The FV Disease

An anonymous blogger has written a thoughtful post about “Bag o’ Snakes,” which he titled “The Blessing/Curse of Anonymity”; I know next to nothing about this person so I can’t even say if he hosts a fully documented anonymous attack blog or simply an anonymous blog. But we exchanged some comments and I believe my last comment (here) deserves front-page attention because everyone leading the fight against FV needs to understand this point. FV is not the problem; it’s the symptom. And until the Reformed church understands this, it will never fully eradicate the FV disease from its ranks.

Mark T. said. . .

When Wilson writes, “I am not ashamed of my baptized Christian name,” he underscores the principal problem in the Federal Vision controversy, i.e. he has no shame.

Thank you.

Turretinfan said. . .

I don’t really think the FV controversy is about DW not having shame — I think it has more to do with DW not being an imprecise theologian who is overly loyal to the wrong friends — which I suppose we could connect to shame some way or another.

Nevertheless, it is just absurd to suggest that anonymous folks are “ashamed” of their names.

— Turretinfan

Mark T. said. . .

One important point that emerged during the Slavery Scandal was that while Wilson thought himself a historian, those of us who live in real life understood him as a revisionist. In the FV controversy, while Wilson deems himself a theologian, you categorize him as imprecise. The problem is that he’s no more of a theologian than he is a historian. He makes it all up as he goes, spinning his way out of one statement to the next, hoping he never runs out of yarn — or time — and always blaming others when they catch him in a contradiction. In this respect — the endless spin cycles with all their mood swings — Wilson has no shame.

You are absolutely correct about the loyalty factor. He requires unquestioning loyalty of his subjects and he offers them semblances of loyalty in return. But people need to understand what’s going on here. Why is he so loyal to these lawless renegades? — You see it, I see it, but we have to ask ourselves what’s in it for him? And the answer to that question explains the whole FV agenda, that is, if you grant my assumption that he leads the FV.

Turretinfan said. . .

I’m not worried about whether Wilson held a politically correct view on slavery, or whether he has an overly Romantic view of the Old South. I’m not particularly concerned about the way he handled the criminal that was a student at NSA for a while. I’m not all that concerned about “Trinity Fest” or the zoning battles. I’m not even all that concerned by the way he shepherds his flock in Moscow (without taking sides there, as I don’t have enough information).

I’m concerned about the Federal Vision masquerading as historic Reformed Theology, just as I am worried about the New Perspective on Paul, and unlimited atonementists trying to do the same thing.

Why? Because those things are not the truth.

I don’t much care if Wilson is wrong on Southern History, but it is a problem when he is wrong about Reformed history. I don’t even much care whether DW is the head, or just one of the heads of the movement. He is certainly prominent in it.

This, for me, though is not about DW the man, but about the FV theology. I think DW has done a lot of things right, which is why the homosexuals and modern liberals in Moscow hate his guts. On the other hand, he’s plain wrong about some theological issues, and those need to be addressed.

— Turretinfan

Here is my response, which he hasn’t approved yet:

Turretinfan,

I just learned about your site about five days ago in an email exchange with a brother, so please forgive me if I don’t have your positions pinned down before I comment. I say this because, as much as I agree with your position of the primacy of correct theology, you couldn’t be more wrong about Wilson’s role in this. Sure, slavery, zoning, serial paedophilia, the Trinity Fester, and the way Wilson shepherds (abuses) his flock are secondary issues, but every one of these scandals constitutes a microcosm of the primary problem.

For example, just as Wilson revised history to portray slavery as benign, so he has revised church history to portray the FV as the Reformers’ original position. Just as Wilson built his local empire by subverting municipal code, so he must advance his national empire by subverting whole churches. Just as Wilson covered up serial paedophilia in the Kirk for seven months, never warning the flock of predation or identifying all of the victims, so he runs interference for his FV pals’ obvious theological deficiencies, always prioritizing FV PR at the expense of critical pastoral matters. Just as Wilson sees the Trinity Fester as the postmillennial equivalent of an OT feast, so he sees the FV movement (which he leads) as a new Reformation. Obviously, these are broad-brush generalizations, but I could thoroughly establish each point with more specific argumentation. And all of these things have elements of the “masquerade” game you see, but you must remember this: DW tells these guys which mask to wear in any given environment. He gives them marching orders and talking points on the BH list and in a broader context he does the same for his legions on his blog. Make no mistake: He’s calling the shots and the sooner the Church isolates or removes him the sooner FV will disappear. You can’t have one without the other.

Finally, it is terribly naïve to argue that the homosexuals and the modern liberals hate Wilson’s guts because he has done a lot of things right. This is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent and it fails to account for all the local Christians who positively despise the man. Can I argue that it’s because he’s doing a lot of things wrong? Maybe, but it’s more accurate to say that he has provoked the local libs in the same way he has provoked the local Christian community, which is the same tactic he has deployed against the TRs — antagonize to polarize — “If you don’t submit to my will then I will mock you. And my disciples will follow suit.”

You have to consider the role of Acts 20:29–30 in the FV: “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.” Unlike you, St. Paul doesn’t separate the wolves who speak perverse things from their theology. He understood it as a package deal and you cannot purge the Church of the false doctrine unless you excise the wolves. But first you have to identify them.

Again, I’ve not read much on your site, so I know little about your positions. But I do know that the problem is not FV; the problem is the men advancing it. And one man stands head and shoulders above the others in this controversy because he is the FV’s point man.

Thank you.