Another Conversion Narrative

July 6, 2007 at 12:53 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)

The FV guys are dropping like flies. Kevin Johnson narrates his move away from the FV to a Confessional position. Who’s next?

33 Comments

  1. Michael Saville said,

    July 6, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    They’re “dropping like flies???” I’ve never heard his name mentioned in any FV symposiums, critiques, or in any of the reports. Do you have any other examples?

  2. greenbaggins said,

    July 6, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Well, I’m referring to Wes White, whose testimony is posted on this blog. I am referring to Shawn Roberson, whose testimony is linked in the post immediately previous to this one, and I’m referring to Kevin Johnson, who has switched from FV to Reformed.

  3. Stewart said,

    July 6, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Lane, you speak as if the FV were a club or something. It’s not.

  4. Chris Hutchinson said,

    July 6, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    Lane,

    I’m not too comfortable with the way you phrased this either. Kevin’s post indicates that he thought the FV guys were offering some solutions to some of the problems which riddle the contemporary evangelical church. But now, after five years of observation, he thinks that some of their solutions do not help things, and are in fact, dangerous to healthy church life.

    I’m not sure there are too many FVers leaving their circles quite yet. I think that Kevin’s story, along with Wes’s and Shaun’s stories, indicate some of the inadequacies of the FV proposals, but that’s all. We should be less partisan about this as we see some folks wander back in after looking at what the FV guys were proposing. Folks change.

    I was Congregational for a couple of years, and not particularly proud of it, but I’m glad that when I came back into the PCA, no one made the Congos feel bad that I had left. Make sense?

    Chris H.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    July 6, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Hmm, I guess I wasn’t exactly clear about the tone of the post. I meant it to be lighthearted, not heavy-handed. I can certainly see how that could be taken in a heavy-handed way.

    Given Kevin’s interaction on my blog, it seems that he has fairly thoroughly left the FV, however. He himself used the language of “insider.” I don’t know if this quite answers your concerns, Chris.

  6. Chris Hutchinson said,

    July 6, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    OK. I just thought it sounded sort of triumphalistic. And even if Kevin’s move away is stronger in terms of changing parties, as it were, the numbers are not that large, yet, but I didn’t realize you meant it humorously….

    Blessings, Chris

  7. NHarper said,

    July 6, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Let’s not get sidetracked from Kevin’s legitimate concerns for the church. I couldn’t help but raise a few “Amens” as I read his critique.

    History definitely tends to repeat itself doesn’t it? Jesus warned his disciples to be on their guard against the leaven of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:6). Hundreds of years later, J.C Ryle warned his church in England when he preached these words: “I believe the most pwerful champion of the Pharisees is not the man who bids you openly and honestly come out and join the Church of Rome: it is the man who says that he agrees on all points with you in “doctrine”. He would not take anything away from those evangelical views that you hold; would not have you make any changes at all; all he asks you to do is to “add” a little more to your belief, in order to make your Christianity perfect.”

    He continues: “We do not want you to give up anything. We only want you to hold a few more clear views about the Church and the sacraments. We want tou to add to your present opinions a little more about the office of the ministry, and a little more about episcopal authority, and a little more about the Prayer-book, and a little more about the necessity of order and discipline. We only want you to add ‘a little more’ of these things to your system of religion, and you will be quite right.”

    And, now in the new millenium we have the “New Perspective” and the “Federal Vision”. Another attempt to “add” the yeast of the Pharisees to the purity and simplicity of the gospel. Where were the guards? Will we ever learn?

  8. tim prussic said,

    July 7, 2007 at 12:18 am

    Mr. NHarper, you’d be happy to know that I began Calvin’s letter to Sadolet early in the week. I got nailed with the stomach flu, but I’m not far from finishing it up. I’m interested in discussing it with you, as you seemed to be quite impressed with it. I, too, am impressed with it. I should finish up today or tomorrow. We’ll be in touch (if you’re interested).
    My address is timprussic@gmail.com – I give it to you as I can’t see yours. Maybe I’m as blind as I am dumb… In any event, we’ll be in touch!

  9. Louis said,

    July 7, 2007 at 12:37 am

    NHarper,

    Are you saying that there is no “leven of the Pharisees” coming from anywhere else within the Reformed world? Would you really argue that requiring someone to “add” active and passive obedience, a covenant of works, and a host of other doctrinal articulations, isn’t added the leven of the Pharisees? Considering the simple fact that most of these articulations are rather recent in Church history and that they aren’t even consistent across the Reformed world, I am amazed at how some require this from others.

    What exactly is the “NPP” or the “FV”, which are distinct, adding to the Gospel? Where were the guards in Galatia? Wasn’t Peter an “apostate”? Wasn’t he a heretic? Was Peter lost at this time?

    Do you believe Luther held to the “covenant of works”? Would you require someone to believe this to be saved? What do you think is the sum and substance of saving knowledge? Are you “adding” anything? After all, you quote Ryle, an Anglican, who would come down differently on several of these issues.

  10. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 7, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Lane,

    I was a bit concerned when you first posted this announcement about my supposed conversion to a Reformed confessional position contra adherence to the FV. I’m going to take your words in the best and lightest sense possible hoping you are in some sense putting this forward tongue-in-cheek.

    I am strongly opposed to using the word “conversion” in regards to anything except the embracing of Christ in repentance and the new life our Lord provides through His Holy Spirit working within us. I also lament that this Federal Vision discussion is almost always seen by its most vocal adherents and opponents as a two-sided debate and to say or advocate certain things puts you on this or that side. My view has always been that things are a bit more complex than that.

    That having been said, I have been happy to see you engage the exegetical concerns of Federal Vision advocates directly and think this will be rewarding in the end even though I imagine it is not an easy task as you work through it. But I believe it is a better strategy than what we have seen with R. Scott Clark’s refusal to engage in any real discussion or debate with Federal Vision advocates other than the one-sided presentations which his published work on the matter presents. I don’t support the sloppy exegesis and inexact language that is part and parcel of Federal Vision efforts and as a result believe a continued challenge similar to yours will help matters and not hurt them. At the very least it should force a response from men who have been in my view reticent to fully explain their case with an eye to appropriate biblical exegesis and fidelity to the respective confessions of the Reformed faith.

    It may surprise you to consider that there are still orthodox confessional Reformed men in Federal Vision circles and I would count myself as having been one of them. So, the switch from FV to confessionally Reformed as you have phrased it above in this “move” is a bit of a stretch in regards to what is really the case at least from my perspective.

    For one thing, our efforts at ReformedCatholicism.com have always been about a catholicity seen first in fidelity to a confessional Reformed understanding of the faith so much so that we see the confessions as representative of the gospel as I have already argued in your own comment threads in recent days. To further comment in this regard, I’d like to gratefully quote my good friend and brother Peter Escalante who commented as follows in my post noting problems with Federal Vision theology and practice:

    But “reformed catholicity” does not mean compromise or fusion with the East or Rome on the central controverted doctrines, and thereby a disavowal of the Reformation; newfound appreciation for Reformation confessions is central to reformed catholicity. It rather means what the FV writers have said they themselves have been after; a recovery of the full teaching of the Magisterial Reformers, presumed to be in line with Scripture and therefore the catholic church throughout all ages, and a correction, by this measure, of later deformities of Protestant, especially Reformed, thought and teaching. That Kevin finds much to be critical of in the FV as it is, and finds himself in agreement on certain points with Mr Keister, doesn’t automatically place Kevin wholly in Mr Keister’s camp.Kevin’s post doesn’t side with the critics of FV whom he alludes to: he simply mentions them, and then proceeds to state that any critique of FV has to look to the original context in which it arose: as a critique of nominalism and sectarian quietism. He then argues that it is failing or at least faltering in this. Kevin’s early sympathy with the FV is a matter of record: what he seems to be faulting them for now, is that it is, in some significant degree, failing of its purpose and promise. It is this measure he stands them up against: not that of TR ultraconfessionalism.

    Thus, Kevin’s statement does not exclude Lutherans or Anglicans (in the historic sense) from the pale of reformed catholicity: not at all; nor does it imply a reading of the Reformed confessions in line with gnostic and rationalistic readings of recent times.

    So, what I have noted in my post is actually a critique of Federal Vision theology and practice from the standpoint of its original purpose. I leave you with a quote from the Reformed divine Herman Bavinck–who aptly sums up how I am feeling about these things of late:

    Leiden has benefited me in many ways: I hope always to acknowledge that gratefully. But it has also greatly impoverished me, robbed me, not only of much ballast (for which I am happy), but also of much that I recently, especially when I preach, recognize as vital for my own spiritual life. (Herman Bavinck, as quoted in the Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pg. 13)

    Truly, the operative change in my view and emphasis has been the regular study of God’s Word and the every Sunday preaching and pastoring in a local church. The needs of our people are something other than what the Federal Vision puts forward and while I appreciate many of their calls back to the magisterial Reformation, a high view of the Church and the sacraments–there is no substitute for the life-giving Spirit-filled gospel of Jesus Christ found in His unmerited favor toward us. The corrective for Reformed nominalism or other issues in our churches is the same as it has always been–Christ and Him crucified–repentance and trust in His grace.

  11. ReformedCatholicism.com » Comments for Green Baggins said,

    July 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    [...] I’ve left the following in a comment thread that addresses what I’ve outlined in my last post–I post it here as well because we likely have some readers who may not always make it over to Pastor Lane’s site in considering these issues. I’m responding originally to this post. [...]

  12. greenbaggins said,

    July 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Thanks for this clarification, Kevin. To those of us in the TR camp, it will still look like a transition of some sort that you have made. I presume that there is no objection to calling this a shift of some sort. There are fairly clear indications that you are not as favorable to some of these ideas as you used to be. Would this be a fair estimate?

  13. Mark T. said,

    July 7, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Kevin comments here:

    “But I believe it is a better strategy than what we have seen with R. Scott Clark’s refusal to engage in any real discussion or debate with Federal Vision advocates other than the one-sided presentations which his published work on the matter presents.”

    But on his blog, he commented,

    “However, some of it has been as a result of pouring gasoline on a fire through the efforts of men like Douglas Wilson who seem to excel in making extreme statements and going out of his way to offend people. I trust you know what I’m talking about here.”

    Kevin, I do not wish to misconstrue your words or take them out of context, however, I believe the problem you identified in the latter quote justifies the position held by R. Scott Clark that you identified in the former quote. Many of the FVist’s appear resolved to offend pretty much anyone who disagrees with them and I’m not quite sure what they hope to obtain with their petulance, except, perhaps, deaf ears and closed doors to all their demands that people debate them.

  14. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 7, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Mark,

    You could be right and I have no wish to defend Douglas Wilson and his regular and ridiculous display of error. Part of the problem, however, in dealing with the FV men and their position is that I believe the R. Scott Clarks of this world are often communicating with or about the wrong people in the first place.

    Wilson is a popularizer and is the wrong person to engage at any scholarly level (and perhaps that is much the reason why Clark stays away from directly dealing with him?)–it’s like a Federal Regulator asking the marketing department of Microsoft if they are involved in anti-trust activities. What else are they going to say except, “Bill Gates is great and Microsoft is the best corporation on the planet–and oh, by the way, why would anyone ask such a stupid question especially you?” This of course is part and parcel of dealing with a populist movement where there are few scholars attached to what is being outlined by the likes of Wilson and others. I think it is good for Lane, for example, to continue to carve out a place for criticizing the sloppy exegesis of Leithart.

    If I were going to suggest going after anyone, it would be James Jordan. His material, his methods, and his hermeneutic are responsible for much of what goes on in FV circles and it really is all another grand ol’ try at Reconstructionism of the worst sort. It’s just these guys have recast this sort of thing with the sort of slick book covers and populist language Canon Press is famous for and it is sad to see anyone in the mainstream evangelical world buying into this sort of thing without realizing the deeper issues involved that have been noted here and elsewhere.

  15. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    GB (aka Lane),

    RE: #12…I’m not sure how I could be any clearer and yes there has been a change as I outline above.

  16. Robert K. said,

    July 7, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Ditto what KDJ says in the above comment. Excellent analogy regarding Microsoft and antitrust re Wilson and Canon Press. And Jordan lurks not only in the substratum of it all, but, like Mormonism, there’s also a science fiction novel in there somewhere as well…

  17. greenbaggins said,

    July 7, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    Thanks for this, Kevin. Maybe I will take a close look at Jordan soon, as well, although he has a bit less priority in my mind, simply because he is not PCA. But he is still very important.

  18. Mark T. said,

    July 7, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Kevin,

    You make some excellent points, however, I would modify your analogy from an antitrust inquiry to an investigation into sedition, given the ramifications of FV. The FVer’s threat is not their monopoly on theonomy, it’s their concerted effort to disrupt the peace and purity of the church, if not subvert its doctrinal foundation. Therefore, if you follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, the Church should limit its interaction with the FVists to a thorough investigation of the persons responsible for propagating FV and prosecute them to the hilt, which precludes engaging them in a debate-type forum. Am I wrong?

  19. Mark T. said,

    July 7, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Kevin, please forgive me; I completely misunderstood the point of the analogy and ran in the wrong direction.

  20. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 7, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Not a problem at all, Mark!

  21. Matt B. said,

    July 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    As a somewhat casual and infrequent visitor to this blog, I have a very sincere question to ask of Kevin Johnson. I don’t know him, nor his work, so I’m asking from a position of complete ignorance. I should preface my question by saying that I’m cautiously sympathetic with FV theology and personally very impressed with Douglas Wilson from my work in a former life. In choosing to publicly critique FV theology and persons – a theology that Johnson readily admits he owned and defended for years – I’m wondering what kind of public repentence and owning of personal responsibility for teaching and defending falsehood Johnson believes he should manifest? I mean, if the FV is as pernicious an error as Johnson, Baggins, etc. say it is, how can Johnson move from “adherent” and “apostle” to “judge” and “jury” so quickly? Wouldn’t it be good and wise to recuse oneself for a while and let other hands deal the death blow?

    I have seen this happen with a number of Protestant friends that have converted to Romanism/Orthodoxy. They convert and then immediately condemn as heretical, schismatic, and dumber-than-you-can-imagine the position (and people holding them) they held until about twenty minutes prior to their press conference. I realize that the the parallel here isn’t identical.

    A related question: Let’s assume that Johnson is correct – the FV is bad stuff. Let’s stop short of calling it (and, let’s say, Wilson) heresy, but simply that its not wise, mature, or commendable – especially within the Reformed tradition. Does Mr. Johnson’s really believe that his denunciations are going to be heard by FV folks? Perhaps he doesn’t care? What should we think about Mr. Johnson’s intelligence, given that he defended said perspectives over the course of – not weeks or months – but years? The Scriptures exhort pastors (Johnson’s website says he’s a pastor now…) to rebuke and exhort with gentleness. I – for one – would like to see how Johnson sees that being in done this case. In all honesty. What is Mr. Johnson’s role in tarring and feathering the FV?

  22. Robert K. said,

    July 8, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    I don’t recall Kevin being among the actual very active promoters or teachers of Federal Vision, but just sympathetic in a way where he would defend them or show impatience with its critics and things like that. He may have done more though, I’m not a Kevin Johnson biographer, just a past reader of his various blog concerns.

    A difference between then and now (and Kevin may flinch at this as he has been flinching somewhat at Green Baggins take on where he is at now) is Kevin seems to have a more robust awareness of the center-of-gravity of regeneration – and hence the Word and the Spirit – in the Faith once delivered. At least he is talking about it more. This is relevant because Federal Vision, like most all bad doctrine, exists to assuage the prideful, and allow them to [think they can] control what only God can control. Regeneration and the role of the Word is central to this whole subject of FV vs. apostolic biblical doctrine.

    So Kevin has a strong criticism of FVism and its adherents when he observes such things as their track record in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, or pointing out that many if not the vast majority of FV church members were most likely effectually called by the efforts of Christians FVists would mock and call dumb and so on. Of course, Kevin might point out that this basic criticism could be levelled at the FV opposition as well, to some degree, in some cases.

  23. Matt B. said,

    July 8, 2007 at 9:07 pm

    Robert,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments, but I’m sure you’ll understand if I wait to hear Mr. Johnson weigh in on this one. It doesn’t surprise me that the FV has, or even attracts, critics. What DOES suprise me is the willingness of some (not including Johnson here, just stating a hypothetical situation…) “converts” to go on the warpath against their former theological perspective just minutes after being convinced of its untruthfulness. That’s not to say that nothing he says is of value, of course. Just that someone in that position may just want to “sit” for awhile and reflect on what exactly brought him to this point. And, if and when the time comes to speak, speak HUMBLY, as one who was just caught in this sin. Scott Hahn’s been doing this for years. Hahn is about as smart as they come and yet he was an utterly obnoxious TR/Klinean/advocate of theonomy. When he converted to Rome he simply became an utterly obnoxious and condescending Roman Catholic. Newton’s work on theological controversy is, IMO, priceless. I’m about five minutes away from declaring the internet to be a complete and utter waste of time for theological discourse (ala Postman). Some mediums just aren’t appropriate. When people’s lives, reputations, ministries, and the glory of God are at stake, this medium may well give too much license to men’s (ministers’?) sinful desires.

    To this end, this nebulous noting of anyone’s “track record” without serious substantiation, personal confrontation/exhortation, etc. is just about the most unloving thing I can think of. Perhaps Johnson’s has some very personal history with some of the FV men; he knows them personally and has discussed these things with them in person. But I see precious little of this going on in this whole fracas. These internet debates are nearly worthless; why don’t Baggins (or whomever) meet face to face and talk about how to get reconciled to one another? If, at the end of the day, Baggins believes Wilson to be an incorrigble and unrepentent heretic, so be it. Wilson has begged for this kind of interaction only to be called a “popularizer” and (implied) a theological lightweight. Jordan and Leithart are the ones to get to the table, say the anti-FV critics. Because this happened once – almost five years ago, doesn’t rate as “striving to maintain the bond of peace” in my book. Not even close. RSC and others have demonstrated a lamentable unwillingess to reach out to these (let’s assume the worst) very misled – but influential – brothers. Wilson’s books on the family and education have a circulation that the entire WTS-CA couldn’t match, save Horton. If he’s such a pushover, go to Moscow and attempt to reclaim him. If he won’t be reclaimed, bury him.

    I wonder how many of these men have prayed for Wilson, have “loved” him and given him the benefit of the doubt at every turn, until all hope is/was lost (these aren’t qualities/actions for which the Reformed are known, by the way. Just ask the average “broad evangelical” that’s frequently the butt of the Reformed folks’ jokes and objects of scorn…)

    Hoping to hear an encouraging word from Johnson. Thanks for listening.

  24. Mark T. said,

    July 9, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Matt B. said,

    Hahn is about as smart as they come and yet he was an utterly obnoxious TR/Klinean/advocate of theonomy. When he converted to Rome he simply became an utterly obnoxious and condescending Roman Catholic.

    Matt B continued,

    Wilson has begged for this kind of interaction only to be called a “popularizer” and (implied) a theological lightweight. Jordan and Leithart are the ones to get to the table, say the anti-FV critics. Because this happened once – almost five years ago, doesn’t rate as “striving to maintain the bond of peace” in my book. Not even close. RSC and others have demonstrated a lamentable unwillingess to reach out to these (let’s assume the worst) very misled – but influential – brothers.

    This is a very interesting juxtaposition, Mr. B., placing a man whom you declare “utterly obnoxious and condescending” next to Doug Wilson, who’s obnoxious arrogance is unmatched and unparalleled, IMO. You may be “very impressed” by the man, but all his blogstomping and temper tantrums don’t get near “striving to maintain the bond of peace” in my book. In fact, just the opposite is true. Consider, for example, this “open letter” from Kevin Johnson to Douglas Wilson, which he wrote after Wilson intimidated Johnson off his blog. You’re probably familiar with other public rebukes to the man you deem an “influential brother.” I know I am. Either way, I suggest you find another proof text or else another FV hero to champion, because Doug Wilson is the last man in the world anyone should set forth as peaceful.

    Thank you.

  25. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 9, 2007 at 11:38 am

    I appreciate the kind comments of Mark T. and Robert K.

    Originally, I had decided not to respond to Matt B.’s semi-anonymous criticisms and questions. I think it should be pointed out that generally any criticism of others I lay out on the Internet is done with my full name and put forward in about the most open way possible. It seems strange and hypocritical to me in this context to see someone with just their first name and last initial to be throwing around charges of sin and the like without revealing who they are and just how they are connected to these things. I have defended anonymous criticism of the likes of Douglas Wilson before and don’t immediately dismiss it (valuing truth from all sources), I just can’t for the life of me think that such anonymity is warranted here.

    That aside, a few comments for “Matt B.”:

    1) You write:

    I have seen this happen with a number of Protestant friends that have converted to Romanism/Orthodoxy. They convert and then immediately condemn as heretical, schismatic, and dumber-than-you-can-imagine the position (and people holding them) they held until about twenty minutes prior to their press conference. I realize that the the parallel here isn’t identical.

    Either the parallel is useful and accurate or it isn’t. In this case, I’d say it isn’t either useful or accurate. For one thing, as I state quite clearly above, my theological convictions have not changed and I remain confessionally Reformed. The problem with the Federal Vision theology and practice in my view (as I have repeatedly stated) is its failure in regards to its original vision. A theology designed to bring people back into Reformed churches has now become one of the most divisive theologies over the last fifty years in conservative Reformed circles while seeing many of its original advocates go the way of Anglicanism or Rome. This failure has to be addressed by the originators and leaders of the movement and it remains to be seen if they’ll actually do so in any significant way. Sadly, what I’ve seen in my reaction in the last few days has been anything but the sort of humble self-critical how can we improve and get beyond this approach by FV advocates and leaders.

    I left a post at reformedcatholicism.com criticizing a Douglas Wilson article and the response back from Douglas Wilson and his sidekick Randy Booth amounted to a double-barreled cap gun approach. Lots of noise and no substance in responding to what I originally said. Booth even compared me to a fly. I wish this sort of response was anything but atypical but even your own words seem free to question me and the charity I should have in addressing Wilson while forgetting that your own criticism is anything but charitable in return.

    2) You continue:

    I’m asking from a position of complete ignorance…I’m wondering what kind of public repentence and owning of personal responsibility for teaching and defending falsehood Johnson believes he should manifest? I mean, if the FV is as pernicious an error as Johnson, Baggins, etc. say it is, how can Johnson move from “adherent” and “apostle” to “judge” and “jury” so quickly? Wouldn’t it be good and wise to recuse oneself for a while and let other hands deal the death blow?

    You also write:

    I’m wondering what kind of public repentence and owning of personal responsibility for teaching and defending falsehood Johnson believes he should manifest? I mean, if the FV is as pernicious an error as Johnson, Baggins, etc. say it is, how can Johnson move from “adherent” and “apostle” to “judge” and “jury” so quickly? Wouldn’t it be good and wise to recuse oneself for a while and let other hands deal the death blow?

    You are speaking out of turn and from a position of complete ignorance and it is entirely unwelcome though I can perhaps appreciate why you would ask such things. For one thing, my interaction with the Federal Vision was never a matter of promoting their concerns. I merely defended (in the beginning) the FV men from scurrilous and hurried charges that went around the blogosphere and elsewhere when the theology first came to public light. Beyond that, at reformedcatholicism.com, we have engaged in conversations about these things and many other concerns touching reformed catholicity that — as we stated on many occasions — was a matter of theological speculation and discussion and not an advocating of this position or that necessarily.

    Additionally, I exited a CREC church almost three years ago and only now am I bringing up anything critical in regards to the Federal Vision specifically. Our own church plant was delayed for some two years while our family spent time considering what we had painfully been through in CREC circles for the past five years.

    3) The last thing I would ask of you and any other person sympathetic to Wilson and Federal Vision concerns. As much as you ask your opponents for charity and grace in these things, why aren’t you and others interested in providing the same for someone like me? Why talk of my supposed sin publicly in this sort of forum instead of emailing and contacting me directly? Why must this be done with your heroes and not those with whom you are critical of?

    One of the biggest concerns I have about the FV movement and the men who especially now run things is that they are generally not interested in publicly airing or discussing ANY criticism of their position or practice that would point to any failure or problem with what they advocate. And, their response to critics (especially in Douglas Wilson’s case) is some of the most personal ad hominem vitriol that can be seen in the blogosphere.

    I mean, I posted concerns about Federal Vision pastoral theology and practice on my blog and one FV critic accuses me of slander and lying. Other attacks are less direct but still personal attacks nonetheless. At least you have framed your thoughts as questions and I appreciate that but even still I wonder why criticism is so harshly received by FV advocates.

    So, to sum up, I hope these comments have in some way addressed your concerns and at the very least they should serve to give you more information so that your concerns can at least in some sense be assuaged. I can’t promise that my take on things is 100% always dead-on and I am willing to discuss where my own comments may not be accurate–but I trust those interested in the truth of these matters will proceed knowing that such an attitude really ought to be displayed on all sides of this and other controversies.

  26. Matt Beatty said,

    July 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Without having read Mr. Johnson response yet, I’d like to apologize for my “semi-anonymous” comments/questions. The “Matt B. was unintentional. As I said in the first post, I read/post to this blog (and others) very infrequently. Actually, I’ve posted to this blog once before, but Lane must not have approved the comment OR I executed the post incorrectly. Either way, nothing lost.

    My name is Matt Beatty. I am happily married, four kids, and have am a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (don’t hold that against me…:-)). I currently serve in an administrative role at Grove City College in Western PA where I do some part-time teaching in the Humanities core program. I am a member in good-standing of Covenant Church (OPC) in Grove City. Rev. Gerry Dodds is my pastor. I regularly teach adult and Jr. H.S. education classes.

    I ask this next question in all honesty: Is there some sort of established “blog protocol” for posting on someone’s blog with regards to the type and amount of information required to avoid the charge “semi-anonymous?” I’m simply in the dark here. I honestly intended for the questions I asked to be taken seriously and not as an attack. CONCERNED questions, yes. An attack? No. I hope Mr. Johnson can forgive me for appearing to attack him, personally or theologically.

    This all confirms what I suspected was the case. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for many people (perhaps some have special gifts…) to use the internet for godly theological discussion when the conversation partner is someone with whom they strongly disagree. Thus, I offer my thanks for your willingness to answer the above questions, extend a sincere apology for the apparent “attack” and take my leave.

  27. Matt Beatty said,

    July 9, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Kevin,

    I have read your response. Thanks. Outside the anonymity issue, I don’t think its very likely we’ll get very far with this. I’m not at all convinced that a “public airing” of DW’s flaws – whatever you judge them to be – are what’s in order. Couldn’t everyone do this? For example, I have been in two churches – one PCA one OPC – where the pastor/elders were very nearly completely negligent in their pastoral duties. In one of the churches, the sin went right up to presbytery. But I think it would be wrong to air these matters – none of which are confidential – in public. Perhaps you disagree.

    I must confess that I don’t quite understand how/where/when you were in the business of defending FV stuff, but now aren’t. Probably would take a lot of time and energy that I don’t have. If I misread the level of support you had (at any time) for FV distinctives, please accept my apology. Your website contained articles by Lusk (and other FV luminaries?) so I assumed you weren’t merely attempting to be concilatory, but expressing approbation.
    Was it unreasonable to assume that?

    You also said of me, “You are speaking out of turn and from a position of complete ignorance and it is entirely unwelcome though I can perhaps appreciate why you would ask such things.” Ignorance? Granted. I said as much myself. Out of turn? Not sure about that one. Must one always know the entire history of a person/idea/controversy before offering a question, even a “concerned question?”

    I would’ve hoped that the “appreciation” you have for why I might ask such things might’ve bought me some good will. :-)

    I wish you the best, Kevin, and hope that your ministry prospers.

  28. Kevin D. Johnson said,

    July 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Matt,

    I appreciate both the spirit and the content of your response–I have no acrimony for you and am glad that we were able to hopefully work together to clear this up even if it involved a bit of fireworks in the meantime.

    To answer your question about blog etiquette, generally any sort of personal questions about sin or other issues like you brought up are normally put forward without any sort of anonymity. In some rare cases–like when people face recrimination in the context of their own church situations–anonymity is called for but generally people expect to know who is really turning out the criticism, especially if it is severe.

    I join with you in saying that this is often a difficult medium for such things and sometimes the conversations are not worth having. However, we must remember that Wilson and others are publicly promoting these things (as I am publicly putting forward my issues) and as such they have made these concerns something to be questioned and considered and to do so is appropriate in this sort of forum as well as others. Not that I do it always perfectly or even well.

    So, I appreciate your response back and wish you the peace and grace of Christ as well. The Lord bless you and yours.

  29. greenbaggins said,

    July 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    My opinion is this: a private sin should be dealt with privately, and public sins should be dealt with publicly. So that means that anything published on blogs or in books is fair game for critique, positive and negative. I require contributors to my comment sections to give their full name. I do not allow anonymity for many reasons. But the most important is that anonymous posting allows people to shoot someone without offering a return target.

  30. Robert K. said,

    July 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    “Scott Hahn’s been doing this for years. Hahn is about as smart as they come and yet he was an utterly obnoxious TR/Klinean/advocate of theonomy.”

    Kline was a well-known critic of theonomy. In fact, it has been theonomists (and the ones who turned into Federal Visionists) who have made an effort to make “Klinean” a negative word that can be tossed into argument or debate and cause people to involuntarily cower in a corner.

    They usually make reference to Kline’s doctrine regarding the 6 days of creation when having to present something that is awful and heterodox, but they really despised him because he was a classical covenant theologian (as Vos and as Berkhof were, both equally, if in a more quiet manner, despised by the same characters).

  31. Matt B. said,

    July 9, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Robert,

    My only point in referencing Hahn as being “TR/Klinean/theonomic” was that he was, apparently, a bit of a moving target with regards to his theology. A very sharp, creative, and unsettled mind, according to at least one of his profs. Kline (and his disciples) were all my tutors at GCTS. While I don’t share some of his views, he was a fine Christian man.

  32. Matt Beatty said,

    July 9, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Whoops! Sorry! #31 was me – Matt Beatty! :-)

  33. Common Anti-FV Misconception #1 « Sola Fidelity said,

    March 22, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    [...] Jesus’ actual rebuke of the Pharisees, and second, that misconception is applied to the FV. One NHarper said on Green Baggins, “…we have the “New Perspective” and the “Federal Vision”. Another attempt to [...]


Post a Comment