The Woodruff Road Conference on the "Federal Vision"

A Guide for the Perplexed

The controversy among conservative presbyterians concerning what is usually called “Federal Vision” theology shows no signs of abating any time in the near future. But as the debate rages on, it behaves like any other and winds through several layers of formulations on both sides. Terms, definitions, and doctrines are brought up, discussed, and put back down again to be brought up again later, each time ending up slightly different from the process. Furthermore, there are several people on each side of this discussion, and so for both critics and defenders of the Federal Vision there are now several different interpretations of which particular issues are the most important in this debate as well as how best to formulate those issues. In other words, it is not just that the defenders and critics of the Federal Vision are engaged in a disagreement, but that in a number of important ways the defenders and critics differ among themselves as well, at least in emphasis if not in substance.

As the two sides discuss these issues, then, it should not be surprising that FV’s defenders often find themselves having to argue in different ways against these different kinds of criticisms, and vice versa, and that this should quickly make the debate confusing for the layman who is not able to follow all these discussions closely in real time. It is hard to dispute, therefore, that some sort of layman’s guide to these issues would be helpful. Such a guide is what Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) (near Greenville, SC) has attempted to provide with its one-day conference on the FV (held February 10, 2007). Unfortunately, this conference fails to live up to its stated purpose and is thus incomplete as a layman’s guide to FV issues. Regardless of the intentions of the men involved, a layman might still be plenty perplexed coming out of this conference. Or, if he is not, this is probably because the talks contained some pretty serious misrepresentations of FV writers as well as errors in argumentation that were at times rather subtle, and the layman might not have picked up on these problems (being a layman and all). This conference goes wrong in the two worst ways a guide can go wrong, then. To some, it may make things even more confusing than they were before, and to others it may appear to be very ‘clear’ but is all the more dangerous because of that apparent clarity. A map that puts you in the wrong part of town without knowing it is not a good map, no matter how easy it is to read. To others it will probably not seem easy to read in the first place.

But, dear Layman, have no fear. A Virgil has arrived to show you around. This is not a “ground-up” presentation of these issues from an FV perspective, but is rather a play-by-play of the presentation the Woodruff Road Conference has already given. This is a useful way to organize this guide for a couple of reasons. By discussing the various issues as they are brought up at the Woodruff Road conference, we will be able to better understand the positions and arguments that have been made by various FV writers and thinkers. In addition to this, though, we will be able to gain a feel for the kinds of misrepresentations that often take place in this debate on the anti-FV side. This is an assertion often made by FV thinkers, that their critics have failed to properly represent their position before giving their criticism. This response has frustrated many anti-FVers to no end, but nonetheless it remains an appropriate response. Nearly five years into this discussion, and still FV advocates have a legitimate beef that their positions are not being fairly represented by the other side. Our method here will help make it clear that this is still the case.

One final comment by way of introduction to this debate, gentle Reader, is to point out that the two sides in this discussion do not have the same goals. This discussion is not like a battle in a war, where both sides are trying to sweep the other from the field. Rather, the FV debate represents a situation in which only one side is trying to sweep anyone anywhere. Those sympathetic to the “Federal Vision” theology are asking to be recognized as representing a real strain within the Reformed tradition, and to thus be allowed to remain within denominations such as the PCA on the basis of that representation. The critics of FV, on the other hand, are claiming that FV theology is contrary to the Reformed confessions in such a way as to represent a departure from legitimate Reformed theology, and that as such FV thinkers should be barred from ministry in the PCA. The importance of this difference cannot be over-stated, and it bears directly on the debate over FV by underscoring the different argumentative burdens of the two sides. When accusing another of departing from orthodoxy, it is the accuser who bears the more substantial burden of proof. What is called for here are clear demonstrations of places where the accused men go astray of traditional Reformed orthodoxy (particularly as represented in the Confessions). Such demonstrations require quotes of their writings, yes, but they also require more than this. The disputed writings must be interpreted properly—i.e. the way that the FV men are using words must be clearly understood. Otherwise this will all amount to a dispute over words, and to build accusations on such disputes is to engage in the sin of wrongly dividing the Church. It may be objected that the FV men themselves have been unclear at certain points of their writings. If this is so, then it is certainly legitimate to point out such a lack of clarity but at the same time it is also incumbent on the one who points it out to accept any revisions that might come in light of such criticisms. Nobody is perfectly clear in all of their writings, and if a man were required to be so in order to minister in a Reformed denomination then who could stand? Certainly not any FV thinker, as I’m sure they would all admit, but neither could the speakers from the Woodruff Road Conference stand up to such a standard of clarity. Their own lack of clarity, in fact, is present in abundance at the Conference in question.

With all these introductory matters cleared, then, let’s proceed into the labyrinth that is the contemporary dispute over the “Federal Vision,” using the Woodruff Road Conference as our foil as we go. This is meant to be useful as a primer to the Federal Vision theology, and so we will spend a good bit of time at the beginning explaining the Federal Vision perspective. As we make our way further into the conference lectures, we will no longer need to do this as much, and will instead be able to focus on what is wrong with the criticisms that are offered by the conference speakers. But even this activity will hopefully serve to further illuminate the Federal Vision perspective. As the reader gains a better understanding of the FV perspective, we will need to say less and less as time goes on.