I’ve started to engage with Federal Vision theology and have some more posts planned. However, I want to deal early on with one specific and important issue that has made engaging with The Federal Vision particularly difficult.
Have a read of this particular article by Doug Wilson. He repeats his views found here in a number of other articles on his blog.
Wilson’s argument is that all False Witness is an act of deception but that not all deception counts as an act of false witness. Specifically in a time of war, deception is not just okay but necessary.
I don’t share Wilson’s view. It arises out of a misunderstanding of Scripture. The approach we see here relies on the presumption that all Scriptural narrative provides a positive assessment. We cannot assume that because someone in the Bible is blessed through God’s grace that all their actions are approved by God. We specifically see that Abraham’s deception over the identity of Sarah and his relationship to her lead to trouble.
The problem with Wilson’s approach is that it makes truth a negotiable commodity and sets us up as owners of it. See here for my response to the general issue. The result is that good, healthy open conversation becomes impossible.
This is particularly so with our Federal Vision proponents especially when it becomes clear that they see our present time as one of spiritual and cultural war. How can we be sure that they see you and me as friends and allies worthy of and trustable with the truth. We can ask them directly I guess. We can even insist on full repentance and departure from their association with Wilson and Federal Vision. Even so, we cannot be completely sure.
My experience has been that when I talk about the dangers of Federal Vision, I’m told that I’m worrying over nothing. People don’t really hold to the view even though they have direct links to people and institutions. I am told that the links don’t mean that FV has been accepted by them wholesale and indeed they present themselves as neutral observers offering analysis and assessment even as I hear them use the very language and methodology of Wilson, Leithart and Jordan. I’m also rebuked for not seeking to find the good in the movement but I’m never told what is considered good and what is rejected as bad (not in terms of areas where FV has long accepted differences of opinion but on core tenants.
It is these things that make the debate feel particularly slippery and the issue of approved deception amplifies the problem.
Faithroots 