As addressed in other entries here, the modern Reformed and Paedobaptist (I dislike the habit of leaving the second term off and simply letting Baptists figure out what you mean) community has been riven by a specific set of issues for quite a while, and as the advocates of what is typically viewed as the novel position refuse to go away, that rift has widened. I refer of course to what has been known, depending on who you are asking, as the Federal Vision (or federal vision "movement", hereafter FV), Auburn Avenue theology, "monocovenantalism", or Shepherdism. Apart from hopefully shining greater light on the origin of that array of nicknames for the perspective, I am embarking on a mission with several diverse goals regarding it. Firstly, I hope to give a broad outline of what unifies the perspective (and what diversifies it), and how it is delineated from what I will at this point call the "traditional/confessional" perspective (hereafter TC). Secondly, I want to get into the meat and potatoes by reviewing and examining some key portions (or at least portions I found particularly interesting) of the book of essays published by some of the key figures of the movement itself, aptly entitled "The Federal Vision". Third, or rather intermingled with these, I want to provide commentary and concerns on the movement as a whole as the work progresses. I don't know how long this project will take, how many pages it will cover, or how many posts it will occupy. With that utter lack of confidence instilled in my beleaguered readership, I begin with some basics and background.
One name given to FV, which typically has been assigned by it's foes rather than it's friends is "Shepherdism", and this is due to the fact that in order to give background to the FV controversy, and why people outside the perspective criticize it, I have to begin with earlier controversy which resulted in the expulsion of Norman Shepherd from Westminster Seminary Philadelphia (WSP). Shepherd was the heir of John Murray's post at WSP, and after almost a decade of controversy over various issues, was dismissed in 1981, left his presbytery (where he was facing disciplinary review as well) and joined the Christian Reformed Church in North America for the remainder of his pastoral career. While issues surrounding his dismissal were varied, the two that stood out most in the Westminster community and the OPC as a whole were: 1) Shepherds insistence on rejection of the Standards formulation of the CoW, replacing it with a system wherein Adam and the rest of man were all in the CoG, 2) a formulation of justification by faith which taught that "only obedient faith" perseveres or justifies. This second view may seem in the brief space I have allotted to it to be mere biblical truism to the Reformed reader abreast of the distinction between sanctification and justification, but as I hope to show in controversy surrounding modern FV proponents, similar views present greater difficulty than can be resolved by harmonizing Romans 5 and James 2. Additionally, point one above, the denial of the Covenant of Works as understood by the WCF, will be a feature common to, (but not universally accepted by all promoters of) FV, which explains the accusation noted at the outset of "monocovenantalism". Several FV men participated in the publication and authorship of a Festschrift for Norman Shepherd provocatively titled Obedient Faith, so while I cannot spend further time (and have no expert opinions to offer) on the influence of Shepherd on FV generally, his career and ideas will be relevant to consider in this post and those that follow. On a related note before moving on, overreaction to Shepherd's (and Murray's) positions on the Covenants resulted in much of the dustup at Westminster West over "Klinean Republication"...but that's a story for another time.
Moving from there, the key element to what is now known as FV began with the presentations and papers resulting from the pastors conference at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe Louisiana, 2002. The four conference speakers at this, the first "Federal Vision conference" were Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and Douglas Wilson, and the topics addressed were primarily those of covenant theology. The controversy that brewed over the papers presented at the conference was partially summarized in the positions affirmed and denied in a joint statement on the "Federal Vision" signed in 2007 by eleven minsters of the PCA and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). At the end of this statement, under "Some Points of Intramual Disagreement", was a paragraph stating:
"Some of these areas [of disagreement, JS] would include, but not be limited to, whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated."
While this phrasing highlights that there are differences on key doctrines within the FV "stream", there were also many key affirmations, including shared postmillennialism, denial of Christian neutrality in "secular" politics, and a denial that
"...Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." 1
The significance of this to disagreement between some confessional Presbyterian thinkers and the FV men will become more clear, but should already have more light placed on it by the above mention of Shepherd's elimination of the WCF's formulation of the CoW. The linked FV joint statement should be read by anyone looking to grasp the related issue.
I'd like to wrap up this post with a list some basic elements of agreement and disagreement within FV, and also a few key disagreements between FV and more "traditional/confessional" or "TR" perspectives. However, it should be remembered that the existence of the first list precludes the universality of the second, in other words, not all attacks launched from the TR camp can be said to be equally directed against all FV men, even within the eleven signatories of the joint statement.
To begin, a few areas of mutual agreement among all FV men, briefly summarized.
1) Baptism, including of infants, truly makes all those to whom it is applied, truly united to Christ (in some sense, although which sense varies depending on which FV man you ask), truly part of his Church and truly a participant in the New Covenant. To the extent that the New Covenant is the covenant of Regeneration, all persons partaking of Triune Baptism can be said to participate in "regeneration" in some sense, although not necessarily unto eternal life.
2) Justification and Regeneration, while bearing the traditional/confessional reformed definitions, are multi-faceted, and can occur in different senses for different persons.
3) God's decree comes unequivocally to pass, and includes all things in time, including justification unto eternal life, individually declared in eternity past. However, this justification is not the only human experience of justification in the sight of God.
4) It is impossible to please God through covenant membership alone, and the faith men are called to in Word and Sacrament must be the living and active faith of James 2.
5) Denial that "law" and "gospel" are, or should be used as, hermeneutics, accompanied by affirmation that saved persons can hear all parts of Scripture as good news, while unregenerate persons hear all parts of the Scripture as "the savor of death".
6) A real, but spiritual and non-local, presence of Christ in the Supper, and participation therein in confirmation of New Covenant membership.
7) It is possible to apostatize from the New Covenant, and breakers of the NC receive greater condemnation than pagans. However, it is not possible for the decretally elect to fall away from Christ.
However, there are likely as many differences as there are unifying elements, including in no particular order:
1) Paedocommunion. While the "joint statement" affirms the administration of the supper to "children", adherence to paedocommunion as practice (or definition of the term) varies among FV theologians.
2) The exact emphasis of the biblical term "justification". Some within in the movement see the predominant biblical use as eschatological (vis a vis the "final declaration" of N.T. Wright), others as partially synonymous with sanctification-in-process (which would be their typical reading of dikaioo in James 2), yet others emphasize very strongly the element of justification which is in the union of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ (another theme shared with N.T. Wright and "New Perspectivism"). On top of all of these, there remains individual salvific justification by faith, and the emphases and terminology used will differ widely among which FV writer you are reading on the subject.
3) The degree to which FV men can be said to affirm "baptismal regeneration", and in which sense.
4) Some FV men will say they adhere to the entirety of the Westminster Standards, but read them differently in places than the TR community. Others will openly deny portions of the confession and suggest alternate doctrinal language at these places.
5) Some FV men have a strong monocovenantal bent (particularly those who deny the traditional formulation of the CoW) while others affirm a two-covenant scheme but deny that Adam could have earned anything, or was expected to. Still others affirm most of the confessional position on the CoW, but don't focus on it as their main emphasis.
6) The imputation of the active obedience of Christ is, as will be seen, affirmed by Douglas Wilson (known by many to be "FV light"), while it is mitigated or outright denied by others. The "joint statement" repudiates the necessity of use of the language formula "imputation of active obedience", but not precisely belief in it.
In highlighting the above lists, fault lines between traditional/confessional Reformed thinkers and the FV movement become more clear, and to complete this post, I will list what I believe to be the four most important. In the weeks and months to come, an ongoing project will be to expand this post as a series, with reviews of at least two books. In doing so, I will leave the descriptive/expositional material here to enter the fray myself, and in doing so, I trust will expose myself as in neither TR nor FV camp, agreeing and disagreeing at times with both. The four items below, which I encourage the reader to mull over, should demonstrate, at least partially, why I believe these are important issues.
1) Is the language of the WCF on the Covenants deficient? Why and how? How should it be "fixed"?
2) Can the sacraments be said to regenerate us, and in what sense? Does Baptism make someone a member of the New Covenant by itself? Are all Baptized persons, in some sense, "Christians" and what does that mean?
3) Does Justification accomplish active obedience and sanctification for the believer, or merely encourage it? Is there overlap between justification and sanctification, and if so, how much? What, if anything, did Christ merit for the believer by law-keeping?
4) Justification by faith: is Justification by Faith unto eternal life the Gospel? Is it the primary emphasis of the New Testament? Is it the primary biblical definition of "justification"?
~JS
1. All quotes and material from the "joint statement" were taken from this copy of the original located here.
No comments:
Post a Comment