I was recently made aware of a recent motion by the Evangel Presbytery (PCA) regarding this whole Federal Vision thing going on in Reformed Churches right now. While I haven’t received this first hand, this is the entirety of the motion as far as I know:

Evangel Presbytery declares that the doctrines of the “New Perspective on Paul,” “Auburn Avenue Theology / Federal Vision,” and the teachings of Norman Shepherd, N. T. Wright, and Douglas Wilson which foster these positions; to be outside the bounds of acceptable theological doctrine for Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders in Evangel Presbytery and are not to be believed or taught within the churches of this Presbytery; and each Teaching and Ruling Elder be charged with equipping the members of their churches to stand against these doctrines.

Now, Doug Wilson and others have already commented on the imprecision of the motion. I’ve even written a few posts (1, 2, 3) on the subject on others lists.

But what really bothers me beyond the imprecision is the implications of the motion, and the expectations and attitudes of the men who passed it.

The men who passed the motion are pastors and elders. They are charged with equipping themselves and the members in their care with the ability to stand up to the lies that are around us, be those lies from outside the Church or within (or sometimes, a combination of both). I readily admit I have much sympathy for Doug Wilson and the things that he’s written over the last few years. But, regardless of my opinion on the intent of the Evangel Presbytery, their execution does more harm than good.

Let’s assume for a moment that Evangel Presbytery is correct and there is something very harmful about the theology presented by the Federal Vision folks. What benefit does the the declaration offer to those who standing against the Federal Vision? Instead of making any theological declaration, it simply says, “I don’t believe what you believe.”

While it’s not fair to compare the two, think about the intent and execution of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The document was originally written to stand against the errors of Roman Catholicism. Yet, reading through the document, you see little reference to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Instead of saying, “We believe the RCC is in error” (which they did), they deliniated what they believed. Since their debate was with the RCC, much of the content of the document deals with specific Roman Catholic errors. For example, in WCF 28:5, we read the following:

Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

This is clearly written to contrast with RCC doctrine on baptism. Incidently, this may be why there is little discussion on areas like the work of the Holy Spirit. There is little difference between the RCC theology and those writing the WCF, so the WCF authors may not have considered such a chapter necessary. That probably wouldn’t be the case if the WCF were written to contrast with Pentacostals or Charismatics.

But the fact remains that despite their intention of contrasting with the RCC, the WCF stands on its own. It does not define itself as “the opposite of the RCC”, but instead says “Here’s what we believe.” This document is then useful for the purpose of equiping the saints to stand against error.

Even though their intention is stated otherwise, the declaration of Evangel Presbytery is useless for the purpose of equiping people to stand against what they perceive as error, since they never say what the error is, or even what the truth is. They leave it as exercise to the reader to figure out exactly what it is that their standing against.

Sadly, I see this as being an epidemic across the Christian Church, whether it’s on a small scale like the Federal Vision, or a large scale like the intellegent design debate. Listening to other people, comparing their actual words and thinking to Scripture, and standing up for the truth is hard work, and this motion is evidence that our elders are just not willing to take on that burden.