Federal Defiance

Yesterday Jeffery Meyers posted an essay called “Subscription and Freedom” on De Regno Christi, explaining the reasons he repudiates imputation of the active obedience of Christ by appealing to chapter 20 of the WCF, “Of Christian Liberty, and the Liberty of Conscience,” and comparing him and his fellow Visionists to (a) John Calvin, (b) the martyrs whose blood the Inquisition spilt, and (c) Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart. Darryl Hart nailed Meyers for appealing to Westminster, writing,

JMyers, thanks for the answer. But I have to admit I’m stunned that the debate over active obedience comes down to freedom of conscience. Isn’t a tad odd to cite the doctrines and commandments of men (WCF 20) to proclaim liberty from the doctrines and commandments of men? I would have also thought that concerns for the unity and peace of the church might keep one from insisting on his own interpretation as opposed to those of his brothers in the church.

So I wonder if more is involved here. Surely, Pastor Myers, wouldn’t you concede that your response has more the ring of rebellion than pastoral concern for the good of the church. That is, if truth is at stake, what is that truth (re: active obedience)? Or is it simply a case of your rights?

This is the sum total of the Federal Vision movement — defiance. They postulated the objectivity of the covenant and the Reformed church found them wanting. Now, rather than submit to the truth in honesty, they have played every trick in the book, including the final one — liberty — for as Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

But this is not Mel Gibson opposing tyranny in Braveheart; no, not even close. It’s James Dean smoking cigarettes, acting cool, and playing chicken (debate) in Rebel Without a Cause. I say this because two months ago Jeffrey Meyers signed a statement that affirmed, “we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguties [sic], confusions, or errors.” Now he says, “The real reason I deny it [IAOC] is because I’m being told that I must affirm it. . .”

At least we know the real reason he denies it. We also know that he isn’t as teachable and willing to stand corrected as he affirmed in writing. I wonder, did his fellow Federal Visionists force him to sign their “Joint Statement” under pain of torture? or was it another misleading statement from the FVers designed to leave a false impression? I suspect the latter because every time you turn around, the Federal Visionists are just as James Dean described, “You, you say one thing, he says another, and everybody changes back again!”

Pick Me A Winner

Today Brett Favre faces the possibility of breaking two all-time records in the NFL: passing touchdowns and passing interceptions. Currently, he is tied with Dan Marino for throwing the most touchdown passes (420), and he is only three throws away from breaking George Blanda’s record of most interceptions. Brett has 275, Blanda 277. Call me crazy, but from my seat in the stands, Brett plays in hot and cold bursts, looking more like a mere shadow from his great days. He reminds me of Emmitt Smith who was willing to bang out a couple yards a carry for the last five years of his career in order to break the all-time rushing-yards gained record in addition to the all-time “most carries” record, which takes a little shine off the trophy in my mind.

New Middleweight Champion

Last night World Middleweight champion Jermaine Taylor lost his belts (and his undefeated record) to the number-one contender, Kelly Pavlik, in what the talking heads are already calling one of the most exciting fights in boxing history.

The heavily favored champ put Pavlik on the canvass early in the second round but he failed to finish him when he had the opportunity (at least two minutes left in the round), and when Pavlik got his legs back he regularly dropped his right on Taylor’s head, like a sledgehammer pounding a melon. Taylor fell suddenly in the seventh after a vicious combo from Pavlik, and the ref waved it off before the crowd knew what happened. Excellent fight; be sure to watch the rerun this week on HBO.

Tolerating Heretics

Ironies abound as De Regno Christi continues its discussion of “the Federal Vision Controversy.” Jeffrey Meyers complains,

In some circles the Westminster standards seem to have become the infallible voice of the Reformed magisterium. If you deviate from the exact words, definitions, and formulations therein, or if you suggest that they might be corrected by the Bible, you may be hauled before a Reformed inquisition.

And the irony is that, for all intents and purposes, Meyers has aligned himself with the CREC who is led by Doug Wilson, the chief visionist for New Saint Andrews College whom the New York Times Magazine covered this week in an article. And I quote:

The college handbook forbids students to embrace or promote “doctrinal errors” from the 4th through the 21st centuries, “such as Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, Skepticism, Feminism.” If drawn to such ideas, they must “inform the administration immediately and honestly in a letter offering to withdraw from the College.” Cultural revolution cannot tolerate heretics.

Jeffrey, perhaps you should write a letter to your presbytery offering to withdraw from your denomination so that you may join the cultural revolution in the CREC. Apparently they tolerate heretics in the pulpit, just not in the classroom.

Thank you.

Welcome Back, Lane!

Oh, yes, and by the way, welcome back, Lane! You’ll be happy to know that everyone behaved themselves in your absence, and two of us even got our own blogs!

Flower Power

We have to score one for William Chellis over at De Regno Christi, who inserted his serrated edge into James Jordan and slowly turned it. Jordan wrote, “I’m justified because Jesus died for me,” to which Chellis replied, “James . . . according to FV doctrine, you cannot know that. You might commit apostasy and be separated from Christ.” And the only thing funnier than this zinger is the strong likelihood that Jordan won’t get it.

This reminds me of a joke a Calvinist told me when I was an Arminian. He said, “If the TULIP is the flower for the Calvinist, do you know what flower the Arminians have adopted?” I replied, “No,” not knowing that I walked into it. He said, “The DAISY! — ‘He loves me; He loves me not; He loves me; He loves me not.’” Get it? The daisy!

Of course, the punch line as it relates to the Federal Vision is that their take on election is identical to the Arminians, even though they won’t admit it.

Federal Vision: “Let It Be”

Two days ago, P. Andrew Sandlin made two declarations relative to the Federal Vision on De Regno Christi. First, he declared it “a movement”:

Darryl, it’s a movement, like the Charismatic Movement, Reconstructionist Movement, Emergent Movement and so on. . . . In all of these ways, the FV is a classic movement.

And second, Sandlin declared James Jordan the Godfather of Federal Vision:

If anybody has a right to claim godfather status of this movement, it’s Jim J. Why nobody acknowledges this publicly mystifies me, and since I’m not part of the movement, it doesn’t cost me anything to say it. Almost everything the FV guys are saying today, Jim was saying (and I was reading) 20–25 years ago. He is the proximate theological fountainhead of this movement.

These two declarations are noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Federal Visionists have recently denied — rather vehemently — that they are “a movement,” affirming instead that they are “a conversation.” You can confirm this fact here. And of course, this isn’t particularly noteworthy except for one fact — moments after Sandlin declared FV “a movement,” Douglas Wilson immediately agreed with him, writing:

Andrew offered the observation that FV is a classic movement — and he is exactly right. As a movement, it will suffer the temptations that movements do and exhibit the strengths that movements do. As it happens, one of the tenets of this movement is the need for a higher ecclesiology. (“Was the Reformation a Church?”)

Amazingly, this quote contradicts this statement by Wilson:

Just a quick point for the record. . . . The FV guys have been maintaining that the FV is a conversation, a shared set of questions, not a movement, and so on. Some of the critics have insisted on the opposite — that we are a well-oiled, deeply-funded machine, set to infiltrate and take over the federated Reformed witness in North America. . . . Once it becomes obvious that the FV is not the movement that it was claimed to be. . . . (“FV As the Death Star”)

Accordingly, we may conclude that words, and the ideas they communicate, are only a means to an end for Wilson, and he does not really believe what he says (or writes) from one day to the next, unless it serves his best interest at that point in time. Furthermore, he doesn’t appear to care whether he contradicts himself at all, presumably because he only needs a few more meaningless words to correct himself.

The second noteworthy point relates to this because right before Sandlin made his “Godfather” statement, James Jordan continued his worldwide meltdown by sinking further into denial and introducing yet another comment on De Regno Christi trying to reframe the Federal Vision “movement” as a mere “conversation.” Jordan wrote, “That what’s called FV is just a conversation is what we’ve been saying for five years,” contrary to Wilson’s revelation. (These guys really need to get their talking points together.)

I note this because, in addition to being downright nasty to some of the participants in this so-called “conversation,” James Jordan appears somewhat bent and quite a bit unstable, which leads me to think that we should not apply “Godfather” status to him. Rather, we should think of him as Federal Vision’s Yoko Ono — the twisted sister who threw a fly in the Beatles’ ointment, forcing their breakup. I suggest this because just as John Lennon attributed his (late) creativity to Yoko Ono despite her tin ear, shrill vocals, and hostile demeanor, so the Federal Visionists appear happy to own James Jordan as their creative genius despite his mean-spirited and utterly vacuous comments.

However, unlike the Beatles who chose to dissolve rather than let Yoko call the shots, I suspect that the Federal Visionists will refuse to throw Jordan overboard, which will result in their continued marginalization because the man appears resolved to discredit the “movement” he godfathered with his incredibly stupid comments. It’s just my hunch; I could be wrong. But if I’m not, then as Paul McCartney said, “Let It Be.”

Update From the Moscow Front

The cities of Moscow–Pullman are served by an electronic bulletin board called Vision 2020, which hosts emails from all sorts of folks making the usual announcements attendant upon a community. Additionally, Vision 2020 is a forum for the community to discuss local issues, including controversial subjects such as Christ Church, which has been a continuous scandal since October 2003, when the world learned that Douglas Wilson co-wrote a booklet to approve of the Southern institution of slavery.

And it’s fair to say that for the last four years, Vision 2020 seldom sees a week without a couple posts from upset citizens distressed over Douglas Wilson’s words or deeds, if not entire threads devoted to one particular scandal or another. It’s also fair to say that Wilson has had only about three non-Christ Church members who have actively defended him on the list, which does not count his multiple pseudonyms that he has deployed to defend his reputation.

Today, one of Wilson’s staunchest defenders posted the following letter on Vision 2020. It is well worth reading:

Faithful Readers,

I am now about to do something that is hard for anyone, but especially hard for an old soldier like myself. I admit that I have been wrong in some of the opinions that I have previously expressed on this forum.

Over the past several weeks I have been on an extended vacation during which I have visited many fellow officers with whom I have served during my career of thirty plus years in the military. Those with whom I visited are all, like myself, conservatives, and think of ourselves as libertarians. The defense of the freedoms guaranteed by our unequaled U.S. Constitution was a main reason for many of us to choose careers in the military.

Make no mistake. Do not be tempted to make any misinterpretation. In what I am about to say I having no intention of lessening my belief in freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. These freedoms make our great country truly unique. One need only look at the countries of our enemies to see how different they are from us in this regard.

Freedom of speech and the press are our main means to seek the truth in the complex world we live in. Anyone who expresses a belief of any kind does not enjoy any immunity from comment on the truthfulness or inanity of such expression. To allow immunity in any way would be to emasculate the pursuit of truth.

To make my point tersely: I have previously been a staunch supporter on this forum of Christ Church and its various personages and their actions. While I still strongly support their right to their beliefs and to the expression of their beliefs, I no longer am able support those beliefs themselves or the actions which are begot by such beliefs.

I have previously believed that Christ Church was a Godly institution which was trying to honestly bring goodness and Godliness into the world. I do not believe this anymore.

I confess to two things that helped bring about this change of perspective.

First, every fellow retired officer with whom I visited on my vacation believed as libertarians in the separation of church and state. The history of the world as we know it tells us of the disastrous inhumanity, cruelty, intolerance, suppression of personal liberty, and injustice that occurs when one or another set of religious beliefs are advocated and enforced by a government. But we need not depend on history for this lesson: newsreaders today can see the horrible results on personal liberty by the religious tyranny enforced by many mid-eastern and eastern nations regardless of the name or nature of their particular religion.

My officer friends put it this way. “There greatest threat to personal liberty today are those organized religious movements who seek to impose their particular strictures on our freedom of thought, expression, and actions via political and governmental intervention in our lives.” Those kind of actions by the government in England were the motivation for the founding of our country. Let us not forget that, ever.

This is hard for me to say. I have been wrong about homosexual practices and homosexual marriages or civil unions. While I personally find homosexual relations distasteful to contemplate, I see now the choice of partners and pleasures is a matter of personal liberty guaranteed by the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as stated in our Declaration of Independence. I see now that I have no more right to dictate another’s gender preference and the concomitant unions that might follow than I have to dictate what nail polish color someone might chose, whether such choice of color offends me or not.

Second, my officer friends, who know naught of Christ Church, urged me to re-evaluate the statements of those opposed — to try to find out for myself if those running Christ Church are honest and well-intentioned, and to see if they seek to impose strictures based on their particular religious interpretations on the rest of us that would lessen our personal liberty.

I have done so.

I have found the statements of Christ Church as found in various of their writings show them to be dangerous theocrats who, among other greatly limiting things, seek to impose eventually the most harsh measures on all of us who do not share their beliefs.

Especially disturbing to a libertarian is their intention to impose the death penalty on those they consider heretical — anyone who would criticize their particular religious tenets. This is America. Not Saudi Arabia or Iran. The denial of the right to question any belief is the most dangerous and arbitrary stricture a government can impose on its citizens. It is the denial to continue to seek the truth, wherever it might lead.

(God, this old soldier hates to say this since he has been so critical of some of Christ Christ’s critics, and hates to admit that he has been hoodwinked due largely to his own ignorance and lack of diligence. . .) I have found that Christ Christ is neither a godly nor a benevolent institution. Their leader and many of their upper echelon are now in my informed opinion, liars, hypocrites, manipulators, blood-suckers from their congregation, and exceedingly unchristian, intentionally veering quite far from the basic, plain moral teachings of Christ found in the most historically accurate parts of the New Testament.

To the extent that my previous posts have defended Christ Church’s right to hold and to defend their beliefs, I offer no apology. They, and all of us, have that right. It is called freedom.

To the extent that any of my previous posts have defended any particular tenet or theological aberration of Christ Church, or any of the many despicable actions that such have begotten, I humbly apologize for my previous ignorance, lack of critical thought and investigation, and for my unjustifiably overbearing attitude.

Kerry Becker

Thank you, Kerry, it takes courage and honor to admit error, especially after so many years; but as John Bunyan said, “A man lying down need fear no fall,” and you, at any rate, have shown your willingness to stay humble. Hopefully, the men behind the Federal Vision can learn from your example.

Federal Ignorance, Part 2

Yesterday we considered the reason that Jeff Meyers gave for rejecting TRs and, with them, the Westminster Confession of Faith, at least by implication. Meyers wrote:

There was a time in my ministry when I believe that I encouraged Reformed snobbery. Many years ago, after an evening service, I walked out to the parking lot and joined a group of men who were talking about our church. They were praising our worship and our doctrine. At first I felt proud. Then they started to belittle the Lutheran church down the road. Crypto Arminians. They turned to the generic evangelical congregation in our neighborhood. Idiots. Dumb evangelicals. Before long it was, “I thank God that our church has such pure doctrine and preaches the Word so faithfully and that we are not like those stupid Lutherans and crazy evangelicals.” Well, I didn’t go home that night feeling all that justified.

That was something of a turning point in my ministry. I realized that I was a big part of the problem. My TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF had led to this.

I guess I don’t have a problem with Presbyterian laymen and women being a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations. In truth, I probably encourage it. It keeps us humble about our own theological tradition. It leads us to better behavior, too. Less sectarian and more catholic.

Today, let’s examine the fruit of Meyers’ conversion from Westminster to Federal Vision. More specifically, I want to consider whether his rejection of TR theology has produced any more humility in his church, whether it has encouraged “better behavior” within his congregation, and if the fruit of his ministry is “less sectarian and more catholic.” And to answer this question, I introduce one exhibit — Mr. Mark Horne — Meyers’ fellow minister in the PCA. Therefore, please take into account the following posts and ask yourself if abandoning the WCF has produced more humility, improved his behavior, and made him less sectarian and more catholic:

In “Dealing with MARS, part 3,” Mr. Horne wrote,

Who are these evil people? Where are they found? What presbytery or classis examined them and allowed them into our midst? What study committees have been erected to expose such error? Where do I sign up to do my part to rid the church of them?

Please bear in mind that Mr. Horne framed these rhetorical question to describe esteemed professors — Christian brothers — from a reputable seminary, who adopted a position opposing the Federal Vision. Also note that, later the same day, Mr. Horne took time to libel another Christian brother, writing, “Andy, you continue to show that you are of the Father of Lies.” Now, I may be wrong, but in both instances Mr. Horne’s choice of words seem slightly stronger than merely calling someone “idiots” or “dumb evangelicals.”

If I read Lane Keister correctly, Mr. Horne used this post (which he has since removed) to call his fellow PCA minister “a Satanic, non-sanctified, non-academic, non-intellectual, discipline-averting (internet vs. church courts), wickedly insinuating troubler of the PCA.” You have to read about it here. Of course, the point is that, hopefully, Pastor Jeff Meyers has trouble sleeping because of Mr. Horne’s rhetoric; but I doubt it.

“Classic mob justice” isn’t much better. Here Mr. Horne impugned the integrity of the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee with belittling, disrespectful language, something condemned, or at least strongly discouraged, by Jeffrey Meyers.

The post titled “The committee biased? No, all the people who matter were included.” is a good example of Mr. Horne thumbing his nose at his fathers and brothers in the faith, as well as his denomination, and it illustrates the absence of submission and humility in a minister of the gospel. Notice Mr. Horne’s “me first” point of view:

No one counts but the groups represented on the committee. No one else matters. We have no need to include anyone, to recognize their years of service, to regard them in any way as brothers, except in acknowledging the need to condemn and marginalize them by this stacked committee — which isn’t stacked because no one else counts.”

The title of this entry, “Humbly do it because we say so,” represents Mr. Horne’s sarcastic attempt to heap disdain on humility in order to maintain sectarian defiance. Perhaps this constitutes Meyers’ idea of “a bit eclectic about theological and systematic formulations.”

Mr. Horne titled this post with a question, “Does Clark know what it means to have a conscience?” which he answered in the opening line: “I see no evidence that he does.” He may think himself humble and catholic, but I am confident that most people would disagree.

The post titled “Look how cute I am standing next to the PCA study committee!” plays off of Doug Wilson’s “stacked committee” tirade and once again demonstrates Mr. Horne’s contempt for his fathers and brothers in the faith (as well as his preference of Wilson over communion).

The innuendo in “Normally I would want to hide this for the sake of the guy’s reputation” is a pathetic ad hominem and a disgraceful attempt to exemplify humility and good behavior, if that’s what Mr. Horne intended.

I could cite many other examples of shameful conduct by Mr. Horne, but these should suffice. And please note that he wrote all of these posts during a 30-day stretch in May and June of this year, when providence afforded him (and Meyers) an opportunity to exhibit their commitment to humility and good behavior. Unfortunately, Mr. Horne went to great lengths to document in writing that he is an absolute embarrassment to the Christian ministry — a man completely oblivious to his petulant outbursts and childish behavior that would shame any normal person, let alone a true ambassador for Christ.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot understand why Jeffrey Meyers could not countenance “Reformed snobbery” while he apparently approves Federal Vision rancor. I believe, therefore, that Meyers’ pretext for ditching TR theology, i.e. the prideful snobbery it bred in his congregation, is a pile of baloney simple because the immediate fruit of his ministry — Mark Horne — is actually worse than any kind of “Reformed snobbery” (whatever that is), which supposedly pushed him away from Westminster.

Jeffrey, I have one word for you: Visionist, see thyself.

Federal Ignorance

Last week, during the so-called discussion of the Federal Vision controversy at De Regno Christi, Pastor Jeff Meyers of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, MO, wrote:

There was a time in my ministry when I believe that I encouraged Reformed snobbery. Many years ago, after an evening service, I walked out to the parking lot and joined a group of men who were talking about our church. They were praising our worship and our doctrine. At first I felt proud. Then they started to belittle the Lutheran church down the road. Crypto Arminians. They turned to the generic evangelical congregation in our neighborhood. Idiots. Dumb evangelicals. Before long it was, “I thank God that our church has such pure doctrine and preaches the Word so faithfully and that we are not like those stupid Lutherans and crazy evangelicals.” Well, I didn’t go home that night feeling all that justified.

These words convey a commendable attitude that all Christians should strive to maintain. If your faith breeds pride, contempt for the brethren, or any kind of strife, then be sure that it descends not from above. Pastor Meyers had good cause to lament this sin in his congregation and he had better cause to examine his own heart and repent of the haughtiness that spawned this outbreak of arrogance. Sadly, Pastor Meyers informs us that his improper understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith fostered the problem and, even sadder, he appears oblivious to his ignorance:

That was something of a turning point in my ministry. I realized that I was a big part of the problem. My TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF had led to this.

Here we see that Meyers had “a turning point in his ministry” when he realized his “TRish kind of talk about the glories of the WCF” was “a big part of the problem.” Unfortunately, Meyers’ “turning point” turned him the wrong way, demonstrating that he really does not understand the truths communicated by the WCF. For example, Chapter VI, “Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof,” sections III–VI should not incite pride in anyone who grasps the import of these words:

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Pastor Meyers, if the words “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” stir you to get puffed, then you are twisted. And if “made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal” inflames you to strut before the congregation, then there is something terribly wrong with you.

But let’s move to election, which is usually the stumbler for Arminians, because it, like the fall, gives no cause for anyone to bluster, though those who don’t grasp it tend to act special, i.e. arrogant.

Years ago, while migrating from Dispensationalism to the Reformed faith, I read Lewis Sperry Chafer on election (for all his downsides, his presentation of Calvinism served as a great primer for me, for which I am grateful), and he wrote an outstanding rebuttal to the specious argument that states election breeds pride and arrogance in the elect because they deem themselves special in the eyes of God. Chafer quoted Augustus Strong, who wrote:

It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect. — Answer: this is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites of God, have reason to question their election. . . . It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether on their own part or on the part of others. — Answer: Since it is a secret decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without election, it is certain that all would be lost (cf. Acts 18:10). While it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to cry for mercy, it encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he will only believe. While it makes the Christian feel entirely dependent on God’s power, in his efforts for the impenitent, it leads him to say with Paul that he “endures all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may attain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). (Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907] 788, 789).

I am TR, which instills humility rather than conceit because, in the end, the Reformed faith accentuates the wonders of Christ’s glory at the expense of man’s total depravity more than any other Christian system, whatever Jeff Meyers may say about it. And he may attribute the pride of his heart to the WCF, but I suggest he reread Mark 10:44, because somewhere along the line he missed this Sunday school lesson — “Whoever of you desires to be first shall be the servant of all.”

Welcome back, Bob Mattes!

Welcome back, Bob Mattes, good to see you didn’t fall off the planet. Your Reformed Musings has provided critical analysis, filling gaps that Green Baggins doesn’t have time to address. Godspeed, and keep up the good work!

Thank you.

Who Needs the Matterhorn?

D Hart sees right through D Wilson and is giving him a clinic in Reformed theology. Better yet, he’s having fun doing it. This ride has more fun than an E ticket at Disneyland, and it’s quite educational.

Federal Visionists, let’s see if you’re as teachable as you claim.

One Rabbit Covers Three Buckets

Douglas Wilson has pulled another rabbit out of his hat of rhetorical tricks, when he managed to describe the Federal Vision as a potpourri of Reformed distinctives held by various camps at various times, over at De Regno Christi in a post called “The Combination.”

The post deserves high marks for evasive creativity; however, Wilson missed the primary ingredient in Federal Vision and, sadly, no one called him on it. Of course I refer to the three bucket loads of Arminianism when the Federal Visionists describe their view of election and perseverance.

As I said, too bad no one called him on it.

Memo to Jimmy Jordan

I realize that at various times you deny the existence of the “Federal Vision” and you have even gone so far as to declare, “I have no idea what the ‘whole FV thing’ is.” So consider this memo a small reminder to jar your memory.

On July 30, 2007, less than three months ago, you signed your name to a document entitled “A Joint Federal Vision Statement,” which affirms, “Any doctrine mentioned in the sections before this one can be fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision.”

Therefore, I suggest that you reread this statement to clarify for yourself what “the whole FV thing is.” You can find it at the website called Federal Vision. It is subtitled “resources for understanding the controversy.”

Thank you.

Federal Schizophrenia

If you haven’t heard, the folks at De Regno Christi are hosting a virtual discussion on the Federal Vision. Thus far (and as expected) no one has achieved anything; however, someone from the Federal Vision camp needs to explain their talking points to James Jordan. Either that or he’s is in the middle of an identity crisis. Witness his own testimony regarding the Federal Vision faction:

First, on Monday, he alluded to the “so-called FVers” and implied that they don’t exist as a sect, group, or faction:

That and that alone is what was controversial about the original conference at Auburn Avenue called “Federal Vision.” . . When the Bible says “washing of regeneration,” so-called FVers say. . . . (9-17-07, 3:36 pm)

Two hours later, he reiterated his implication by referring to the “so-called FV business”:

And I think reducing the faith from confession to ideology (which is how our broad confessions are being treated in conservative circles these days) is a grave evil, tantamount to operating by intellectual sight rather than submissive faith — though this evil is one that the so-called FV business has exposed. My point was that the original FV conference was not a response to some crisis. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

But in the same comment, he acknowledged the existence of “people involved in FV.” And please notice his appeal to certainty:

But to be sure: The people involved in FV were involved in Christian Reconstruction 25 years ago. . . (9-17-07, 5:33 pm)

On Tuesday, however, his certainty waned and he denied both their existence as a group and their agenda:

Perhaps it’s worth remembering that those of us being grouped as “FV” by others (and we never grouped ourselves that way, nor had we any agenda as such). . . Perhaps some of the fuss over the so-called “FV” lies in. . . (9-18-07, 1:54 pm)

Exactly eight minutes later, Jordan had a moment of clarity and realized that “there is no such thing as Federal Vision”:

I have no idea what the “whole FV thing” is. I and everyone else has said for half a decade that there is no such thing as the FV. . . . (9-18-07, 2:02 pm)

However, this morning Mr. Jordan acknowledged that he contributed a long essay to the book titled The Federal Vision, which was written by a group of men without an agenda about a subject that they cannot identify because neither it nor they exist in any form or fashion.

I have a long essay on this in the book The Federal Vision. Most of us [FVers] believe in . . . (9-19-07, 9:41 am)

Jim Jordan, call a doctor. You need a reality check.

Thank you.

“DUMB”

A quick note on the category “DUMB.” Last month I posted a comment on Green Baggins (outstanding blog) wherein I coined the acronym DUMB to describe “Doug’s Universe of Make Believe,” which is a fantasyland of Douglas Wilson’s making, where deception is reality and truth is an existential proposition subject to change when found inconvenient. Here is the comment in full:

All,

Gary Johnson’s latest post reveals the remarkable phenomenon that takes place whenever DUMB (Doug’s Universe of Make Believe) intersects with the universe known as REALITY, which took place yesterday when Douglas Wilson wrote this comment.

In Wilson’s mind, he believed that his response had effectively answered Gary’s comment here. However, the King of DUMB seldom accounts for REALITY whenever he postulates his fabrications, which usually results in a collision with the hard facts of life that the King of DUMB never explains. It just hangs there like an inexplicable mystery of the universe.

But there’s another remarkable phenomenon that takes place when DUMB collides with REALITY, because Douglas Wilson is not the only soul who lives in DUMB. Of a truth he has succeeded in populating DUMB with thousands of like-minded souls who live on every word that proceeds from the mouth of Doug, and when these poor lost souls read a post such as Gary Johnson’s, all circuits in DUMB go on overload until they realize that this collision only affects the laws of reason and not the laws of the universe. In other words, as long as they turn off their brains, nothing will change their mundane lives if they consent to Wilson’s deception. At that point the inhabitants of DUMB resume their daily existences until the next time REALITY blows their circuits and they must once again throw the off switch in their rapidly dimming minds.

But wouldn’t it be nice if just once when DUMB collides with REALITY, one of DUMB’s dignitaries, such as Archbishop Booth, would step forward and actually hold Wilson accountable for his habitual misrepresentations rather than allow him to point to those empty holes in space and say, “My presbytery holds me accountable.”

Thank you.

This comment may be helpful as well in comprehending the land of DUMB.

Thank you.

Federal Vision: “A Glorious Mess”

We continue to explore the unique use of language employed by the Federal Visionists, and today we move to a post written by Douglas Wilson on May 29, 2007, when he resurrected his “battle” theme. However, this time he included much more detail as he described his perceived role in the controversy, and he also managed to toss in a dash of the “new Reformation” theme, when he wrote,

In a battle, foot solders focus rightly on the conflict right in front of them. Generals don’t have the luxury of that simplicity, and so they also have to think constantly about the larger strategic issues. Great generals do not just think of tactics on the field, but also of the larger strategic issues, up to and including the geo-political ones.

When doctrinal controversy erupts in the Church, the same realities are present. There are local church members and local pastors who find themselves swept up into a particular conflict that is a small part of a larger battle. They are required to be faithful in that conflict, and part of that faithfulness includes recognizing that the conflict includes their issues, but is not “about” their issues. . . . We have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now, and I believe there are reasons to believe it is beginning to arrive. One of the reasons for believing this is the explosion of chaos and confusion. In The Last Lion, William Manchester described Winston Churchill’s participation in one of the last cavalry charges of the modern world. Before the forces collided, everything was distinct and in its place. The flags were snapping briskly. The sides were clear, and everything was magnificent. Once the armies met, there was complete pandemonium. Only a wise general could keep his head in that situation and remember what was actually supposed to be occurring.

As I said, we have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now. But what on earth made us think that any reformation ever came without making a glorious mess? When did new wine in old wineskins not result in wine all over the floor?

The problem is this: when men build the tombs of the prophets there is a large measure of self-deception going on. They tell themselves that they are the true heirs of the prophets when their actions betray them (to the wise) as heirs of those who opposed the prophets. Christ took just one glance and told them what they were doing. The curators of the Reformation Museum want everyone to stay behind the velvet ropes, to leave the old books on their shelves, and coo over the wax reproduction of John Knox confronting Mary Queen of Scots. Then everyone is given a brochure reminding everyone to not try this at home.

People just do this, and they don’t know that they do. This is a deep sociological reality, and all the wishing in the world can’t make it unfold differently. In this reformation, just like the last one, there will be the old guard, refusing to budge. There will be the defenders of the old, those who are willing to retrench somewhat, introducing some reforms under pressure. There will be the magisterial reformers, with significant differences between them, outlining a vision for the future. There will be the sane anabaptists, trying to stay out of trouble. There will be the opportunistic lunatics, who set up some kind of federal vision wife-swapping deal.

One of the earmarks of shrewd insight is the ability to see what corresponds to what. Who is like this person? Who is like that one? Who are the reformers, speaking the language of Scripture afresh? Who are the heretics, flaming with the rhetoric of reformation, but denying the substance? Who are the curators and librarians, custodians of treasures they cannot understand anymore?

When the massive confusion of real reformation breaks out, how do you decide what to do? Simple. The children of Abraham will do the works of Abraham. (“Children of Abraham”)

For the record, I did not fabricate this quote. Douglas Wilson really wrote it and it’s safe to assume that he really believes it. Furthermore, I freely admit that the scope of this blog is too small to handle a proper analysis of Wilson’s thought process; that is a project for experts on mental illness. Nevertheless, I shall offer a brief outline to assist the brethren caught in the fray.

First, Douglas Wilson sees himself as a “great general” in this controversy, and he is conducting himself accordingly:

Great generals do not just think of tactics on the field, but also of the larger strategic issues, up to and including the geo-political ones.

When doctrinal controversy erupts in the Church, the same realities are present. There are local church members and local pastors who find themselves swept up into a particular conflict that is a small part of a larger battle. They are required to be faithful in that conflict, and part of that faithfulness includes recognizing that the conflict includes their issues, but is not “about” their issues.

Leaders in the Reformed church should not miss this. Douglas Wilson has set his affection on “larger strategic issues,” which includes “geopolitical ones.” In other words, he has a plan to impose his fight — his battle — on the Reformed church, and he intends to take strategic geopolitical objects, which in this case means churches — local assemblies — who hold their membership in larger denominations, such as the PCA and the OPC.

Second, notice the analogy that Wilson draws between the disruption to the peace and purity of the church caused by Federal Vision and the “complete pandemonium” that took place when Churchill led the last cavalry charge of the British Empire at Khartoum:

We have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now, and I believe there are reasons to believe it is beginning to arrive. One of the reasons for believing this is the explosion of chaos and confusion. In The Last Lion, William Manchester described Winston Churchill’s participation in one of the last cavalry charges of the modern world. Before the forces collided, everything was distinct and in its place. The flags were snapping briskly. The sides were clear, and everything was magnificent. Once the armies met, there was complete pandemonium. Only a wise general could keep his head in that situation and remember what was actually supposed to be occurring.

As I said, we have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now. But what on earth made us think that any reformation ever came without making a glorious mess? When did new wine in old wineskins not result in wine all over the floor?

Notice the only common denominator that exists between Wilson’s example and the Federal Vision controversy: “a glorious mess.” Notice also that he premises his argument on this mess and cites it as a reason to believe that Federal Vision is the beginning of a new reformation: One of the reasons for believing this is the explosion of chaos and confusion.”

Here’s the argument:

• Winston Churchill led a cavalry charge that resulted in chaos.
• The Federal Vision has created widespread chaos in the Church.
• Therefore, this chaos is a reason to believe that the Federal Vision is the beginning of a new reformation.

And if you need further proof, just answer this question: “When did new wine in old wineskins not result in wine all over the floor?” And if this does not satisfy you, then you must defer to Wilson’s expertise as implied in his role in this controversy: “Only a wise general could keep his head in that situation and remember what was actually supposed to be occurring.”

By now I have exhausted my word limit, so next time I shall conclude this analysis of Wilson’s argument.

Thank you.

“Speaking Perverse Things” — More Perspective on the Old Perspective

Continuing our discussion of the Federal Visionists’ unique use of language to describe their movement’s agenda, we see that on December 23, 2006, Douglas Wilson once again recast the Federal Vision faction — this time backing away from their “agenda” to soft-pedal it as a “school of thought”:

In the course of the discussion, I made the point that this was nothing more than a simple continuation of the theonomy fracas in the Reformed world a couple decades ago. . . . First allow me to point to some points of continuity, seen most clearly in some of the players. Theonomists, because of their emphasis on the continuing validity of God’s law, were frequently accused of undermining justification by faith alone. Norman Shepherd was slated to be one of the original Auburn speakers until he was providentially hindered by the tragic death of his wife, and was replaced by John Barach. But had he been one of the speakers, the whole thing would have blown up, just like it did, only probably quicker. During the original Shepherd controversy, he had strong support among the theonomists — Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, to mention two. North even devoted an entire book — Westminster’s Confession — defending Shepherd. Other supporters of Shepherd included such notables as Cornelius Van Til. . . . From the front rank of the original theonomists we have Jim Jordan. From the second tier (of that day), we have men like Wilkins and Leithart. . . . Now, what’s different about this episode and the theonomy episode? I do not mean to claim that the theonomists have learned nothing, or have not modified their emphases. They most certainly have, and I actually believe that this is why the conflict has become even more intense. In the first round, the theonomy movement was an ideological movement, fueled largely by book publication. Once in a conversation with Greg Bahnsen, when I had explained to him why I was not theonomist, he made a helpful distinction for me. He said there was a difference between a movement and a school of thought. A movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader, and so on. A school of thought encompasses people who share a broad number of assumptions, but are not necessarily in the same revolutionary cell group. . . . To apply this distinction, what has happened is this. The hardcore theonomy movement morphed into a broad theonomy-lite school of thought, and from there began to settle into particular communities, with a specific cultural embodiment. . . The concrete application has included scores of classical Christian schools around the country, a college (New St. Andrews), church communities that emphasize parish life together (Monroe, Moscow, and numerous others). . . . In short, we have moved from the time when a handful of outrageous men were saying crazy things on paper (the Old Testament is still in the Bible, the gospel will conquer the world, etc.) to a time when a number of thriving communities are being built on the pastoral assumption that all of God’s truths are designed to be lived, and lived in community. (“More to Being Reformed Than Believing in Jesus and Smoking Cigars”)

I quoted heavily from this post because it says a lot more than first meets the eye and, as usual, Wilson parses his words carefully, at the expense of truth.

First, notice how he defined the word “movement”:

In the first round, the theonomy movement was an ideological movement, fueled largely by book publication. Once in a conversation with Greg Bahnsen, when I had explained to him why I was not theonomist, he made a helpful distinction for me. He said there was a difference between a movement and a school of thought. A movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader, and so on.

Accordingly, Wilson affirms that a “movement is ideologically driven, has an explicit agenda, requires a movement leader,” etc., but at the same time, notice that he neglected to pinpoint the leader of the so-called theonomy movement. Now, certainly, Rushdooney got them off the ground; but after he functionally excommunicated his son-in-law Gary North, the “hardcore theonomy movement” set precedent, demonstrating once and for all how theonomists understand the Christian principle of peacemaking — split, divide, shun, and ignore. Consequently, the theonomists splintered into so many factions, so quickly, that no one man emerged as their “leader.”

Second, notice how Wilson made the smooth transition from theonomy as a movement to Federal Vision as “a broad theonomy-lite school of thought,” as though schools of thought are ideologically void, without leaders pushing agendas. Yes, I see the difference. Movements consist of an ideology manifested by an agenda advanced by a leader, whereas schools of thought consist of an ideology manifested by an agenda advanced by a leader. Thank you, Doug, for making this distinction.

Third, notice that Wilson made a quick jump from “a broad theonomy-lite school of thought” to “particular communities, with a specific cultural embodiment,” and at the same time he failed to note that prototype Federal Visionist society, the mother of them all — Tyler, Texas — as though theonomists never attempted to build a particular community with a specific cultural embodiment.

Of course, Gary North, James Jordan, and Ray Sutton took their party to Tyler, Texas, where they lifted their blueprint for reconstruction from Orwell’s 1984. In fact, they even managed to defraud a widow of several mites. And after embedding their boot prints on their devotees’ faces, the great theonomy experiment melted down like Chernobyl — leaving nothing but parched earth in its wake.

Interestingly, Wilson omitted these critical details when he described theonomy as a movement and leapfrogged to Moscow and Monroe as illustrations of theonomic-lite cultural embodiment. He also forgot to note the hardcore authoritarianism that has marked both communities since their joint-migration from theonomy to Federal Visionism, presumably because negative publicity would give potential recruits good cause to stay away from Moscow. And you must remember that the chief goal of the Federal Visionists is to “draw away disciples after themselves,” and “speaking perverse things” is their primary means of achieving this objective.

Federal Vision and the Old Perspective on Paul

The principal leaders of the religious faction called Federal Vision have recently denied that their party is “movement” advancing an “agenda,” which isn’t noteworthy except for one minor detail: their claim belies other assertions made by the same men at different points during in this controversy, when political expedience did not obligate them to deny their movement’s existence. And this point isn’t even that noteworthy except that it illustrates the primary objective of this blog — “Federal Schism” — which is to expose the disingenuous characters and rank hypocrisy of the men driving Federal Vision. First, however, we must establish that the Federal Visionists have denied that they are a “movement” pushing an “agenda.”

On August 21, 2007, Douglas Wilson posted a letter on his blog that James Jordan wrote in response to certain criticisms pointed at the Federal Vision. The content of Jordan’s letter was somewhat fanciful if not downright fantasy, and it clearly denied that the existence of a Federal Vision movement and agenda:

Mr. Beach continues by writing that Mr. Minich’s article “doesn’t mention that paedocommunion is a major item on the FV agenda, probably because he is responding to critics of FV.” Well, that’s because there is no FV agenda. All there ever was was a Pastor’s Conference. The FV “movement” and “agenda” are creations of the minds of people who don’t like what some of us believe. . . . But understand, none of this started out as some kind of movement. “Federal Vision theology” is a creation of the minds of FV critics, and that is why it is so hard to say what it is. It varies from critic to critic. Only now, after 5 years, have some of us decided to try and heal this silly war by stating what we think FV might be. (“A Guest Post from Jim Jordan”)

And on September 3, 2007, Douglas Wilson echoed Mr. Jordan’s assertions, dismissing the Federal Vision as nothing more than “a conversation, a shared set of questions, not a movement,” when he wrote:

Just a quick point for the record. . . . The FV guys have been maintaining that the FV is a conversation, a shared set of questions, not a movement, and so on. Some of the critics have insisted on the opposite — that we are a well-oiled, deeply-funded machine, set to infiltrate and take over the federated Reformed witness in North America. . . . Once it becomes obvious that the FV is not the movement that it was claimed to be. . . . (“FV As the Death Star”)

But these two claims about the Federal Vision, which Wilson published on his blog, contradict other statements that he published on the same blog at different times during this controversy. For example, on August 12, 2004, in a post entitled “Answering All the Questions,” Wilson explicitly stated the primary objective of the Federal Vision, that is, its agenda, if you will. He wrote, “I reiterate again that this entire battle is for the hearts and minds of second-year seminarians.”

Now, whatever else may be true, not many people would confuse a “battle” with a “conversation” or “a shared set of questions,” unless of course the conversation contemplated the proper meaning of the word “battle.” Then again, given the title of the post, “Answering All the Questions,” Wilson appeared to answer the question surrounding the Federal Vision agenda: it’s a battle for “the hearts and minds of second-year seminarians.”

One month later, on September 2, 2004, Wilson framed the Federal Vision controversy much differently, in an apparent attempt to seize the high ground, if not an attempt to write Church history in advance:

Not only do confessional Protestants have to make their peace with revivalism, the kind of movement to which they generally object, they also have to make their peace with genuine movements of the Holy Spirit, which can be far more troublesome. In the revivalist stream, the institutional Church often suffers at the hands of nutjobs, and they come and punch holes in the wineskins with the icepick of fanaticism. This does create ironies and tensions. But the new wine of the Spirit is sometimes just as unkind to the wineskins. As we recall, there was a time when virtually every trained theologian in Jerusalem voted to kill the Messiah. (“Wineskins and Other Metaphors”)

No, he never stated directly that the Federal Vision was a new work of the Holy Spirit; he only implied it in a post that he filed under “Auburn Avenue Stuff,” the archival category holding all of his Federal Vision posts. He eventually develops this theme in greater detail.

Two months later, on November 6, 2004, in a post called “Just Back From LA,” Wilson restated the specific agenda held by those in the Federal Vision sect, when he wrote, “I have said before that this whole thing is a battle for the second year seminarians.”

Seven months after this, on March 15, 2005, Wilson once again jockeyed for the high ground by delineating the reasons why certain men resist this “new wine in the church.” He wrote:

When it appears that the Holy Spirit has begun to create new wine in the church, why do Christian leaders sometimes fail to drink it? . . . let us assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit really has begun to work in a significant way, and that entrenched religious authorities oppose that work. What are some of the reasons given in Scripture for why they might want to do this? . . . . Envy. . . . Fear. . . . Laziness. . . . (“Three Stumbling Blocks,” emphasis original)

Got that? If you oppose the Federal Vision, then you must be envious, afraid, and lazy. Regardless, Wilson clearly sees the Federal Vision as a new work, and within the first year that he began blogging (he opened his blog on April 22, 2004), he clearly identified where he believes the Federal Vision originated — “the Holy Spirit.” He also stated the primary objective that the Federal Visionists sought to achieve — “the hearts and minds of second-year seminarians.” And, most importantly, he articulated the means by which the Federal Visionists intend to obtain their stated goal — “battle.”

So, if the Federal Vision “is a conversation, a shared set of questions,” and “not a movement,” as Douglas Wilson alleges, then how does he square this “conversation, this shared set of questions,” this non-existent movement, with his oft-stated goal of capturing the hearts and minds of second-year seminarians?

The answer to this question rests with a proper understanding of that old perspective on Paul, who warned, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29, 30.)