|
| Home > Theology > The Present Controvesy: Part 5 - Even More on What's New |
| The Present Controvesy: Part 5 - Even More on What's New | | Date Created: Nov 05, 2005, 12:30 PM |
Is there a Federal Vision "movement"? When critics talk about FV "proponents" it sounds as if men in this "movement" have a manifesto from which they operate.
When people say that this is all part of a movement, that is certainly true in the sense that there is a ground swell of interest in these matters in our circles and many men are writing more and speaking more about some of the issues I identify below. More than that, lots of churches are moving to wine in communion, weekly communion, a more liturgical way of organizing their worship, etc. But there's a great diversity among the men interested in these things. They are not all on some board or part of some secret organization. Wilkins published a book called FV because that was, innocently enough, the title of one of their conferences years ago, the one let to such a commotion. But the guys that submitted essays to that book are not organized or coordinated in any way. They are not even part of the same denominations. They don't see eye to eye on a great many issues.
So maybe it is a network of guys with friendship connections and similar theological concerns. But, of course, this kind of thing happens all the time in our circles. PPLN is an example. The Greenville guys are another. Lig Duncan's Twin Lakes conference is yet another. I don't have any problem with saying it is a movement in that sense. But it is not a movement in any political sense. Guys amenable to the FV issues are not trying to take over anything. They are mostly pastors and teachers quietly doing their thing. They publish essays, true; but those essays are mostly not acerbic or accusatory. They are all pretty academic.
In other words, what is significant, I think, is that this loose network of guys has no political intentions or anything like that. They are all pastors or teachers. They have brought no charges against anyone. They only write and speak and pastor their churches.
The elephant in the middle of the room is that the kinds of concerns addressed by these men are resonating with the larger church. This then is often taken as a threat and a rival "movement" in the PCA.
Exceptions notwithstanding, I do think that critics at least perceive a "package" of beliefs and convictions that go together. Here's the short list (in no particular order):- a heightened eschatological consciousness (living the future life in the present)
- a desire for Christendom/Christian cities and civilization (rather than simply saved individuals)
- optimistic amil/postmil eschatology
- paedocommunion (or younger child communion)
- typological hermeneutics (read Jim Jordan's Through New Eyes or Moises Silva's Has the Church Misread the Bible)
- a greater emphasis on certain aspects of the covenant including the possibility of covenant breaking
- a future dimension of justification that includes works (a staple of Reformed theology in the past, but relatively neglected recently)
- the "gift" nature of creation over against "merit" theology
- sacramental efficacy (including a high view of the meaning of baptism for covenant children and Calvin's view of the real presence)
- an insistence on the "social" nature of the church
- "high" liturgy
- a desire for visible unity with other branches of the church
- a willingness to rethink the Trinity in covenantal terms, etc. All these things converge together in the minds of the critics and it looks overwhelming. It looks like theses guys are an odd, eclectic mix of things. It's hard to see how it all "fits together," much less fits into the confessional standards of Westminster. It looks like at best a "new breed of Presbyterian," and at worst quasi-Anglicans or even Romanists. They rightly perceive something of a paradigm shift. After all it's not like there's just one or two little things that have been grafted onto to Southern Presbyterianism.
The Westminster Standards are wonderful. I love the confession and catechisms, but they are not the Bible. I also agree with Tim Keller: even if we all agreed with every detail of the WCF 100%, it still would not solve the most basic problems we face in the modern church and world. The WCF simply doesn't address in depth the pressing issues of the 21st-century Reformed church (e.g., philosophy of ministry; women in the church; hermeneutics; missions; and many of the concerns of the FV men listed above). A lot of the issues we're debating under the rubric "FV" are really more pastoral in nature than confessional, per se. They're extra-confessional. In that sense, I think we have to admit the insufficiency of the WCF, as offensive as that will be to the critics. Twenty-first-century issues are not identical to 17th-century issues. In that sense what the FV guys are doing is "new" and praise God for it!
Well, obviously, not everyone is praising God. What's the deal? I think we have to reckon with the ugly fact of denominational pride and politics. Some of the men on the warpath against everything that might appear to be FV appear to me to be trying to make a name for themselves and see this as a way to do it. Some of them. Not everybody. Perhaps I'm wrong in my hunch, and I can't be sure. But it looks like some people are trying to be the next "Luther" and take a "valiant stand for the gospel" against those who would corrupt its purity. This "Luther complex" seems to be a constantly recurring feature of Protestantism. On top of that, a lot of men are vying to become the primary shapers of the PCA in the next generation. And that is a great question: who and who's theology will shape the future of the PCA?
Will the PCA become increasingly a "reformed catholic" and "missional" denomination? Or will she continue to define herself primarily over against other Christian traditions (e.g., asking "how is your view baptism different from the Lutherans?") rather than looking for areas of convergence? Will she settle back into a hardened sectarianism, and thereby enter into an intellectual dark age? Will the PCA be a closed world unto herself, or will she participate in the wider discussions taking place in the worldwide church? Will her scholars have the freedom to participate in those discussions or will they be publicly humiliated for it?
Right now, with so many different presbyteries heading in different directions, it's hard to imagine the PCA holding together at the seams. But given the overall global trends, in which the center of Christianity is moving away from the Western world, we need to seriously consider how isolated we'll be if we insist that every jot and tittle of the WCF must serve as the test of orthodoxy. We will certainly make things very difficult for our missionaries. We have much to gain by learning how to be appropriately flexible and open.
Go to Part 6. |
|
