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.”