Who’s Afraid?
A few days ago I picked up a copy of Guy Waters's book The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis. Before I offer analysis and critical comments let me make a few observations about the existence of this book. Yes, just the fact that it exists. Ponder this. Here's a 400-page book analyzing the theology of a few, until now, relatively obscure men.
On the one hand, I am surprised that P&R invested in publishing this book. Surely, a handful of marginal pastors writing "internet" essays (as Waters is constantly reminding us all through the book) doesn’t warrant that much attention. Of course, books have been published as well, by Canon and now Athanasius Press. Conferences have been held and tapes, CD's, and mp3 files of lectures have been distributed.
But what's so special about any of this? It's happening all over the place. There's nothing unique about the distribution network, if you will, of the men and churches that have been categorized as belonging to the "Federal Vision" movement. To say that someone publishes his work on the internet might have been a slur five years ago, but now just about everyone does it. And the fact that an article or essay is online does not automatically mean it is suspect. So what is it about FV writers that makes them the target of such a big book? It's not just that they use the internet. I has to be what they are saying as well as who is listening.
I guess, on the other hand, I have to admit that the publication of this book doesn't really surprise me. That's because the content of the lectures and essays published by the "FV" men have been so widely received in conservative Presbyterian circles. That's not to say that everyone likes them. After all, we've got the presence of a big fat book by P&R that proves otherwise. But the presence of that book and the analysis offered therein at least point to the fact that the FV guys are indeed worth interacting with. I know that for while the bitter critics did not want to dignify the FV authors or their works with official or respectable replies. For example, even though some of the harshest critics were invited to some of the Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conferences, they would not come because they did not wish to legitimate such an assembly. Their presence alone would lend respectability to the whole affair. What accounts for the change?
Obviously, the relative success of the Federal Vision. People hear and read the literature and it makes sense to them. The Bible is explained. Ponderous Sixteenth-century language and traditional scholastic theological categories give way to explanations of the biblical text that seem to be more true to the text. The dirty little secret is that so much of what the FV men are saying resonates with many Reformed people. I'm not saying that everyone agrees with everything they write. The whole notion that there is some monolithic "movement" hell bent on promoting some agreed-upon platform is ridiculous. What people call The Federal Vision is actually a loosely connected assortment of ministers, theologians, and laymen who are all making similar observations about modern problems in conservative, confessional Reformed churches and offering fresh perspectives from the Bible as solutions.
To the consternation of strict confessional Presbyterians, Waters included, the reason so much of this is resonating with people is because the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church. A book like Waters's, that critiques the FV men for breaking away from tradition, will not succeed in convincing men and women who confess that the Bible is the church's primary authority. Virtually all of the criticism leveled against the FV men have been from historians and systematic theologians. The objections have to do with their failure to remain within the linguistic and ideological bounds of the Westminster Standards. But when did the conservative Reformed church turn the corner and outdo Rome in the race to venerate tradition? These kinds of criticisms will only appeal to a small minority of Christians.
The bottom line is that anyone can read both Waters's criticisms and the writings of the men he attacks. (And make no mistake about it, this is a well-planned attack on a small group of men who have been perceived as a threat to some leaders in PCA circles). Waters provides a pretty good bibliography of FV books and essays at the end of the book. Take the time to read some of them. Compare them with what Waters has written. Decide for yourself who is being more honest with the text of Scripture.
A 400-Page Book?
Monday, June 19, 2006
