Disclaimer: I wish to state that I have no personal stake in any horse in the current clamor within conservative Reformed circles over the so-called Federal Vision (aka Perilous-Threat-to-The-Gospel-Du-Jour).

Just before leaving on vacation I picked up a copy of the much-anticipated book The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Guy Prentice Waters. I was hoping that it would at least help me better understand the chief points of division between those identified in some way with the Federal Vision theology and those who see it as a threat to Reformed orthodoxy. That much the book certainly accomplished. Having read it I do feel that I have a much better grasps of the central issues involved in the controversy.

However, despite its having fulfilled my base expectation, Federal Vision and Covenant Theology (hereinafter FVCT) left me quite unsatisfied at a deeper level. The blurbs on the back promise “exegetically grounded responses,” “superb exposition,” “engaging analysis,” and “biblical analysis.” Yet I came away with the impression that I had just read a 300 page “he said/she said” argument. You say the Bible and Westminster Confession teach X and Y; we say they teach A and B. You don’t agree with us, therefore you are “outside Reformed orthodoxy.” I say toMAYto, you say toMAHto; let’s split our denomination.

It only got worse when I decided to check the actual writings of some of the men Waters is purporting to represent fairly in his book. It didn’t take long for me to wonder if Dr. Waters had really set out to reproduce the arguments and positions these men actually hold, as they themselves would present them. Having read both this new book and many position papers and responses by the FV guys, I am still not convinced that either side has “won,” at least insofar as winning me to champion their side in the debate. However, the one thing of which I am convinced is that Waters did not present the FV side as fairly or completely as the supporters of his book promised. If you are on the attack in a debate the onus is on you to argue against what the other side is actually saying. Failing to do so, you may still impress those whose foregone conclusion was already on your side, but you will only alienate your opponents. What is worse, any impartial observers will be much less likely to buy your case.

By way of footnoting my allegation, here are the responses of just two of the men condemned by Waters as leading the sheep astray. (I link here to their own summaries, but what they say is similar to what I myself found by reading their writings from which Dr. Waters quoted):

Douglas Wilson: here, here, here, here, and here.
Joel Garver: here

From my readings of both sides on the New Perspectives on Paul, the Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together flap, and now the Federal Vision brouhaha, it has become increasingly apparent to me that many on the several sides of these issues have stopped listening to one another, if they ever were listening. Many on the attack have already made up their minds that these positions are inherently dangerous–if not heretical–and therefore choose to only see evidence that supports that conclusion. On the other hand, I suspect that an increasing number of supporters of those positions are giving up on any hope that they can get a fair hearing. And since we’re Presbyterians, the probable end-game is more Presbyterian denominations.

As I said in my disclaimer at the beginning of this post, I have no personal horse in this race. Frankly, I’ve spent many hours reading all sides of these debates and all I got was a few headaches. Well, not quite all. I’ve learned what I suspected all along: theology is not as cut-and-dried, one-size-fits-all as some would like us to believe. There are good, God-fearing, Christ-honoring, intelligent people on many sides of this issue. To rule anyone, at this point, as outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy is not only premature but extremely hurtful to the church. It could be that these FV guys are wrong on some things. It could be also that they have picked up on some aspects of Reformed covenantalism that got lost somewhere in the 19th century. We won’t ever know if we only stop up our ears and shout at the top of our lungs, “Anything we didn’t think of can’t be right!”

————–

Related reading:

For the single most exhaustive critique of how unfairly NPP and FV proponents within American Protestantism have been treated, you must read Joseph Minich’s superbly documented “Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy,” endorsed by Dr. John Frame of Reformed Theological Seminary. Minich is not an advocate of either NPP or FV (although his paper will probably land him in the same pot of tar awaiting the same feathering).

Why is Wright Misrepresented and Misunderstood by So Many of His Reformed Critics? by Alistair “Adversaria” - an exploration into the possible psychology of the Reformed rush to judgments

Machen’s Warrior Children by John Frame - When the liberals went away into obscurity, the Reformed turned canabalistically against each other.

The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology by Kevin J. Vanhoozer - An intriguing proposal for how the church can break through doctrinal confusion.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 19th, 2006 at 11:56 pm and is filed under Christian Community, Reviews, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.