In my introductory article about the Federal Vision controversy, I shared some autobiographical detail about my own introduction to the ideas and people. This related to my time at Oak Hill Theological College and was really primarily about setting the scene and showing how I became aware of the issue. However, I’ve been asked a few questions about what the significance of those events was. I also think that there may be broader implications and lessons beyond questions about Federal Vision. There were controversies and difficulties at two UK Evangelical Colleges, Oak Hill and Wycliffe Hall at a similar time and I don’t think we can just presume that this hasn’t had some impact down the line on our churches and on theological training. I also don’t think that there has really ever been opportunity to reflect and digest on what happened at Oak Hill. Perhaps with water passing under the bridge now is the time to do so.
I also want to emphasis here that where I’m talking about what people did or didn’t do, these are all people that I’ve had a high respect for over the years. If I disagreed and disagree with them, it comes out of profound frustration as much as anything. I would also want to restate that the specific tutor, David Field was an incredible intellectual tour de force and was always warm, caring, theologically generous. I sometimes reflect that students would have done well to have absorbed those things from him whilst filtering out the idiosyncratic stuff.
First of all, it is worth highlighting the impact of having someone lecturing within the college who was a proponent of Federal Vision thinking. There wasn’t a course labelled “Federal Vision” and perhaps it would have been easier if there was but that means it’s harder to point to specific moments when the theology was taught. However, David Field as a tutor was teaching key subjects including Ethics and Doctrine of God. The former was a compulsory second year subject and the latter an optional but popular third year subject. He also taught options on eschatology and the book of Revelation. Beyond that, he supervised dissertations (he was originally intended to supervise mine), led a tutor group and preached in Chapel. Over a three to four year period, there were different contact points where aspects of Federal Vision were introduced, for example, pre reading for Ethics included several books by Leithart with an assignment being to summarise his ethic. Another way that things were dripped in was through the invitation out to people like Wilson to come in and give talks. The point was that because this was drip fed in, there wasn’t opportunity to place things properly into their systematic context. This fitted into the untethered maximalism I’ve mentioned previously where we were invited to give the benefit of the doubt and see where an idea took us.
Secondly, I think there are outstanding issues around what happened in terms of the semi public dispute and division within Oak Hill, around about 2009-10. This is where there are potentially wider knock on effects. Some of the impact may perhaps have been felt more within evangelical Anglican circles. I mentioned in my previous article that Field’s departure from Oak Hill was given in terms of breach of contract, an employment law matter. From what I’ve gleaned/inferred, it seems that this wasn’t disconnected from the theological issues. However, as far as I’m aware that has not been publicly put on the record. It may well, and probably was necessary to deal with an employment law matter. However, I do wonder if we have suffered because the matter of a serious theological issue was never fully and publicly addressed. I don’t think there is a point of blame here. I remain impressed by the dignity with which Mike Ovey and Chris Green handled the situation and all the pressure involved. This is more a case of hindsight. Mike, did give a meeting with students over to addressing the issues of FV and this was very helpful to those present. However, many will have not benefited from this including students who had already left and those who heard about the situation from a distance.
Thirdly, I mentioned the boycott of chapel. One friend commented to me that this sounds like no big deal and something us non-conformists might even welcome. So, it would be helpful perhaps for me to explain a bit more about this. First, the context was that attendance at Chapel was compulsory for staff and students including a weekly communion service. Second, the objection was not to Anglican practises (after all the majority of faculty involved were Anglican, ironically, Field was not). Third, the spark was at a communion service at which Field preached and then walked out of the door immediately after preaching and before communion. I remember the shock and confusion at the time. It was a symbolic and disruptive action without explanation. There followed what amounted to a form of industrial action which was disruptive to the college community. The college prided itself on the pastoral care of students but this didn’t show pastoral care in action.
Fifth, as I mentioned in my previous article, one tutor, Garry Williams, in his resignation speech expressed his protest. Now, whilst that may not fit with middle class courtesies, it was his right to do so and there is perhaps a case for doing this. However, the reasoning was telling. Garry had memorably insisted in lectures that Calvinists and Arminians couldn’t do evangelism together because of the points of division. Yet in his speech, he insisted that we needed to show more charity to variations within reformed theology. This indicated both that faculty saw the issue as one of theological difference rather than an employment matter. Secondly, it left questions as to whether the seriousness of the differences between reformed theology and Federal Vision were grasped at the time.
In summary, regarding Federal Vision, I would argue that there was an influence that was sustained over a lengthy period of time that affected students and tutors (at that stage Oak Hill was considered the leading conservative evangelical training institution both for Anglican and independent trainees). The impact of that time period has not yet been fully evaluated or addressed. I’m sure that with the benefit of time that others will have their reflections too.
One other final thought that strikes me is that I had done due diligence. I’d been careful to avoid other dangers around Open Theism, Emergent Church and liberal intrusions into Evangelicalism in my choice of theological college. However, this did not mean that other dangers weren’t around. We must not become so fixated on one danger that we miss others.
—
** Oak Hill Theological College is an Evangelical Anglican seminary in North London. It would be considered to be the primary training institute for conservative evangelical Anglicans. Additionally, it became the training institution of choice for many independent evangelicals from conservative backgrounds. I chose to go there in light of the Steve Chalke controversy affecting some other institutions whilst alert to others being both theologically and culturally conservative.
Oak Hill is therefore significant because a large number of pastors, youth and children’s workers missionaries and other leaders were trained through Oak Hill
Faithroots 