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.
As an an elder in the PCA for the past 24 years, and one who has attended many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, I can firmly say that I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the study committee was set up with the particular membership to bring about a desired conclusion. Historically, when a study committee has been set up, both proponents and opponents formed part of the committee. See the study committees on Creation, Women in the Military, Paedocommunion, to name a few. Look at results of study committees and note that there were both majority and minority reports. What does that tell you? Not everybody was in agreement. They knew that would be the case going into their study but the desire was to see two sides work together to try and reach a consensus through honest theological interaction, not just with writings and blog shoutings but with real people who could put forth cogent answerable thoughts and questions. This was not done here. One has to ask why? When I mentioned to one of the members of the church where I serve as a ruling elder that a committee had been formed by the PCA to “study” Federal Vision and NPP etc. and that they had finished their work, his first question to me seem reasonable. He asked who made up the committee and if their were those who were “for” and “against” so as to adequately study and discuss the matters at hand. When I told him that only opponents were on the committee (and I might add some of those proponents had already made their opinions quite well known in published writings and internet dialog) his gut response was “then the study committee was a sham. How can you have divergent theological views being espoused in a denomination, set up a study committe to acutally study and dialog and only have one side represented.” My question indeed. I must admit that I am a presuppositionalist, but this kind of presupposition concerning my mother church I did not want to hold. At least a little window dressing to include a “token” FV proponent might have given more credibility to the committee. Certainly this comnmittees report will do nothing to dissuade FV proponents that this is more a matter of a “witchhunt” with a forgone conclusion then a serious attempt to deal with the issues. Four presbyteries have already dealt with FV proponents and while they agree that they have disagreements with with some of the FV musings, all have clearly made it known that the men under question are within the bounds of orthodoxy and Westminster.