’s differences” with the Westminster Standards.  2) “Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution…”

To summarize the remaining bulk of the two counts, Louisiana Presbytery was responsible to not just examine TE Wilkins and take his word that he viewed his theology in conformity with the standards, but they also were required to critically examine what he wrote and said, and “classify the differences” according to the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)  16-3(e)(5) (The RAO can be found towards the end of this online PCA Book of Church Order.)  In this section the RAO has three categories of differences: semantic, not out of accord, out of accord with the Standards.  Presbyteries must assign the differences to one of these as part of the examination process.

The indictment is a long document that also lays out large pieces of TE Wilkins’ responses to support the “strong presumption of guilt.”

In addition to the indictment, there is also a citation from the PCA SJC ordering a plea to be entered by February 1, and if a “not guilty” plea is entered, ordering the trial to begin on March 5, 2008.

In addition to the indictment and citation, Bob Mattes also provides a commentary as one of the guest bloggers on the Green Bagginses blog.  This is a great discussion of the details of the case and analysis of what Louisiana Presbytery did versus what the RAO requires.  I want to highlight three of his comments.

First, regarding the significance of this case he writes: “This is a landmark case in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the likes of which one nobody wanted to see but one which has become absolutely necessary for the peace and purity of the church. As such, the SJC is being absolutely scrupulous with its procedures, following their guidance to the finest detail.”

Second, it is important to remember who is on trial, not TE Steve Wilkins, but Louisiana Presbytery.  However, Mr. Mattes points out:

Of course, TE Wilkins isn’t on trial here, Louisiana Presbytery will be if they plead “not guilty.” However, it is LAP’s incorrect handling of TE Wilkins’ examination at the core of this case, which naturally involves his views in a major way. TE Wilkins doesn’t have to be on trial for his views to play a major role in the case.

Finally, in terms of possible results if Louisiana Presbytery is found guilty, he says this:

…LAP has two options open to it:

1. LAP can repent of its errors and demonstrate this by conducting a fair and impartial trial of TE Wilkins; or

2. LAP can leave the PCA with the churches that agree with TE Wilkins’ errors.

The Federal Vision theology is being discussed in several of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed branches in North America and how this case plays out could (will?) have far reaching consequences.

In other developments, one of the things the blogosphere has been a-buzz over is a great summary of Federal Vision Theology by Prof. R. Scott Clark at Westminster Seminary California.  It is of moderate length but does a great job not only laying out the basic structure of the Federal Vision theology but discussing its historical background.

In one other interesting development, Pastor James McDonald in his blog Family Reformation posted an article by his friend R. C. Sproul Jr.  that was originally published elsewhere.  In this reprinted article Sproul is pretty clear that his beliefs are not in line with the general tenets of Federal Vision Theology, but he is still gracious to his friends in the Federal Vision camp.  He does not clearly come out and say they are wrong, he just says that he does not accept those theological ideas.

PCA SJC Federal Vision decisions: Update and Correction

Leave a reply

After doing some more reading and seeing some developments on this topic, I need to bring a correction and update.

But first, the story so far…
As I talked about in my last post on the Federal Vision controversy, in October the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America delivered two rulings concerning Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of the Rev. Steve Wilkins concerning his adherence to the Westminster Standards.  Specifically, they found that while they conducted the required examination by the correct procedure, they did not judge Rev. Wilkins by the right standard.  Both rulings can be found in posts on Puritan Board.

In my last post I had left it there and said that I did not find in the decisions what the next step would be.  Well, I did not read carefully enough and was looking too closely at the second decision and should have been looking at the first.  There it is, after a reference to the second case that threw me off:

Amends – Pursuant to BCO
40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery
to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in
question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby
appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the
case, which is designated as Case 2007-14;…

And additional notes about the case including preparing an indictment, Louisiana Presbytery entering a plea by February 1, 2008, and going to trial March 5, 2008 if they plead “not guilty.”  It is important to note here that it is Louisiana Presbytery that is on trial here not Rev. Wilkins directly.

So that is my new findings and update there, but I also wanted to point out that one great source of information on the Federal Vision controversy, particularly thoughtful criticism, is the Rev. Lane Keister and his blog Green Baggins.  Well, Rev. Keister has been asked to be an assistant prosecutor on the case and therefore must now recuse himself from the discussion of the Federal Vision controversy.  So he has brought on board a set of equally eloquent interim bloggers and changed the name of the blog to Green Bagginses.  Because of the focus on Lane as an assistant prosecutor this is now a great source for information on the polity and procedure of the PCA SJC which might be of interest to other GA Junkies, whether or not you are following the Federal Vision controversy.  I would highlight Lane’s last post “ Major change to Green Baggins” where he announces he will be an assistant prosecutor and others will be filling in.  I would also recommend two posts on the process, “ Lane as assistant prosecutor: Good, Bad or Ugly?” and “ The PCA SJC Process in Brief.”  Happy reading.

Federal Vision Controversy: Current Events and Judicial Decisions

Leave a reply

As I follow the developments of the Federal Vision Controversy I see that there have been a couple of recent events that make a new blog entry worthwhile.

The most significant of these are two associated rulings from the Presbyterian Church in America‘s (PCA) Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in the two cases related to the Federal Vision controversy.  To make a long story very short… Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the GA to have the SJC investigate Steve Wilkins, pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA, or at least to have his presbytery, the Louisiana Presbytery do it.  The SJC had the presbytery do it, the presbytery did it, and reported back to the SJC last spring that there was not a problem.  In the mean time the GA adopted the report critical of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology.

With that as background, a couple of weeks ago the SJC unanimously decided these cases and they have just become available on the web on Puritan Board.  You can either read them in a post to the board with some interesting follow-up discussion or as links to documents on their server. ( Central Carolina complaint decision, Louisiana response decision, agreement to copyrights will be necessary)  And if my very crude description of events in the paragraph above makes no sense to you, each of the decisions has the respective time-lines in them in great detail.

To give a one-line description of the SJC decision:  Louisiana Presbytery did it right, but came to the wrong decision.

Now, the detailed version:
In the SJC Report on the Memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery the SJC originally found a year ago that Louisiana Presbytery had not properly “dealt with the allegations that TE Steven TE 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” and as a result the Louisiana 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.”  The SJC then directed the presbytery to conduct an examination with six specific requirements.

Part II of this decision then examines the actions of the Louisiana Presbytery in response to the original decision.  The SJC found that while the presbytery complied with the directives of the SJC, they did not reach a decision “consistent with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America.”  And this is were we jump off to the second decision released…

In the presbytery action on the examination the vote was 13 to 8 to exonerate Pastor Wilkins.  Following the vote Teaching Elder (TE) James Jones filed a complaint that quickly found its way to the SJC.  TE Jones was joined by one additional Teaching Elder and five Ruling Elders.  The points in the complaint are that it is a matter for the GA, that TE Wilkins redefined theological terms, and that TE Wilkins had “serious variances” with the Westminster Standards.  This became the second SJC decision that was released.

In their decision, the SJC ruled that the Louisiana Presbytery had failed to apply the correct constitutional standard and that in doing so it had erred and should have found a strong presumption of guilt that some of TE Wilkins’ views were “out of conformity.”

Now, here is where I am not sure what happens next.  Problems were declared with Louisiana Presbytery and TE Wilkins, but I have not found in these decisions an order about what to do next.  I will keep looking around but my guess is that it will return to the GA and this year’s Assembly will determine the corrective action.  (Let me know if I missed this somewhere.)  It should also be noted that while the SJC found the strong probability that some of TE Wilkins’ theology is out of conformity, the actual decision only says that the presbytery did not use the correct standard.  The problem is not the Federal Vision theology itself but how the presbytery decided if there was a problem.  Judgment on the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology has not been directly rendered.

In a related action, on his blog De Regnis Duobus (Concerning the Two Kingdoms) the Rev. Jason Stellman posts a letter from the Pacific Northwest Presbytery declaring that the Rev. Peter Leithart, in compliance with the fifth recommendation of the Federal Vision report adopted by last year’s GA has posted a public letter declaring the differences in his views.  Rev. Stellman also reports that he was elected to be one of the members of the study committee to look at Rev. Leithart views.  It is interesting to note that Peter Leithart, while apparently a member of Pacific Northwest Presbytery and therefore a PCA Teaching Elder, is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho.  The church is a member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  The committee is to report back in January.
 
I think that to no one’s surprise the conversation about the Federal Vision controversy continues in the blogosphere.  In some cases it contains harsh criticism on both sides producing more heat than light.  But in others it is very civil and even sheds light on the nuances of the controversy.

One of the more interesting was a well as enlightening was a discussion held on the blog De Regno Christi back in late September.  If you look at their Federal Vision thread you can find a multitude of posts and comments about very specific points under discussion.

In another twist Jeff Meyers reports that an overture is being introduced in different presbyteries of the PCA about informing the presbytery if ordained individuals views differ from the standards.  The twist is that while the constitution and ordination vows refer to differences with the “Standards,” that being Westminster, the overtures refer to differences with the Federal Vision report, raising it to the level of constitutional standard.

Well, I think that is enough for now.  The discussion continues and will undoubtably surface at the PCA GA in June.

Developments in the Federal Vision Theology debate

2 Replies

Our story so far…

There is a theological perspective that has been gaining some recent popularity known as Federal Vision Theology (FV) with ties to another, longer established view called the New Perspectives on Paul.  For background on all this you can go to my original post or a great web site at www.federal-vision.com.

This past June the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approved, by a wide margin, a report critical of this theology and its errors in orthodoxy relative to the PCA standard, the Westminster Confession.

There was considerable discussion about the report before ( 1, 2, 3), during, and after the GA, not just by PCA members but by those in other reformed denominations who are also wrestling with this.  (It probably goes without saying that the PC(USA) has its own controversies and is probably the one reformed denomination in the US that is not looking at this.)

Being some distance from the PCA GA I wanted to look at what has happened since then on this topic.

First, I was very impressed how few “knee jerk” reactions there were.  Responses and commentary were very reasoned, and for the most part respectful, and seemed to shift somewhat from a specific argument about the report’s points and process to a more general and “big picture” view of the situation.  Essentially “here we are, what does it mean.”

One of these reasoned responses was a Joint Federal Vision Statement issued about July 30 and signed by eleven ministers, including all that I would consider the “usual suspects.”  (movie reference – not intended to be negative)  There is one page of introduction, six of doctrinal statements in the form of “We affirm… We deny…” and the final half page with the signatories.  It should be noted that about half of these pastors are with churches that are in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, the CREC acronym that is found within the Statement.  Most of the remainder are PCA churches.  One point that I found confusing is that the intro to the statement describes CREC as a “confederation” not strictly a denomination but the web site is loaded with denomination language.

Following the issuance of this statement there has been some analysis of it and it has served as material for debate and rebuttal in the blogosphere.  The most comprehensive critique of the statement has to be by the Rev. Lane Keister in his blog Green Baggins.  I will not even attempt linking to individual posts since he went through the statement with separate posts analyzing and critiquing each individual section.  Lots of reading there if you are so inclined.  Click on his topic Federal Vision.

A second multi-part, but slightly less extensive analysis can by found on the blog Reformed Musings and there is another by the Rev. R. Scott Clark on The Heidelblog.  This latter one has an interesting twist since the Rev. Clark is at a church that is part of the United Reformed Churches in North America www.urcna.info or www.covenant-urc.org/urchrchs.html whose General Synod this past summer adopted resolutions on three points of “sola fide” and nine points of the Federal Vision Theology and he discusses those in his blog as well.

While the blogs above are generally critical of the FV, the signatories of the statement are not silent and you can find the defenses and responses of Douglas Wilson on his blog Blog and Mablog and those of Jeff Meyers on his Corrigenda Denuo.

On the general topic of the FV controversy, one of my favorite blog posts since the report was adopted is by Kevin D. Johnson on July 2 in his blog Reformed Catholicism.  It is a long reflection titled Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice.  What strikes me about his viewpoint is first that it comes from his own experience over multiple years as a one-time FV defender and second that his concerns include the pastoral aspects of the theology and controversy.  He writes:

[A]ny critique of the Federal Vision theology should at least first deal
with the pastoral context with which it was originally framed. Is
Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the
nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed
world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably
addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in
calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

Finally, I would like to note one other blog entry, but with a bit of hesitance since it is a bit polarizing and strongly worded.  However, I found the information in the article “ Ligonier Ministries Responsible for Federal Vision Converts?” interesting and, as far as I know the history, accurate.  This article describes how the now defrocked (for other reasons) R. C. Sproul Jr. provided a platform for major FV advocates such as Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins in the Ligonier Ministries publication Tabletalk while he was still the editor.  It raises the interesting question of why the Rev. R. C. Sproul Sr. Ph.D. (a PCA pastor and professor) allowed this to happen while he, at least based on his two minute speech that I listened to during this year’s debate on the FV report, favored the PCA report.  The bottom line of the article is that by promoting the FV theology the result was actually to lead people away from the Reformed faith and into either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches.

Interesting stuff.  But as multiple observers are now wondering, when will enforcement of the report begin?  And will FV proponent pastors and churches stick around to be heard or quickly move to the CREC.  Similar dilemma to the PC(USA) controversy, different topic.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America: Approval of the Federal Vision Report

Leave a reply

The 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has just voted to approve the Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies.  The vote was by a show of hands and from the view on the webcast it appeared to pass by a very wide margin.

The time for the delivery of the report and debate was set at one hour and was subsequently extended twice, once for 30 minutes and once for five minutes.  The third vote to extend debate failed.

The debate was decent and in order, but also emotional and strong.  There was a procedural motion that I did not get the exact wording on but which would have referred it back the study committee and added two Federal Vision proponents to the committee with a new report to next year’s GA.  This procedural motion was actually what most of the debate was on. That motion failed by a narrow enough margin that the hands had to be counted.  Sorry, I did not get the count from the webcast.

I’ll give a more comprehensive account of my impressions of the GA as a whole at another time.  At this point the GA moves on to more routine business and we will see what the blogosphere does.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America: Federal Vision Report

Leave a reply

With the 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America beginning in Memphis this coming Tuesday, June 12, clearly the hot-button issue is the Federal Vision Report.  I have three previous posts on the report from April 26, May 1, and May 31.  In that last post I mentioned a letter signed by ten pastors (Teaching Elders or TE in PCA terminology) that urged caution in approving the report.  A comment to that post from Andrew Malloy, author of the blog A Submerging Church, alerted me to another letter posted June 5th on the blog Humble Answers that supports approving the report. (It is also available as a PDF.)  Furthermore, by e-mailing the blog you can add your name to the letter in support.  The list of signatories has now grown from the original eight pastors and one ruling elder to 36 more teaching elders, 18 ruling elders, and five who did not specify but were usually in academics.  And the list is growing.  It was interesting to note that in several cases several of the ruling elders were from the same church as a pastor who had signed ahead of them, either originally or in the add-ons.

This open letter is long and the content generally addresses the points in the first open letter and some comments on the web.  Specifically, they defend the breadth, if not the diversity, of the Study Committee, the unity of the committee and the lack of a minority report, the completeness of the report, and the narrowness of the interpretation of the Westminster Confession.  Finally, they address the issue of whether the PCA has had the necessary time to discuss and study the issue.  They point out that several other reformed denominations have spoken and that now is the time for the church to speak authoritatively on the topic.

There has been a low level of response so far, most so far it seems is positive.  But it is looking like the lines are being drawn and the politicking is going on.  When it comes to guessing what action the GA will take few seem to be sticking their necks out.  But, in our Presbyterian system, we pray that the commissioners to the Assembly will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

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.

OPC Discussion of the Federal Vision Controversy

Leave a reply

The February issue of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church‘s official publication, New Horizons, has a series of articles on the Federal Vision Controversy.  This issue is in fulfillment of the recommendations approved by the 2006 OPC General Assembly when they adopted the Report on Justification.  I have in general found articles in New Horizons to be relevant, well written, and informative and in skimming through these article I find that they meet the usual standards.  If you want some reading on the Federal Vision Theology you might want to check them out.