The FV that I am familiar with is not merely a theology of a decade or so ago, but a cultural and ecclesiastical spirit that is alive and well, and very appealing to some in my generation.
Though, as you say in 9, you are straying from theological elements of FV (or FVNA if you'd like), and instead describing the general cultural and political shifts that are happening/desired in these American/Reformed churches who have an affinity for Doug Wilson and such. While there are some theological aspects to 9-13, I see these traits cropping up in various communities. Though lest I commit the same error of caring about who is "truly" Reformed, I'll end my wondering and let people pick their flavor of FV beer.
While I align with some of these elements (especially those related to a reformed-catholicity), calling myself a Federal Visionist is only going to give me more grief in my region! So you won't be seeing that happen soon! Where I depart from the less-theological points in how to describe these cultural approaches, that is the masculinity and conservatism. While in practice we may not look too different, I'm quite cautious of Christian obedience being co-opted by certain movements. Christianity should indeed cultivate a conservative spirit, but also give breath to revolutionary ideas (like the Jubilee!). And I don't know how helpful it is to say that things will look more masculine, given the diversity of perspectives with what that actually means (That being said, I plan to audit Alastair Robert's upcoming Biblical Theology class on masculinity & femininity).
Yes, I should clarify and explain the conservatism and masculinity ideas.
For example, on masculinity, at our church, someone was speaking Sunday about repenting for having some feminine tendencies in his fathering. I spoke up that that was not something to repent of. For example, when a man becomes a father, his testosterone levels decrease for a time, presumably in order to allow him to be more nurturing and more a part of the home for those first months of his child's life. Allowing this natural variation in temperament based on hormones and the rhythm of life is important, not to mention the natural variation in personality among men and women. There are marked differences between men and women on personality, but also a ton of overlap. I've been reading Leonard Sax, "Why Gender Matters," to understand this. It has helped me understand myself, as I am, in his terms, an anomalous male, personality-wise. (He prefers that to "gender non-conforming.")
Taking Alastair Roberts' course would be amazing. I wish his Crossway book on men and women had come to fruition!
I'll write more about conservatism soon - but for some shorthand, I'll say that Roger Scruton's "The Meaning of Conservatism" and Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Cons" were influential for my conservatism. Both separate economic liberalism (free-market, neo-liberal Reagan-Thatcher economics) from conservatism, in the sense of political philosophy. The conservatism I embrace may encompass the economic redistribution you are indicating, in connection to the Year of Jubilee.
Isn't paedocommunion in tension with "Reformed Catholicity", given that all of the Western churches (both Roman Catholic and Reformation) mandate some sort of examination before admission of children to the table?
That's a fair point. One aspect of catholicity is continuity with Catholic and Reformed practice, and paedocommunion is, generally, an innovation. (I don't know the details, but some argue that paedocommunion was practiced at other stages.) Generally, practicing paedobaptism is more catholic in terms of its continuity with church practice and less worry about who's "really a Christian." However, many of us see paedocommunion as a logical consequence of accepting that.
After all, the reasons pre-Reformation Christians did infant baptism are ones we don't accept; Reformation reasons for infant baptism are post hoc. The reasons for opposing paedocommunion that I have heard are inconsistent with allowing paedobaptism. So for me, it's either believer's baptism and communion or infant baptism and paedocommunion.
Generally, as you can see, I'm mentioning Reformed Catholicity not as accepting the existing tradition without criticism, but as taking a generous approach to the non-Protestant Christian tradition, and a less skeptical attitude to who's a Christian. Paedocommunion seems like a logical consequence of that approach.
"Generally, practicing paedobaptism is more catholic in terms of its continuity with church practice and less worry about who's "really a Christian." However, many of us see paedocommunion as a logical consequence of accepting that."
I definitely follow that line of reasoning. I'm not deeply read up on paedocommunion/ FV debates, but I've heard Leithart and some of his fans articulate something like that. I am convinced that both 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and "do this in remembrance of me" (which I take as entailing some sort of conscious understanding of the sacrament) preclude the practice of giving communion to infants and very tiny children.
I'd say that Reformed sacramentology improved on the baptismal regeneration theory by foregrounding the sign aspect rather than construing it as an inherently efficacious act, but saying they're "different reasons" would be going too far. Both had to do with reception into the visible church and the forgiveness of sins. I'd like to read into this more some time, of course.
I'm glad to discover your blog through Aaron Renn's substack - I also have a philosophy background and enjoy seeing any Reformed philosopher at work.
My sense is that the ancient and medieval church viewed baptism as necessary for children to be saved. For the Reformed churches, it was a symbol of membership in the visible people of God, through a parallel with circumcision. All of the exegetical arguments in favor of infant baptism seem to be relatively new post-Reformation.
To my mind, if children taking communion are in danger as such, then so are children being baptized. Every covenant sign can be curse or blessing, depending on whether the inner salvific reality comes to be by God's Spirit in the individual. As Christian parents, children's participation in the sacraments gives me a sense that I have a strong obligation to raise them to know Christ personally.
To me this was all theoretical until I kind of accidentally ended up in a paedocommunionist church, having previously been in OPC churches that opposed it. Children's participation in the supper expresses joy and feasting, while strong fencing of the table and keeping children away communicates unnecessary fear. I heard those arguments before but didn't put stock in them; after attending a paedocommunionist church, I find that they are accurate.
I look forward to more interaction from another Reformed philosopher!
"My sense is that the ancient and medieval church viewed baptism as necessary for children to be saved." To my knowledge, yes.
"For the Reformed churches, it was a symbol of membership in the visible people of God, through a parallel with circumcision." Yes, but another theme is that baptism is a "visible sign of an invisible grace" (to use an Augustinian phrase). If there were no connection with grace, it would be solely an initiation ceremony, not a sacrament.
"To my mind, if children taking communion are in danger as such, then so are children being baptized. Every covenant sign can be curse or blessing, depending on whether the inner salvific reality comes to be by God's Spirit in the individual. " Very well said. Baptism is a two-edged promise - a promise of blessing, for those who are given faith, but a promise of judgment for those who are not.
"To me this was all theoretical until I kind of accidentally ended up in a paedocommunionist church, having previously been in OPC churches that opposed it. Children's participation in the supper expresses joy and feasting, while strong fencing of the table and keeping children away communicates unnecessary fear. I heard those arguments before but didn't put stock in them; after attending a paedocommunionist church, I find that they are accurate."
I'm sympathetic to that. At some points in my childhood, I had picked up the message that communion was an extremely somber moment where my responsibility was to confess every sin I could remember and be as remorseful as I could gin myself up to be in order to be truly appreciating Christ's sacrifice - and that was what it meant to take in a "worthy manner". I was fortunate to join other PCA churches that balanced out the repentance side of communion (which is real) with the celebratory family meal side - those are things that need to be held in balance.
Raising my own young kids, I've found that their desire for that yummy bread and wine that the adults and big kids are eating opens a wonderful curiosity to learn the truths of the gospel - we've had some of our best conversations about sin and salvation after they wonder "when can I eat the bread and drink that juice?" And my current PCA church doesn't impose a high standard for elaborate articulation of faith - kids as young as 5 or 6 are admitted, because faith can be demonstrated from a young age. I think that alleviates the "strong fencing" concern you've well expressed.
I'm having trouble putting my finger on it, but the fact that baptism is a one-time and, for infants, passive sacrament and communion is a recurring, participatory sacrament further supports having a profession for one and not the other. Friday afternoon brain...
One bit concerning Catholic doctrine is mistaken, I think. You write "Across most of church history and most of the church today, justification by faith is not what is taught. In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, sacerdotalism is taught, that is, the view that grace comes directly through the sacraments, ex opere operato."
The Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent (Denzinger 792-843) emphatically teaches justification by faith. Take a look especially at D 798 and 800-801, where the gratuity of justification is emphasized. (Search by number here: https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700)
The controversy concerned not justification by faith, but the qualifier "alone," interpreted by some to reject the very points which the Federal Vision affirms. (See D 802).
Nor is this to deny or reduce the role of the sacraments. It's simply that this is understood to fit in a manner consistent with justification by faith.
This decree of Trent is not just "one statement" among others. It is considered the dogmatically binding statement of Catholic doctrine on this question since 1547.
The Reformed roots continue to connect! I've (thankfully) been absent FV debates for quite some time, being initially connected mostly through tutelage from Ian Hewitson (check out his dissertation/book: https://www.amazon.com/Shepherd-Justification-Controversy-Westminister-Seminary/dp/0911802835).
Though, as you say in 9, you are straying from theological elements of FV (or FVNA if you'd like), and instead describing the general cultural and political shifts that are happening/desired in these American/Reformed churches who have an affinity for Doug Wilson and such. While there are some theological aspects to 9-13, I see these traits cropping up in various communities. Though lest I commit the same error of caring about who is "truly" Reformed, I'll end my wondering and let people pick their flavor of FV beer.
While I align with some of these elements (especially those related to a reformed-catholicity), calling myself a Federal Visionist is only going to give me more grief in my region! So you won't be seeing that happen soon! Where I depart from the less-theological points in how to describe these cultural approaches, that is the masculinity and conservatism. While in practice we may not look too different, I'm quite cautious of Christian obedience being co-opted by certain movements. Christianity should indeed cultivate a conservative spirit, but also give breath to revolutionary ideas (like the Jubilee!). And I don't know how helpful it is to say that things will look more masculine, given the diversity of perspectives with what that actually means (That being said, I plan to audit Alastair Robert's upcoming Biblical Theology class on masculinity & femininity).
Yes, I should clarify and explain the conservatism and masculinity ideas.
For example, on masculinity, at our church, someone was speaking Sunday about repenting for having some feminine tendencies in his fathering. I spoke up that that was not something to repent of. For example, when a man becomes a father, his testosterone levels decrease for a time, presumably in order to allow him to be more nurturing and more a part of the home for those first months of his child's life. Allowing this natural variation in temperament based on hormones and the rhythm of life is important, not to mention the natural variation in personality among men and women. There are marked differences between men and women on personality, but also a ton of overlap. I've been reading Leonard Sax, "Why Gender Matters," to understand this. It has helped me understand myself, as I am, in his terms, an anomalous male, personality-wise. (He prefers that to "gender non-conforming.")
Taking Alastair Roberts' course would be amazing. I wish his Crossway book on men and women had come to fruition!
I'll write more about conservatism soon - but for some shorthand, I'll say that Roger Scruton's "The Meaning of Conservatism" and Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Cons" were influential for my conservatism. Both separate economic liberalism (free-market, neo-liberal Reagan-Thatcher economics) from conservatism, in the sense of political philosophy. The conservatism I embrace may encompass the economic redistribution you are indicating, in connection to the Year of Jubilee.
Well stated, sir. This will be helpful to share with others as I attempt to explain this church I'm in... :-)
Isn't paedocommunion in tension with "Reformed Catholicity", given that all of the Western churches (both Roman Catholic and Reformation) mandate some sort of examination before admission of children to the table?
That's a fair point. One aspect of catholicity is continuity with Catholic and Reformed practice, and paedocommunion is, generally, an innovation. (I don't know the details, but some argue that paedocommunion was practiced at other stages.) Generally, practicing paedobaptism is more catholic in terms of its continuity with church practice and less worry about who's "really a Christian." However, many of us see paedocommunion as a logical consequence of accepting that.
After all, the reasons pre-Reformation Christians did infant baptism are ones we don't accept; Reformation reasons for infant baptism are post hoc. The reasons for opposing paedocommunion that I have heard are inconsistent with allowing paedobaptism. So for me, it's either believer's baptism and communion or infant baptism and paedocommunion.
Generally, as you can see, I'm mentioning Reformed Catholicity not as accepting the existing tradition without criticism, but as taking a generous approach to the non-Protestant Christian tradition, and a less skeptical attitude to who's a Christian. Paedocommunion seems like a logical consequence of that approach.
What do you think? Thanks for reading!
"Generally, practicing paedobaptism is more catholic in terms of its continuity with church practice and less worry about who's "really a Christian." However, many of us see paedocommunion as a logical consequence of accepting that."
I definitely follow that line of reasoning. I'm not deeply read up on paedocommunion/ FV debates, but I've heard Leithart and some of his fans articulate something like that. I am convinced that both 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and "do this in remembrance of me" (which I take as entailing some sort of conscious understanding of the sacrament) preclude the practice of giving communion to infants and very tiny children.
I'd say that Reformed sacramentology improved on the baptismal regeneration theory by foregrounding the sign aspect rather than construing it as an inherently efficacious act, but saying they're "different reasons" would be going too far. Both had to do with reception into the visible church and the forgiveness of sins. I'd like to read into this more some time, of course.
I'm glad to discover your blog through Aaron Renn's substack - I also have a philosophy background and enjoy seeing any Reformed philosopher at work.
Great to have you and thanks for subscribing! I examined the arguments against paedocommunion in a seminary paper and found them wanting. The paper can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/97109554/On_the_Permissibility_of_Paedocommunion.
My sense is that the ancient and medieval church viewed baptism as necessary for children to be saved. For the Reformed churches, it was a symbol of membership in the visible people of God, through a parallel with circumcision. All of the exegetical arguments in favor of infant baptism seem to be relatively new post-Reformation.
To my mind, if children taking communion are in danger as such, then so are children being baptized. Every covenant sign can be curse or blessing, depending on whether the inner salvific reality comes to be by God's Spirit in the individual. As Christian parents, children's participation in the sacraments gives me a sense that I have a strong obligation to raise them to know Christ personally.
To me this was all theoretical until I kind of accidentally ended up in a paedocommunionist church, having previously been in OPC churches that opposed it. Children's participation in the supper expresses joy and feasting, while strong fencing of the table and keeping children away communicates unnecessary fear. I heard those arguments before but didn't put stock in them; after attending a paedocommunionist church, I find that they are accurate.
I look forward to more interaction from another Reformed philosopher!
"My sense is that the ancient and medieval church viewed baptism as necessary for children to be saved." To my knowledge, yes.
"For the Reformed churches, it was a symbol of membership in the visible people of God, through a parallel with circumcision." Yes, but another theme is that baptism is a "visible sign of an invisible grace" (to use an Augustinian phrase). If there were no connection with grace, it would be solely an initiation ceremony, not a sacrament.
"To my mind, if children taking communion are in danger as such, then so are children being baptized. Every covenant sign can be curse or blessing, depending on whether the inner salvific reality comes to be by God's Spirit in the individual. " Very well said. Baptism is a two-edged promise - a promise of blessing, for those who are given faith, but a promise of judgment for those who are not.
"To me this was all theoretical until I kind of accidentally ended up in a paedocommunionist church, having previously been in OPC churches that opposed it. Children's participation in the supper expresses joy and feasting, while strong fencing of the table and keeping children away communicates unnecessary fear. I heard those arguments before but didn't put stock in them; after attending a paedocommunionist church, I find that they are accurate."
I'm sympathetic to that. At some points in my childhood, I had picked up the message that communion was an extremely somber moment where my responsibility was to confess every sin I could remember and be as remorseful as I could gin myself up to be in order to be truly appreciating Christ's sacrifice - and that was what it meant to take in a "worthy manner". I was fortunate to join other PCA churches that balanced out the repentance side of communion (which is real) with the celebratory family meal side - those are things that need to be held in balance.
Raising my own young kids, I've found that their desire for that yummy bread and wine that the adults and big kids are eating opens a wonderful curiosity to learn the truths of the gospel - we've had some of our best conversations about sin and salvation after they wonder "when can I eat the bread and drink that juice?" And my current PCA church doesn't impose a high standard for elaborate articulation of faith - kids as young as 5 or 6 are admitted, because faith can be demonstrated from a young age. I think that alleviates the "strong fencing" concern you've well expressed.
I'm having trouble putting my finger on it, but the fact that baptism is a one-time and, for infants, passive sacrament and communion is a recurring, participatory sacrament further supports having a profession for one and not the other. Friday afternoon brain...
Have a great weekend!
Hi Joel,
Just read this post. Very interesting!
One bit concerning Catholic doctrine is mistaken, I think. You write "Across most of church history and most of the church today, justification by faith is not what is taught. In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, sacerdotalism is taught, that is, the view that grace comes directly through the sacraments, ex opere operato."
The Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent (Denzinger 792-843) emphatically teaches justification by faith. Take a look especially at D 798 and 800-801, where the gratuity of justification is emphasized. (Search by number here: https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700)
The controversy concerned not justification by faith, but the qualifier "alone," interpreted by some to reject the very points which the Federal Vision affirms. (See D 802).
Nor is this to deny or reduce the role of the sacraments. It's simply that this is understood to fit in a manner consistent with justification by faith.
This decree of Trent is not just "one statement" among others. It is considered the dogmatically binding statement of Catholic doctrine on this question since 1547.