Politics and Heretics

This is not a theology post. There will be no serious discussion of the intricacies of a theological topic. I will not be analyzing the Westminster Confession of Faith, or digging into different Bible translations. Today’s topic does not need it. In fact, I would suggest that today’s discussion shouldn’t even start with the arguments of the controversy. For this theological discussion, it’s much easier to start with the politics. What theological topic am I talking about?

The Federal Vision

Despite numerous reformed denominations putting this controversy “to rest”, this topic is still being brought up relentlessly. This could be due to it’s popularity, but is far more likely due to it’s proponent: Doug Wilson. The Moscow preacher has been associated with controversy for a long time, going so far as to need a dedicated web page for clarification.¹ Many modern evangelicals feel the need to distance themselves from Wilson, refusing to platform, or be associated with his ministry because of his notoriety. Others claim to approve of his cultural battle, yet disown him as a preacher due to “heresy.”

This is a significant charge! Pastor Wilson claims to have preached the gospel for many years. Has he been preaching the wrong gospel? Good question. Unfortunately, this post will not answer that question for you. You will need to figure that out for yourself! I’ll be sure to leave some reading material for you at the bottom of this post, but if you really can’t wait: look here.

The real question this post looks to answer, is the question of politics. Why is federal vision theology still talked about 20 years later? If the PCA, OPC, URC, RPCUS, and the RCUS all claim that this theology is contrary to reformed teaching, shouldn’t that have been the end of it? Why does it continue to be an issue today? To be honest, I think the answer to that question will come with a little trip down memory lane.

The Background

In 1998, John Wood allowed a woman to give a message during public worship.² The resulting PCA investigation admitted that a “line” was crossed, but determined that no judicial process was required. This was not an event soon forgotten, and was brought up multiple times since the incident. One person that continued to pursue ecclesiastical charges was Steven Wilkins, a proponent of federal vision theology. A member of the PCA, Wilkins had already been expressing frustration with the PCA’s “doctrinal departure” from reformed teaching.³ In August of 2000, a meeting was held in Louisiana in order to discuss the concerning direction of the PCA. P&R News reported: “Dr. Smith noted that although the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1900 was basically sound and committed to Old School principles, a determined thirty-year effort by Ernest Trice Thompson, beginning in the 1930s, to liberalize the denomination succeeded.”⁴ Despite the frustration, Wilkins continued in the Louisiana Presbytery.

In 2001, the Southern Poverty Law Center (A non-profit organization with questionable credibility⁵) decided to feature an article about Steven Wilkins and his membership in the League of the South (LOS). The article presented Wilkins as a member of a white supremacist organization, seeking to impose a theonomy. The article was very keen to note the division starting within the PCA.

‘If Wilkins fails to change the PCA, he has made it clear that he is serious about splitting away. And he would probably not be alone. The Rev. Kennedy Smartt, moderator of the PCA’S 1998 General Assembly, says that the PCA could lose “25 to 30 churches” pastored by men with “theonomic views.”
“You have to believe as they do or you are wrong,” Rev. Smartt told the Intelligence Report about these theonomists, men whose views he characterized as “extreme.”
Even Dominic Aquila, the official spokesperson for the PCA, says that Wilkins’ church appears to be the “mother church” to this theonomic movement. Wilkins, he said, “is very aggressive.”‘
SPLC Intelligence Report, “League of the South Works to Take Over Churches” – March 21, 2001 ⁶

The Auburn Avenue Conference

In 2002, the Auburn Avenue PCA church held a pastor’s conference on the federal vision. Steven Wilkins, Doug Wilson, John Barach, and Steve Schlissel presented what people consider the federal vision theology. I won’t go into the details of the theology here. But for now, here is a one-sentence definition from theopedia: “The Federal Vision (hereafter FV) is the view that seeks a restatement of traditional Reformed theology in order to apply a more robust Covenant theology in the study of the relationship between obedience and faith, and the role of the Church and Sacrament in one’s salvation.“⁷

This conference was cited as the basis for almost every examination of the theology since then. The RPCUS was one of the first to respond. Thy released a call to repentance, targeting the conference speakers, and accusing them of denying justification by faith alone.⁸ Obviously, these are serious accusations, and would the equivalent of heresy. In 2003, another conference/discussion was held, where both sides of the federal vision theology was discussed in depth.⁹ Despite this open communication about the perspective, the federal vision issue was far from settled.

After more churches started weighing on the subject, it became clear that it was an uphill battle for those that held to the federal vision. The PCA’s Mississippi Valley Presbytery produced a document investigating the theology, and considering FV to be outside the bounds of acceptable doctrinal diversity.¹⁰ In response, and after much back and forth, proponents of FV issued a joint statement.¹¹ At this point, it looked as if the case was decided. The PCA chose to adopt a report officially taking the stance that Federal Vision is an errant theology. But what ought to be done now? The PCA had a problem.

Getting rid of errant theology was harder than it sounds.

Westminster “Standards”

From it’s inception, in 1973, the Prebyterian Church in America made clear that intended to have a reformed denomination that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. It took barely 10 years before significant issues began to arise. An issue that eventually became the basis for Joe Morecraft’s congregation to leave the PCA, was the issue of creation. Morecraft had been looking to settle issues around the principal of theonomy. After gaining very little traction within the denomination, he noted that the presbytery had received a minister who refused to deny theistic evolution.¹² It became clear to the Chalcedon congregation that leaving the PCA was the only answer.

“The creation account began to be an issue in the early 1990s within the PCA. In 1991 the General Assembly (the annual meeting of representatives of churches from throughout the PCA) ruled that a man whose “views on creation and theistic evolution were outside our system of doctrine . . . should not be granted the authority to teach in the Church.” In 1997 the General Assembly voted to allow the individual to teach as long as he agreed not to teach on creation. In 1994 an individual was licensed (permitted to preach in the presbytery’s churches) in a presbytery (PCA churches in a geographical region). The individual believed Genesis 1-11 to be, not only historical, but also a Hebrew epic. He denied that the Flood of Genesis 9 was worldwide. However, the man was not allowed to teach his views on creation and the Flood.”
Byron Snapp, “Creating a Controversy” – September 01, 1998 ¹³

In light of these controversies, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network (PPLN) decided that the most unifying solution would to allow pastors more exceptions to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). The group advocated for a “Good Faith” subscription to the standards, that they hoped would improve church unity. Tim Keller, a part of the PPLN, said that (as an example) the PCA should focus on university ministry, cultural leadership, inter-denominational conversations, and multi-ethnic ministry: “…form inter-denominational alliances in order to create major reformed movements of church leaders and church planting among non-Anglo groups, new
immigrants, and the urban poor.”¹⁴ Despite Keller’s ability to see the denomination’s disunity, it appears as though the solution of the PPLN was too move away from strict doctrinal standards. In contrast to Keller, some people viewed the more liberal solution as part of the problem.

“In reading these PPLN papers with other papers and the statements they are making, I can’t see clearly where they are going. But I do know where the end of their path will go. Understand, I don’t think most of them want to go liberal. But that is where this path will take them and us if we go with them.”
Ben Wilkinson, “Truth Worth Living For and Proclaiming” – September 27, 2002 ¹⁵

Dr. Wilkinson had been with the PCA since it’s emergence, and did not see the good in “Good Faith” subscription. Despite the reservations, the 2002 30th General Assembly cast the historic vote in favor of a “Good Faith” subscription to the WCF.¹⁶

Liberalism Meets Federal Vision

One year after the adoption of the “Good Faith” amendment, the direction of the PCA seemed clear. The 31st General Assembly started by including a vote to adopt a pastoral letter on racism. During the debate, Rev Howard Davis stated that “It’s obvious if you look at any of our churches in the PCA that racism is a problem.“¹⁷ Howard Davis had only just come to his Louisiana church last year, straight from seminary. As a member of the same Louisiana Presbytery, Davis would later go on to dissent to the exoneration of Steven Wilkins regarding the Federal Vision.¹⁸

The divide between liberal and “racist” became increasingly problematic when another Wilkins/Wilson conference was held in 2004. The SPLC was once again ready to report the “radicalism of his growing ‘Christian’ empire.”¹⁹ One month before this article, the PCA, once again, saw another pastoral letter condemning racism and attempting to clarify the official position of the denomination.²⁰ Through these years, it became clear that adopting a more liberal approach to doctrine was not helping inter-denominational unity. How long could the churches handle these seemingly antithetical ideologies? How could an increasingly liberal denomination find unity?

In many ways, the federal vision controversy was the most unifying issue the PCA had in decades. After multiple denominations and reports considered the theology a form of heresy, it became a rallying point for members that had previously been at odds. Those that held to truly reformed foundations saw the matter as a chance to regain orthodoxy within the denomination. More liberal-minded men likely saw it as a chance to enact social change for the sake of accord. In a 2007 blog post from David Bayly, he expressed concern over the strange unification of different groups within the PCA.²¹ His concern is not unwarranted. After witnessing clashing motivations for years, it was strange to see so many people band together in order to rid the denomination of the federal vision.

The Trials

With the official stance of multiple denominations considering the federal vision perspective heretical, it was now time to rid the denomination of it. It was 2007, and Steven Wilkins was one of the first to have ecclesiastical charges pressed. The Louisiana Presbytery heard his case and ended up vindicating Wilkins. From the report: “TE Wilkins is firm in his belief that his teaching that has been associated with the “Federal Vision” is not a violation of his ordination
vows, and he maintained unequivocally that he remains committed to the doctrines articulated in
the Westminster Standards.” ²² Despite being examined and cleared by his presbytery, it was not enough for the standing judicial commission of the PCA. After “failing to find a strong presumption of guilt”, it became clear that issue was not going to go away. It was less than a decade after the adoption of the good faith subscription method, and pastors were finding out that the rules can change. Wilkins left the the denomination at the request of his congregation in 2008, joining Doug Wilson’s CREC denomination.

Investigations and trials were also being handled for others within the PCA. Similar to Wilkins, initial examinations showed that the men held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Greg Lawrence was vindicated after a 3 year process. Jeffrey Meyers: tried and exonerated. Even Peter Leithart’s case in 2011 resulted in exoneration. Despite the PCA’s affirmation of FV as heretical, did it only matter in the case of Steven Wilkins? Or, was it a matter good faith subscription for everyone BUT Wilkins?

There are many who don’t remember that the year 2008 was a landmark year in the PCA for another reason. An article by the SPLC details the “first time that PCA leaders have formally attempted to hold members responsible for racist statements.” ²³ Neill Payne had been accused of racism after sharing a controversial email with his pastor. It seemed as if everyone in the presbytery had an opinion of these ideas.

“Joel Belz, a former PCA moderator and ruling elder within the Western Carolina Presbytery, was one of the people who challenged Payne’s views.
“We believe as a matter of his theological sanctification before a holy God he did not have the right to be immersing himself … in the probability of IQS based on `The Bell Curve,”‘ said Belz, referring to the controversial 1994 book that linked African-Americans and lower IQ scores.
Several leaders say the Black Mountain case marked the first time any Presbyterian denomination has disciplined a member over the issue of race–a turning point beyond a past that is at least colored with racism.”
Adelle Banks, “Church Confronts, Expels Member For Racist Views” – Dec 6, 2017 ²⁴

Strangely enough, Wilkins’s and Payne’s trials both ended around the same time, but for different reasons. Depending on your perspective, you may have seen both these cases very similarly. In a 2006 issue of “The Bagpipe” (Covenant College’s student newspaper), Janssen Firth made the connection between these two men. In an article titled “Race Still an issue in the PCA”, the statements by Doug Wilson, Steven Wilkins, and Neill Payne were seen as evidences of a “racialized denomination” ²⁵

At this point, we may have the answer to our initial question regarding the relevance of federal vision today. If the FV theology is heretical, why did so many people get vindicated of their charges? Given the context, was this ever really about heresy, or just denominational politics?

The Finale

This was a lot of history and background to bring people up to speed. There are plenty of opinions out there, but it seems like most of them ignore the larger circumstances. Finally, after relaying the context, I wanted to humbly offer my own opinion on it all.

I don’t actually care about the federal vision.

I have appreciated the work of both anti-FV and pro-FV. I think both perspectives have some merit. Ultimately though, how would I go about disagreeing with either of them? Many man with intense theological training have attempted to nail down the teachings of federal vision, and have failed. Ask yourself: how could they not? The theology is presented as a scale, with people subscribing to the ideas in different quantities. Every single signer of the joint statement also subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In all honesty, if you cannot remove the holders of the FV theology within your own denomination, what good is my opinion? What is the point of calling it heresy?

If the federal vision perspective is anything but politics, act like it.

For those of you that would still press me for my opinion on the theology, I have a few thoughts. Federal vision theology is helpful for those who are well-versed in the reformed basics, but has little help for others. Doug Wilson’s book Reformed is Not Enough²⁶ outlines many of his FV ideas, but I doubt this book would be helpful to someone who wasn’t already thoroughly reformed. Perhaps that’s why there has been so much confusion surrounding the doctrine. If you weigh in from a non-reformed background, it gets extra confusing. That being said, I do appreciate his his work on the visible/invisible church and I find a good deal of it to helpful, but not definitive.

Ultimately though, it seems as if the federal vision was just a litmus test. Can a reformed denomination purge those that are deemed unorthodox? The answer appears to be no. In my humble opinion, It seems as if the change to a good faith subscription worsened the PCA’s ability to respond to doctrinal threats. Even now, the denominational problems only get worse. Currently, the PCA is attempting to clarify issues regarding sexual orientation, due to the fact that the PCA still has a gay pastor within the denomination.²⁷ In an episode of Moritification of Spin, Carl Trueman asked a question in light of the Revoice debate: “How can a denomination that, 10 years ago, was debating serious, substantial theology like justification, children at the lord’s table, now be bogged down in this missional rubbish?” ²⁸

Perhaps it would be wise for others to take a page from Joe Morecraft’s book. He was willing to leave the PCA 10 years after it’s creation due to what he viewed as unfaithfulness to the Westminster standards. Despite agreeing with many federal visionists about issues of theonomy, Morecraft was quick to voice his opinion of their views, condemning the FV theology. In this same way, if you believe that the PCA is harboring heretics, do something about it. If you don’t, it is inevitable that people will see it as a good faith exception to reformed theology.

As promised, here is a few links I found helpful when looking at the new perspective. (There’s links all throughout this article, just click on stuff)

Politics and Heretics

The Federal Vision

The Background

The Auburn Avenue Conference

Westminster “Standards”

Liberalism Meets Federal Vision

The Trials

The Finale

Sources:

Author Information:

PCA

The Church

One response to “Politics and Heretics”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply