35th General Assembly Adopted Recommendations

The 35th PCA General Assembly voted to adopt the recommendations of an interim committee's study report conducted on Federal Vision theology and the New Perspectives on Paul movement. The recommendations are as follows:

1. That the General Assembly commend to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly remind the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while "subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God," have been adopted by the PCA "as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice."

3. That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with out Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any difference in their views.

4. That the General Assembly remind the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty "to exercise care over those subject to their authority" and "to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church" (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

5. That the Ad Interim Study Commitee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.

What exactly does this mean? Well, for one, it means if you aren't familiar with NPP and VF and you're a member/elder/pastor/deacon of a PCA church then, in theory, you soon will be informed. I've already skimmed through the 9 declarations in a previous post if you're interested in my "knee-jerk" opinion of them. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not well read on the topic (I haven't read any of N.T. Wright or Norman Shepherd or any books published in favor or in opposition to their views or FV views) but that doesn't mean I don't know anything and it certainly doesn't mean I can't give my opinion. So, my (current) thoughts for your consideration:

1. By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly has, in theory, ensured that congregations throughout the denomination will hear about the issues involved with the FV/NPP controversies. I presume there will be, in the near future, session and presbytery meetings to discuss the report and how to go about getting it out to their respective congregations. The report is general enough so that interested persons can pursue questions which have been left unanswered, and they should be encouraged to do so. Even though I do not believe the report is entirely (or even mostly) accurate, it is more than adequate for opening the doors of dialogue.

2. The stated purpose of the Study Report was "to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies... to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards... and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards." We have here two instances of the study committee members being made responsible for evaluating FV/NPP according to the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture." The first instance is by General Assembly's appointment and the second instance is by the committee's own request in this recommendation. Did the committee accomplish this? While they certainly believe they did (as per the final recommendation), I am not convinced. The Book of Church (BCO) 29-1 states:

An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture.

Let's clear this up a bit, from WCF Chapter 33:

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladminstration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

A question, then, arises. What is the difference between saying that the WCF, church government, discipline and worship "are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice" and saying that "they [synods and councils] are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both"? In other words, is there a substantial difference between "in relation to faith and practice" and "the rule of faith and practice"? It seems to me that, as per this second recommendation (and the candor of the report itself), the study committee wants to use the Westminster Standards as the rule rather than as a help in matters of controversy. This is problematic, especially given WCF Chapter 1, sections 9 and 10:

IX. The infalible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly is, in effect, on the verge of setting the study report and the BCO against the very confession it seeks to uphold, not to mention against Scripture itself. Another important question is also raised by bringing in this language of the BCO; namely, are we to consider this Study Report as a doccument which is accusing FV/NPP of error? If so then this is not merely a Study Report and the committee is skipping quite a few important steps in the process of drawing up charges even of "general" or "public" offense. While I do not believe this was the intent of the report, the response in the little section of blogdom that I keep track of indicates that quite a few view this report as basically an affirmation that FV/NPP advocates are outside the faith. The report itself does not go this far (and could not without violating proper procedure), however.

3. This recommendation is pretty straightforward and as far as the declarations go I would be hard-pressed to disagree with the conclusion that they are a "faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards." It also reasonable to recommend that ruling and teaching elders who disagree with the Standards make known their disagreement(s) to all appropriate parties. As far as my knowledge of FV goes, though, not many advocates will substantially disagree with the declarations. Even so, if I were an elder and an FV/NPP advocate, I would still let my session/presbytery know of my views.

4. By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly is to admonish sessions and presbyteries to be cautious of theological movements. Sessions and presbyteries are partly responsible for the spiritual well-being of their congregations and churches. I could nitpick and complain that the PCA is not "the Church" but "a Church" but I honestly don't think there are too many people in the PCA who believe that the PCA is the only place where the "elect" of God can be found.

5. Nothing special here, I take it that this is standard fanfare for study report closings.

We find ourselves, now, back to the intial question: what does any of this mean for those of us just sitting out in the pew? Well, if you hold to any of the views set forth in the 9 declarations it means you are officially outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards and aren't likely to be ordained as a ruling or teaching elder, or even a deacon (perhaps depending on how "FV friendly" your particular church is). What does it mean beyond that? Any other actions over and above what the report says is a matter for each session/presbytery to decide. I don't see any immediate negative reprecussions coming from the adoption of these recommendations because it will take time for the individual sessions and presbyteries to "get the word out" as per the first recommendation. Those ruling and teaching elders (and I'd extend it to deacons too) within the PCA who adhere to any of the views contained in the declarations need make their sessions aware of the fact. Beyond these things the report is really rather innocuous for the FV/NPP advocate in the PCA pew. The PCA will still let you participate in communion and will even still baptize your children, no harm no foul.

I'm also interested in the long-term consequences of this study report so I'm currently going through it with a fine-toothed comb. I've got a few books on order from Amazon (Wilkins' The Federal Vision, Waters/Beisner's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis, and N.T. Wright's Paul: In Fresh Perspective) which will, hopefully, let me dig into these issues a little more thoroughly. I know there's a few more books out there but my budget is somewhat limited since I've a child on the way (my wife is due in November) and am currently enrolled in a high deductible health plan. Wasn't expecting my wife to get pregnant this year, but that's a whole other story and I'm confident God will provide for our needs. Be on the lookout for more on the content of the study report itself in the near future. When the books arrive I'll try to interact with them here a little as well.