The Auburn Avenue Controversy

I've linked a letter by David Bahnsen (Greg Bahnsen's son) to the title of this entry in which I agree with his assessment of the "problem" that has given rise to this controversy. My entry here won't be as long as his letter but I will, essentially, be saying the same thing. I will preface my position by qualifying that I have not read any of the published books flowing from this controversy; either in support of Federal Vision theology (also called Auburn Avenue theology, for obvious reasons) or in support of the Traditional Reformed position's critque of Federal Vision theology. I will be using "FV" to refer to the Federal Vision position and "TR" to refer to the Traditional Reformed position. In formulating a balanced opinion on the Auburn Avenue controversy I've found in necessary to start at the beginning. What caused this thing in the first place? What is this controversy about? My current understanding is as follows.

A long time ago (January of 2002) in a galaxy far far away (Monroe, Louisiana), a PCA church held a pastor's conference. The title of the conference was "The Federal Vision" and its theme(s) revolved around various aspects of covenant theology, particularly focusing on how the covenant can/should be viewed objectively in the life of the church. Seems innocuous enough, doesn't it? Nothing out of the ordinary for a PCA pastor's conference, right? Several months (in June) after the conclusion of this conference the RPCUS issued, or sanctioned, a resolution which called for the repentance of those who spoke at the conference: namely Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach and Steve Wilkins (Wilkins is the pastor of AAPC, the hosting church). The resolution concluded with an ominous "May God have mercy on their souls" seeming to imply that these men were to be considered heretics lest they repent. A couple of weeks later Wilson's church responded and another week later Schlissel's church responded. Since then it has become quite the ruckus.

As I've already mentioned, I have not read or listened to any of the materials that were presented/given at this conference. My experience with the controversy has come via being a proponent of the TR view, reading TR and FV material online (including Wilkins's examination), participating, witnessing, and lurking in blog (start from the bottom if you visit this link) discussions, visiting official church websites and talking with various people about individual aspects of FV. Not having much experience with the polemics involved with this controvesry (from either side) affords me, I think, a unique perspective. Since I learned about FV I've been an avid reader of Doug Wilson's blog (linked above), as he is generally considered to be spearheading the movement. I've even had the pleasure of sitting down with him and talking about some of the issues tied up in this controversy.

So, just what are the issues anyway? I think it's hard to pin down specific issues because of how organic FV is; what I mean is, when talking about a particular issue, say justification, the FV and the TR are pulling from very similiar yet differently nuanced systems. Because of this there is a vocabulary barrier that needs to be overcome, or at least acknowledged, before true discussion about specific points of contention can be fruitful. The main issue is how FV understands (or interprets) the practical implications of "covenantal union," also known as union in/to Christ. The particular issues include the efficacy of baptism (i.e. what baptism does/means for the one baptized), justification as it pertains to union in Christ, the distinction between the visible and invisible church, and covenantal apostasy. As you can tell, it would difficult to speak about one of these issues without relating, or relying on, all of them in some form or fashion.

Now that we know what the cause of the controversy is and what the controversy is about, I feel like I can share my opinion safely. First, the way this controversy came about is regrettable, lamentable, disgraceful and unscriptural. For an entire denomination, of Reformed Christians no less, to draw up such a resolution as the RPCUS has drawn up without even so much as contacting the individuals involved is flat out wrong. I don't mean wrong in the sense of incorrect either, I mean sinfully wrong as in they should be asking for forgiveness if they haven't already. It takes a special kind of pride and a lack of brotherly love to pull something like this off. Where there is controversy and confusion there should have been dialogue and attempted understanding. I am convinced that this would not be a controversy at all had proper procedure been followed, or at least it wouldn't be so bloated of a controversy.

Secondly, while it is true that the issues invovled are not nominal, it is equally true that (and obvious) that the advocates of FV are Christians. The desciptor "heretic" should not be thrown around lightly, nor should it be used of someone who is a Christian even though he may be wrong on certain points of a systematic theology; the gospel truth is a bit more flexible and forgiving, so should we be. Having said this, it is important that these issues get talked about. Our credo isn't "ecclesia semper reformanda est" for nothing and I, for one, say that FV needs to be given a little more careful consideration. I realize that books have been written, but I've also seen these books reviewed by Wilson (who, I think, knows what he believes better than his critics know what he believes) and I'm not certain that scholars on the TR side of things are getting it. As I mentioned earlier, I believe vocabulary barriers are one of the major contributing factors.

From what I can tell, FV is mostly an expansion over and above what TR already teaches. FV advocates take few exceptions to the Westminster Standards, fully embrace the doctrines of grace (at least from what I've seen), and have a strong desire to live worthy of the calling they have received as followers of Christ. What's not Reformed about that? TR should be working with FV to win more souls for the kingdom, as brothers and as fellow Christian soldiers. While I may not agree with what FV teaches, I do believe they preach the true gospel. We would do well to remember the words of our Savior, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."