Saturday, January 19, 2008

• Federal Vision

       My pastor (Howard Davis, left) and I (below right) attended a meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) today in Pineville, LA, and the majority of the 5-hour meeting was devoted to the "Federal Vision" controversy.

  What is the Federal Vision?  Well, I've spent so much time lately trying to keep an open mind about it, in case we had to conduct a fair and impartial hearing on it, that I'm not sure I can succinctly describe it without saying it's good or bad, but here goes -- it seems to be a view of spiritual salvation that is tied more to participation in the church's rituals or sacraments than some kind of emotional experience or spiritual renewal apart from the organizational church.*  Its proponents have webpages such as this one that explain and defend their views. 

  It appears to me that the PCA has taken positions against the Federal Vision, such as its 2007 ad-interim committee report that found Federal Vision on 9 points was out of accord with the PCA's Constitutional, sometimes called the Westminster Standards or Confessional Standards -- those 9 points being found on page 35 of the 36-page report linked above.  The 36 pages are not easy reading; although I think the 9 points are fairly easy.  But there are those not sympathetic to Federal Vision who feel the PCA's committee did not get all of the 9  points right. 

  And I can envision some either not sympathetic to Calvinism or not knowledgeable of it who would find even the 9 points a difficult read, whether right or not.

  Over the past few years the Louisiana Presbytery has interviewed a leading proponent of the Federal Vision, Rev. Steve Wilkins, left, Pastor of the PCA Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA, and found his views not to be out of accord with the PCA's Constitutional. 

   The PCA's Standing Judicial Commission was not happy with that, and indicted the LA Presbytery on two counts of failing to appropriately deal with Pastor Wilkins.  The meat of Count 1 said:  "Louisiana Presbytery failed properly to handle Teaching Elder Wilkins’s differences to determine whether or not his views are out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine summarized in the Confessional Standards, and as such has failed adequately to protect the peace and purity of the Church." (footnotes and other citations omitted)

  The meat of Count 2 said, "Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Teaching Elder Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty, and has thereby caused much unresolved pastoral confusion and harm." (citations again omitted) 

  The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) gave the LA Presbytery these options: 

  1. Repent of the charges and bring Pastor Wilkins to trial for his allegedly divergent views; or

  2. Refer the matter to the SJC for determination;

  Failing which, the PCA would dissolve its affiliation with the LA Presbytery, and leave its churches to seek possible affiliation with neighboring PCA presbyteries, if the neighboring presbyteries would accept these churches. 

  During about 4 hours of debate, and voting down a half dozen or so proposed responses to this indictment, the LA Presbytery finally voted to plead not guilty to count 1 and guilty to count 2 and to refer the Wilkins controversy to the SJC of the PCA for resolution. 

  Several of the proposals voted down entailed proceeding to try Pastor Wilkins at the LA Presbytery level.  The Presbytery was loathe to try Pastor Wilkins. 

  Pastor Wilkins and his supporters sought some kind of vote of confidence by the Presbytery that the delegates still thought his views were in accord with the Constitution, but the delegates were unwilling to do so, or at least unwilling to prejudge the matter in anticipation of a possible trial. 

  Those objecting to the vote to refer the matter to the SJC of the PCA argued, among other points, that the SJC had prejudged the matter and its disposition would be a foregone conclusion, but in the end, the LA Presbytery vote to refer the matter anyway, if for no other reason than the fact that no other viable option could get a majority vote. 

  As to how the Presbytery could be not guilty to Count 1 and still guilty to Count 2, I think it had to do with the technical wording, and the feeling that under Count 1, the Presbytery had sought advice from higher PCA authorities and taken the action we were asked to take, and at one point they had agreed we had complied with all they asked us to do in examining Pastor Wilkins.  But it is hard to construe the guilty plea to Count 2 as anything other than a tacit admission that Pastor Wilkins' Federal Vision views should be subject to a trial over whether they conform to the Calvinistic Constitution, even if the LA Presbytery cannot get a majority vote to do so itself. 

  As one who was a Ruling Elder in the Texas Presbytery of the PCA in the late 70s and early 80s, and am now new to the LA Presbytery, I was impressed with the charity with which these elders debated their divergent views on these issues, and the courtesy and fairness extended to Pastor Wilkins. 

  *Footnote added 3-13-08:  As of the Jan. 19 meeting, I was focused on giving an even-handed definition of "federal vision," in keeping an open mind.  Since that time and further reading, I found a fairly succinct history of "federal vision," called  "For Those Just Tuning in: What is the Federal Vision?" over at the Heidelblog by Dr. R. Scott Clark.  It's a good read. 

  • 9:05 PM
  • 2 eprops
  • 2 comments