Nielsen’s Nook

Kevin D. Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has made another post that has grabbed my attention. Given the scope of Nielsen’s Nook (pastoral, ecumenical, irenic), there are a number of reasons I bring this lengthy post to your attention here. I summarize the article here:

Johnson had been a supporter of the Federal Vision (FV) in its initial articulations from 2002. Today he wonders whether FV is as consistent with Reformed theology as once claimed. In the last year of pastoring a church, and I take it - existentially feeling the weight of responsibility for those in his care, he has begun to think differently about the matter. He asks the question:

Is Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

In his pastoral critique of FV he warns against of a tendency in which obedience to the commandments is emphasized in contradistinction to being a regenerate covenant member. Johnson sees this resulting in a sort of skewing of the work of preaching.

Second, a danger of raising clergy (teaching and ruling elders) to a place of authority which is contrary to historic Presbyterian polity and just as alarming is the resultant “negative treatment of women.”

Third, including himself explicitly here, Johnson states that:

… Federal Vision theology has often served to muddy the waters concerning the grace of Christ operative in the life of believers and in and among the Church.

Fourth, Johnson argues that to the degree in which Presbyterian and Reformed churches leave their Reformed traditions for Episcopalian/Anglican or Roman Catholic communions, FV demonstrates itself pastorally impotent to “properly combat nominalism in Reformed circles.”

Fifth, while Johnson argues elsewhere that the two sacraments of the Reformed churches are undervalued, he sees FV as swinging “the pendulum” too far. The result is that the sacraments become the emphasis and begin to eclipse the Lord Jesus who is signified in them. He gives a anecdotal illustration here of children in worship services in paedocommunion congregations who are allowed to sleep undisturbed through the entire liturgy except when the bread and wine are received. He makes a fine point when he says:

it is high time that gospel-centered, Christ proclaiming preaching took center stage again in these environments. The sacraments mean nothing without the accompanying Scripture being proclaimed in our services and I see more change in a congregation when the Word is properly proclaimed then I ever have through devotion to the sacraments.

He concludes by calling FV proponents to not hide behind misunderstanding, but to acknowledge the significant pastoral problems involved in adopting FV theology. While Johnson does not use this terminology, he seems to be arguing for the engagement of a semper reformanda disposition, a spirit of prayerful scriptural self-correction. Seeking to combat the nominalism that is present in Reformed churches (in those who propound FV, in those who oppose FV, and in those who don’t care) is a good thing; however, the answer does not seem to be without but has been with us since the beginning:

Heartfelt Holy Spirit inspired regeneration of the hearts of men who rely exclusively on Christ, the preaching and presentation of Christ in our churches, a centering on the grace of the gospel of Christ–these are the things that will fix nominalism in our churches and it is what will keep us away from implementing solutions which really can be a departure from the gospel if we’re not careful. We should be thankful for the heritage we have in those that have gone before us and look back once again at the classic formulations of our faith–’the faith once for all delivered to the saints’.

---

Read Kevin D. Johnson’s post, “Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice” for yourself at Reformed Catholicism. When I posted this there were 114 comments on the post. I had not read them all but the ones I did read were stimulating.