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.