A Response to Dr. Bryan Chapell re Federal Vision

Rich Lusk, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, writes a very well thought out response to the president of Covenant Theological Seminary, Dr. Bryan Chapell’s article, An Explanation of the New Perspective on Paul(NPP). Although the article’s stated purpose is to deal with NPP, it is definitely aimed at those who are labeled among the Federal Vision, Auburn Avenue, or Monrovites clans.

I especially appreciate the way Pastor Lusk starts out:

The controversy in Reformed circles has been rather ugly at times . . . well, ok, it’s actually been ugly most of the time, unfortunately. In that regard, Chapell’s attempt to speak with clarity, charity, humility, and integrity is greatly appreciated by many. His style and tone are commendable. Again, I have nothing but the highest respect for Dr. Chapell, the institution and denomination he represents, and his Covenant Theological Seminary colleagues.

Which is true in both aspects. 99% of the critics of Federal Vision don’t just disagree with the proponents - they viciously attack them, not just calling them heretics, but also any other derogatory term they can fit to the occasion.

In this vein I really liked Pastor Lusk’s idea when he says it is not ‘proper’ to speak

as though there were two basic ’sides’ in this controversy. I dislike that language for at least two reasons:

[1] Even when Christians disagree, they should not think in terms of sides or parties. The ‘us-versus-them’ mentality is simply inappropriate (cf. 1 Cor.1:10ff; Phil 2:1ff). We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord striving to embrace and live by God’s truth. For a vast array of reasons, we find things to disagree about. But, especially in the Reformed community, we must never allow those differences to outweigh the glorious and precious things we have in common. If it is truly possible to esteem others better than ourselves while debating their theology, we should find a way to do so.

[2] The ‘two sides’? approach is way too simplistic. Contrary to what some have claimed, the ‘FV’? is not some monolithic movement, nor is there an official checklist of FV beliefs. The FV is an amorphous blob, probably defined more by those who oppose it (and have therefore forced definition onto it) than by proponents themselves. Those lumped into the ‘FV’? group do tend to share a basic set of concerns, but more than that, as friends and brothers, they share in an ongoing conversation together. Thus, it would be virtually impossible to articulate what makes someone ‘FV,’? whether theologically or sociologically with any precision. But the same is true on the other side. Those who oppose the FV, even adamantly, often disagree amongst themselves. There is diversity all over place, making it very, very difficult to sort the issues out in a neat and tidy way. Of necessity, my paper has had to oversimplify reality for the same of communication and convenience. The reader should keep this in mind. The FV and its opponents represent a variety of subcultures within the Reformed world. This is not a binary discussion.

Next I hope to continue a look into Pastor Lusk’s response, especially his idea of us being “Reformed catholics” :)

Hat Tip to Jeff Meyers @ CACOETHES SCRIBENDI