The Federal Vision Discussion Heats Up

If you are interested in the Reformed blogosphere, you likely have not be very bored the last two weeks. The Topic of Interest: The Federal Vision

This coming July, the URCNA will hold their Synodical meeting in London, ON. One thing that will be discussed will be a synodical study committee report on the teaching of the Federal Vision, highlighting the doctrine of justification. We have had this report in the churches now for about a year.

Recently, the URC of Nampa, Idaho produced a 17 page critique of our study committee's report. In their critique, they listed three main criticisms. You can find that report at http://urcnampa.org/resources/interaction.pdf There three criticisms were:
1. Misrepresentation: Here the URC of Nampa argues that the report does not deal with enough of the FV statements and the statements it does deal with, it does not deal with them fairly or charitably.

2. Proving too Much: Here the criticism is that the report condemns pastoral modes of speech.

3. Ways of Being wrong: Here the critique shows three different ways of being wrong. First, is a clear violation of the confession. Second, is to be wrong in a way that some think it is wrong, but is not addressed by the confessions. Third, being in error because of a theological emphasis.

Dr. J. Mark Beach, of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is in the process of responding to Nampa's report. You can find those responses at Rev. Chris Gordan's blog, the Gordian Knot, as you can see in my blog list.

But, what should we make of this latest news and critique? The question is not what we should make of the Federal Vision. That is not really the debate. I think that the Federal Vision is a theological error. I think it leads to paedocommunion (child communion) inevitably, and if anyone disagrees with the doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace alone, they are standing outside of the scriptures and are no friend to the church of Jesus Christ. However, with that said, that still does not address our report.

I must admit, when the URC decided to write a report I thought, "good, a solid report using the three Forms of Unity." Oh, the report said that the Federal Vision is unorthodox, but did it go about it in the proper way? There are, in my opinion, some weaknesses to our synodical committee's report.

By saying that, I all of a sudden open myself up to all kinds of response of me being a closet FVer or that I should spend more energy attacking the FV, etc. But, that is okay. Anyone who knows me knows otherwise.

My fear with our report is three-fold. First, it uses language that goes beyond our confessions. One example is the use of the language of the covenant of works. You do not have to hold to the Westminster's treatment of the doctrine of the covenant of works to be URC or Reformed. What if there is a URC minister who does not hold to that formulation. What if a CanRC minister is called to a URC? Should they have to say, "Yes, I agree with the covenant of works and the probationary period of testing, and the eschatological end of eternal life, etc." I don't think so. You might disagree, but this is one of the beauties of the three Forms of Unity.

Second, in substance I believe the report is accurate. So, overall, I like it, but in details it is lacking. Things such as dates, full quotations, a lack of treatment of the Joint FV Declaration, etc (some of the criticisms that the Nampa critique brings forward). So, I think that our report could be made better. I think that an FV minister should be able to read our report and then when the FV view is summarized, he should be able to say, "yes, I agree with that, that fairly represents my view." Of course he is not going to agree with the conclusions, and he shouldn't. If he did, then he could see his own error.

Finally, my fear is that this report, if adopted, could prove to have serious negative consequences. I think this report, because of my first two criticisms could push us further from the Canadian Reformed Churches (especially with ecclesiastical/covenant language in the report). I have come to know and love the Canadian Reformed Churches. I think we need them and they need us. Our goal of honouring our Lord in His John 17 prayer will make us, as our name says, those who desire to Unite the true church of God together.

I also fear that this report could be used like the 9 Points of Synod Schererville have been used by some, as a billy-club to beat people over the head, and say, "see, you are not orthodox" when in fact, they may be at complete liberty in ther theological explanation. In that way, it would become an extra-confession statement that all office bearers would be bound to. All you have to do is look at the last 100 years of church history and see how poorly mistaken and detrimental it has been when extra-confessional binding in this way has prevailed (e.g. 1924, 1944, 1951).

Now, there are a couple of overtures coming to Synod, one from Western Canada, that will hopefully protect the churches, if adopted, from this type of binding. So, my worry with that, might be in vain. I hope so!

But, as I sit here, my heart is troubled. I love Jesus Christ, and His bride, the church. I am zealous to preach the gospel and protect the church from wolves. I will defend the truth, by God's grace, until I die. But, because of my love for the Lord, His church, and His law, I cannot, with a clear conscience, allow misrepresentation to undermine our Synod's report. If this report is adopted and it ends up alienating us from our closest Christian friends, we might remember Synod 2010 as a sad day in the churches.

My heart is burdened because I see honest men being attacked for standing up for honesty. But, I guess, at the end of the day, it is before the Lord whom we will be judged. All in all, Colossians 3:17 puts things in perspective, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."

May God "gather, guard, and protect" His church.