I have decided, after mulling over it for some years now, to discontinue identifying myself with what has come to be called the federal vision. It used to be that when I was asked if I held to the federal vision, I would say something like “yes, if by that you mean . . .” Now my intention will be to simply say no. I don’t. . . . So there it is, whatever you want to call it. Whatever this is, it is federal vision no mas. Douglas Wilson

One month ago Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, said “no mas” to the name Federal Vision. He still affirms the chief doctrines associated with the FV; he split from the name only. He cited a number of reasons for breaking away; for example:

Trajectories
We are a decade and a half downstream from the first federal vision explosion. Certain things have shaken out during that time, and incipient earlier differences have become very obvious differences. To take one example, Peter Leithart’s “end of Protestantism” project is going someplace where I am simply uninterested in going. Unlike some of his critics, I do not believe he is going to Rome, but I do believe it is a project, and it does have a destination. That destination is not mine. It is hard to reconcile his “end of Protestantism” project with my “Protestantism forever” approach. (Federal Vision No Mas)

This excerpt is a good example of Doug Wilson’s willingness to massage history. When “the first federal vision explosion” hit, Mr. Wilson knew that Dr. Leithart was one Hail Mary short of high church Roman. He recognized this since the day Dr. Leithart arrived in Moscow, and he welcomed Dr. Leithart’s doctrine and its trajectory. To be sure, at the FV high point Doug Wilson described the movement with two vivid terms: “new wine” and “reformation,” which suggest an historic flight path. Conversely, he described those who warned against the FV as “old wineskins” and other less-than-flattering terms.

We saw Douglas Wilson portray himself as an Athanasius-like figure in church history — a “faithful Tishbite” — who asked the Almighty for a token to show the world who really stood with God in the Federal Vision controversy. Apparently, he did not appreciate the token that providence shewed him, because he quickly dropped that line of argument. We saw Douglas Wilson wrap himself in the mantle of a “seasoned prophet” who delivered “prophetic rebukes” during “the first federal vision explosion,” even though he denies that the office of prophet exists. Now let’s review how Mr. Wilson described the Federal Vision and its “trajectory” when it actually occurred.

In what follows, we have organized seven entries from Credenda/Agenda and Blog & Mablog, which Douglas Wilson wrote over a four-year span (October 2003–December 2007), where he uses historic language to describe the Federal Vision movement:

*   *   *

Glorious reformations are only seen as such by us when we look at them through the gauzey lens of three-and-a-half centuries. The heirs of the reformation usually like the reformers primarily because they are all dead and not messing around with anything anymore. Thus it is that later generations build tombs and memorials for the prophets, prophets they would not tolerate for a moment at ninety-eight point six. . . . When God raises up men who effectively challenge the idols of their day, the first thing they meet is stiff opposition. That opposition is frequently characterized by overt hostility and persecution from those with open allegiance to the idols. But these men of God are faithful in the face of this opposition, and soon many others are rallying to their banner. . . . But their leaders continue to do what God has called them to do, which is to pull down idols. The stage is now set. When the time is right, the overt opposition begins a campaign of slander. Although the leaders are the brunt of the slander, the slander is not aimed at them. The target is the group of people standing behind them who immediately get concerned about the poor testimony. They know and love their leaders, and know the charges are false. But their instinctive and natural response is to try to get their leaders to modify their behavior so the enemy will stop misunderstanding them. (Credenda/Agenda, 15-4, If Only. . ., October 2003)¹

*   *   *

Reformation and our Children

Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” (Mal. 4:5–6).

One of the great marks of a true, God-given reformation is the characteristic described here by the prophet Malachi. The hearts of fathers are turned to their children. The hearts of children are turned to their fathers. This characteristic is not at odds with correct theology, rather it depends upon it. And any vaunted “correct theology” that does not issue forth in this result is either false theology, or what might be called true-on-paper theology. . . . I have said on different occasions that the Auburn Avenue controversy is all about our children. . . . For many years, we have emphasized that parents should believe God for the salvation of their children, should love and nurture their children accordingly, that elders and pastors have a profound obligation before the Lord to lead the way in this, that the elder qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 about managing households well are widely and routinely disobeyed in the Church, and that reformation will not occur unless all this is addressed in a lived-out, loved-out fashion. . . . And covenantal reformation therefore means . . . turning the fathers back to their children. Reformation does not mean turning the fathers back to big, fat books of theology — except to the extent, and only to the extent, that God uses such theology to turn fathers back to their children. . . . We are engaged in pursuing theological and liturgical reformation, but we are pursuing familial reformation as one of the most important indicators of how we are doing. . . .

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 8/24/2004 3:09:29 PM

*   *   *

Wineskins and Other Metaphors

Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

Not only do confessional Protestants have to make their peace with revivalism, the kind of movement to which they generally object, they also have to make their peace with genuine movements of the Holy Spirit, which can be far more troublesome. In the revivalist stream, the institutional Church often suffers at the hands of nutjobs, and they come and punch holes in the wineskins with the icepick of fanaticism. . . But the new wine of the Spirit is sometimes just as unkind to the wineskins. As we recall, there was a time when virtually every trained theologian in Jerusalem voted to kill the Messiah.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 9/2/2004 1:55:15 PM

*   *   *

Sticky for Weeks

Topic: Presbyterian Fables

“May I please come in?” the new wine said.

The old wineskin looked at the new wine with eyes kind of squinty. “I am not sure that would be entirely wise.”

“Nevertheless, that is my request.”

“Would you promise to be good?”

“I can promise to act according to my nature.”

“That is what I am afraid of,” the old wineskin.

“It is good for new wine to be new wine,” said the new wine.

“Yes, it is good for the new wine to be new wine, but this is only good for the new wine. My question concerns whether it is good for the old wineskin.”

“That I cannot say,” said the new wine. “I am new around here.”

“I don’t know either,” said the old wineskin. “The last time I had any new wine in me was back when I was a new wineskin. Ah, those were the days . . . I remember one time when Machen . . .”

“Excuse me,” the new wine said. “May I come in?”

“Yes, you may. But I don’t want you to make the presbytery blow up, and then the floor would be sticky for weeks.”

“I’ll do my best.”

“That’s all we can expect.”

“Will the rest of the old wineskin do its best too?”

“I am afraid that is asking bit too much.”

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 9/8/2004 4:55:02 PM²

*   *   *

Three Stumbling Blocks [³]

Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

When it appears that the Holy Spirit has begun to create new wine in the church, why do Christian leaders sometimes fail to drink it?

Let us begin by acknowledging that sometimes it is because they are courageous and insightful. Athanasius was against the world, and the new wine of Arianism was actually stump water with clever marketing. The same kind of thing could be said of all the slick hype over ministry in a postmodern matrix, whatever that is supposed to mean.

But let us assume for a moment that the Holy Spirit really has begun to work in a significant way, and that entrenched religious authorities oppose that work. What are some of the reasons given in Scripture for why they might want to do this? Three basic motivations come to mind:

Envy: Jesus was opposed because of envy, a reality that even Pilate could see (Matt. 27:18; Mk. 15:10). When Paul preached in Antioch, things were going great until the local authorities saw the large multitude that showed up to hear Paul preach the next week. So they were filled with envy (Acts 13:45). The same thing happened in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5). This is a human problem — not only were Jewish leaders afflicted with it, so were Christian preachers (Phil. 1:15). When someone teaches or preaches with authority, and not like the scribes, there have been times when the scribes haven’t taken it too well. Sometimes the new wine can’t get into the old wineskin, not because of the old wine, but because the skin is stuffed full of learned scribes, writing treatises on what it was like back in the glory days, back before we drank all the old wine.

Fear: in John 12:42, we are told that many of the rulers (leaders, teachers, etc) believed in Jesus. But they did not admit this publicly because they were cowed by a powerful, conservative faction within the church. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (v. 43). The establishment always knows how to defend itself, and how to intimidate that large group of men in the middle, men who can follow the argument, so long as following it doesn’t lead to any unpleasant consequences. So men remain quiet at presbytery, lamenting the injustice being done, but unwilling to stand.

Laziness: and for a few too many, the ministry is an indoor job with no heavy lifting. Jesus spoke of the hireling who flees (Jn. 10:12–13), and one of the prophets spoke of shepherds who feed only themselves. Sometimes these men are insightful enough to see their main chance might lie in going with a new reforming movement, but usually this mentality likes the quiet the status quo provides, a quiet in which a man may butter his bread, and not have to read any books.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 3/15/2005 7:59:03 PM³

*   *   *

Children of Abraham

Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

We have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now, and I believe there are reasons to believe it is beginning to arrive. One of the reasons for believing this is the explosion of chaos and confusion. . . . As I said, we have been praying for reformation in the Church for many years now. But what on earth made us think that any reformation ever came without making a glorious mess? When did new wine in old wineskins not result in wine all over the floor?

The problem is this: when men build the tombs of the prophets there is a large measure of self-deception going on. They tell themselves that they are the true heirs of the prophets when their actions betray them (to the wise) as heirs of those who opposed the prophets. . . The curators of the Reformation Museum want everyone to stay behind the velvet ropes. . . . This is a deep sociological reality, and all the wishing in the world can’t make it unfold differently. In this reformation, just like the last one, there will be the old guard, refusing to budge. There will be the defenders of the old, those who are willing to retrench somewhat, introducing some reforms under pressure. There will be the magisterial reformers, with significant differences between them, outlining a vision for the future. There will be the sane anabaptists, trying to stay out of trouble. There will be the opportunistic lunatics, who set up some kind of federal vision wife-swapping deal.

One of the earmarks of shrewd insight is the ability to see what corresponds to what. Who is like this person? Who is like that one? Who are the reformers, speaking the language of Scripture afresh? Who are the heretics, flaming with the rhetoric of reformation, but denying the substance? Who are the curators and librarians, custodians of treasures they cannot understand anymore?

When the massive confusion of real reformation breaks out, how do you decide what to do? Simple. The children of Abraham will do the works of Abraham.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 5/29/2007 11:09:28 AM

*   *   *

10. Real reformations burst wineskins, even the ones with the official Reformation® tags stitched on to them. (Mooning the Ref, December 10, 2007)

*   *   *

Douglas Wilson used unambiguous prophetic terminology to declare the Federal Vision’s trajectory: “new wine” bursting “old wineskins,” “God-given reformation,” “covenantal reformation,” “theological & liturgical reformation,” “familial reformation,” “genuine movements of the Holy Spirit,” “Holy Spirit has begun to work in a significant way,” “new reforming movement,” “reformation in the Church,” and “real reformation.”

Now that he ditched the name Federal Vision, he no longer asks, “When it appears that the Holy Spirit has begun to create new wine in the church, why do Christian leaders sometimes fail to drink it?” And now that he rejects the FV, he doesn’t attribute to himself the sinful traits he assigned to his opponents when they rejected it: “Envy. . . . Fear. . . . Laziness.” Methinks we may safely conclude that the Federal Vision was never new wine bursting old wineskins and it was never a “genuine movement of the Holy Spirit.” It was, and still is, false doctrine advanced by a false prophet. And his trajectory has not changed.

¹ The writer borders on delusional as he describes the feats of his heroic characters: “When God raises up men who effectively challenge the idols of their day, the first thing they meet is stiff opposition. . . But these men of God are faithful in the face of this opposition, and soon many others are rallying to their banner. . . . But their leaders continue to do what God has called them to do, which is to pull down idols. . . .”

³ Douglas Wilson wrote this post five days after he learned that serial pedophile Steven Sitler had raped countless children across the USA and in the Kirk.