The Wanderer

Note: this post has been revised in the light of comments received (see below) and subsequent posts on David Anderson’s blog retracting the tone but not the substance of his original material.  This revision of mine is not meant to be an underhand evasion.  My personal exposure to the errors of the Federal Vision has been somewhat prolonged and profoundly distressing, and that experience perhaps betrayed me into a bluntness that was unfair.  That does not mean that much of the distinctive teaching of the Federal Vision does not need a blunt rebuttal, but it does mean that I should do so in a more irenic spirit.  I am grateful to Amanda Robbie for “calling me out” on this one, and ask forgiveness for unnecessary offence caused by the tone in which I spoke what I still believe to be the truth, although I cannot and will not retract what I consider to be the truth, however offensive that might be considered.  I retain some of David’s original material, while seeking to take into account his concerns over its tone.  If I have failed to do so to his satisfaction (was I deemed to be the aggressive voice of the blogosphere?), perhaps David will get in touch and let me know?

You might have seen the blurb for a new webzine, Ecclesia Reformanda.  I had, and I looked over, and thought with some positive feeling, “I shall have a better look at that at some point.”

That positive feeling has been somewhat allayed by what was posted by David Anderson concerning what he fears to be part of the magazine’s agenda.  David knows some of the key figures behind this magazine, and has suggested that there may be more to this magazine than meets the eye.  I quote the essence of David’s piece (with some minor excisions):

The advertising blurb for the magazine tells us that its purpose is to promote historic Reformed theology, and mentions no other distinctives – the “best of British Reformed thinking”. And yet…

• All four of the editorial board are convinced Federal Visionists, as a quick look over their blogs will show.
• The synopsis of the first issue also gives it away very quickly… Jim Jordan’s hermeneutics, the place of children in the New Covenant.
• As does the list of book reviews and book reviewers. Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Alastair Roberts… (And of those not so well known there is more than one FV advocate). Books on the nature of the New Covenant and the church, infant baptism…
• The editorial for issue 1 lists some things that ought to be allowed points of difference within the Reformed community. And… it’s pretty much a shopping list of the key questions raised by the Federal Vision controversy or viewpoints espoused by FV advocates. And predictably (since these are FVers) absent… infant baptism, of course, is not an allowed point of controversy, despite the majority of real-life Reformed believers in the UK being baptists!
• Do a blog search to see who’s recommending this new magazine – yup, it’s a list of FV advocates. The blurb many of them reproduce again, though, tells us that the magazine’s distinctive is to be presenting “Reformed Theology”, rather than that its distinctive is to promote the FV…

All this, and not one mention of the “Federal Vision” on the website. No mention that the editorial board are – despite the blurb about representing British Reformed theology – all from one single college: Oak Hill (Anglican), and that three of them were (as were some of the book reviewers), whilst there, taught the Federal Vision by the fourth (David Field). All we’re told is that the stated aim is promoting Reformed theology.

I note the intention to promote “the best of British reformed thinking” and I am grateful for it.  However, while I have not personally subscribed to the magazine yet, I have looked more carefully into David’s claim that the key players subscribe, in various degrees, to Federal Vision theology, and I think it holds water.  Both perusing the blogs of the key men and women and looking at some of the themes and material most prominent in the first edition, I would suggest that David’s fears have some substance.

While it is right to accept the intention of those involved to be as stated – promoting the best of British reformed scholarship – it is also fair to imagine that one’s perspective and convictions on what is the best of British reformed scholarship will profoundly influence the tone and direction of the magazine.  If, as David suggests, that perspective and those convictions carry the taint of the Federal Vision then readers and subscribers would therefore do well to engage with discernment.

I do not use the word ‘taint’ lightly.  I have had personal and fairly prolonged contact with advocates of Federal Vision theology.  I have read some of the material being disseminated by its proponents, engaged in lengthy conversations (some of them written) about some of the distinctives of the Federal Vision, seen others engage with some of the same things, and watched with a profound sadness the fearful trajectory of some avowed Federal Visionists (which has caused deep personal grief to friends close at hand).  It is my conviction that many of the particular distinctives of the Federal Vision are unscriptural and strike at the very essence of true Biblical Christianity with regard to such matters as the nature of justification; the nature of the covenant; the nature of baptism (its objects and effects); the nature of the church; and, the principle and effects of Christian obedience, to name a few of the key issues that spring to mind.

Please be clear: I am not attributing all of this to the editors of Ecclesia Reformanda.  Indeed, I should be happy – not necessarily to enter into a prolonged debate with advocates of the Federal Vision on this blog, but – if any of the key players should like to disavow the distinctive and dangerous perspectives of the Federal Vision in some public forum.  That would set my mind at rest to some degree.

I still intend to have a better look at this magazine at some point.  Nevertheless, if it is the case (as David fears) that Ecclesia Reformanda has as part of its unstated agenda – and why should anyone state it if they simply believe it is the best of British reformed thinking? – the promotion of the Federal Vision theology in the UK, then we must read with care, watch with wariness, and observe with discernment.  I hope and expect that there will be many tonics for the soul, but it would be extremely dangerous should there prove to be an occasional bottle of poison among the tonic.