Correction and clarification!

It seems that the “Federal Vision” movement, while sometimes similar to views of “patriarchy,” is still different from said views. And some people, such as church elder and ministry leader R.C. Sproul Jr., say they uphold patriarchy views, but don’t support the Federal Vision.

However, a recent column here, An open letter to newbie homeschoolers, posted Dec. 2, included Sproul’s name along with Douglas Wilson’s as a supporter of “Federal Vision.”

Just yesterday, Sproul himself stopped by, and disavowed “Federal Vision” in a comment (viewable here). While saying he did support patriarchy and that it was fair to link his name to that, Sproul asked for a correction to the column’s link of his name to “Federal Vision.”

Naturally, your humble webslinger was gratified to stand alongside such “renowned saints” of church history, such as Martin Luther, and refuse to repent and recant.

No, seriously — while “recanting” may not be necessary because no Biblical doctrine was contradicted, it is important to make a correction for wrongful attribution. So, the wrongful reference to Sproul’s name is now gone from the column, replaced by a footnote.

As I noted in a comment earlier today, directed toward Sproul-as-commentator:

It is hard enough to defend what one actually believes, without having to answer for what does not  believe! Though I am not a pastor or “official” ministry leader (in quotes because all of a true Christian’s life is in effect ministry), this has happened to me enough in personal situations that I can empathize.

It can be very frustrating, especially if one has a better-known name, more-”official” ministries to lead, and the truth of the Proverb that “a good name is better than riches.”

Many others have evidently been mixing-and-matching “Federal Vision” and some views of patriarchy. That and your friendship with Douglas Wilson (whose views on many things I appreciate, along with especially his sense of humor that more Christian leaders could use!) have led many to wrongly conflate the two systems of thought and thus their advocates. Originally I did the same, in the above article, and it has now been changed.

More ‘Vision’ correction

In a magazine article apparently in 2007, Sproul explained more about how he disagrees with “Federal Vision” views and what that entails. That material was quoted online¹, and is reproduced here at Sproul’s request.

Not long ago two Southern Baptist scholars met to debate the sovereignty of God in election. Al Mohler fought on the side of the angels, and won. Paige Patterson fought on the side of, well, the Remonstrants, and lost. Along the way Patterson sought to score some points by pointing out the deadly trajectory of Calvinism, by quoting from my book Almighty Over All on God’s sovereignty and the fall. Trouble is, he thought he was quoting my father. While I am most certainly a Calvinist, I am not the Calvinist. Pinning something on me isn’t pinning something on the entire school of thought.

Because we share a name, someone confused my father and I. Because Doug Wilson and I share a friendship, and an ecclesiastical affiliation, and perhaps a conviction or two, some have confused the two of us. Some have assumed because Doug and I are friends, a reality I trust will continue after the publication of this brief essay, that I believe in what has come to be known as federal vision theology. I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. I do believe in paedocommunion, as did most of the church for the first millennium. I do believe, recognizing that we cannot read hearts, that we ought to treat our covenant children as believers unless or until they show otherwise, as has the great bulk of the Dutch Reformed tradition. I do not believe that this, nor being in the CREC (which welcomes Baptists into its midst), nor publishing men in Tabletalk who later came to be identified with federal vision, makes me federal vision.

I do not pretend to know exactly what defines federal vision. I certainly don’t know all the different convictions of all the different men associated with this movement, who sit at different places along the spectrum. I do not pretend to know everything the Westminster Standards have to say on the issues, far less all that Calvin had to say. I do know this. I believe that all those who have been given new hearts by the Holy Spirit, who trust in the finished work of Christ alone, will always so trust, and enter into eternal life. I believe that all such people will bear fruit in their lives, though that fruit is in no way the ground of their justification. I believe God justifies the ungodly, though the ungodly who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and respond in living faith. I believe that those who believe that some come to real trusting faith and then fall away into apostasy, even if they affirm that God ordained all this and brought it all to pass, have denied perseverance of the saints. I believe non-elect covenant members, whatever grace they receive along the way, are not given new hearts that trust in the finished work of Christ alone, and are never actually at peace with God. I believe I can’t say for sure what the men involved in this controversy actually believe about all this.

I believe that no one who has not been given a new heart, who has not trusted the finished work of Christ alone, will enter into eternal life. That’s almost universally true. It allows for no exceptions for unborn children, little babies who die or the feeble-minded. The only exception is Jesus. I believe this makes me more committed to the scope and purity of justification by faith alone than many federal vision critics. I am to their right on this issue. I believe that the death of Christ is why my sins are forgiven, and the life of Christ is why I receive a gracious reward, as our Father has promised. Or, to put it more theologically, I believe in double imputation and in the active obedience of Christ. And always have.

I take a southern Presbyterian view on Romish baptism, believing Rome to be apostate since the adoption of the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Just as I do not require others to submit to my views on paedocommunion (that is, no one at Saint Peter, where I serve, is required to practice it) so I do not require others to submit on this issue. My view on Rome is by no means the majority report. But once again, it is to the right of many federal vision critics. I am troubled by the relative sanguinity of federal vision toward Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I’m a cranky TR.

I have, since this controversy first came to the public eye, sought to be, as much as is possible, at peace with all men. I have had many conversations with men on both sides of the fence. I spoke against federal vision at Auburn Avenue II in 2003. I have also written, I pray graciously, about some of my concerns about this movement from time to time. You can find those brief essays at our website: www.highlandsstudycenter.org/journals/hsc/archive.html (Oct 30, Dec 30 2003, Jan 5, March 8, June 28, 2004). I have also, from the beginning, been decrying the rhetoric surrounding this controversy. This is the first great theological controversy to be played out in the age of the internet. The internet has been about as useful in encouraging thoughtful theological discourse, or even appropriate ecclesiastical judgments, as it has been in encouraging sexual fidelity. I have seen shameful rhetoric from both sides, and precious little effort by the more reasonable on both sides to silence the bomb-throwers.

I take the old perspective on Paul. I have not read N.T. Wright, nor Norman Shepherd. I believe that the animus behind all this animosity is not the defense of theological purity, nor a recovery of biblical language. I believe that behind it all is pride. I believe that the devil has his hooks in both sides, and that both sides could do much more for the kingdom of God if they would spend their time and energy heeding the wisdom of Luther who said, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), He willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

Sproul is a teaching elder at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church (SPPC) in Bristol, Virginia, and leads Highlands Ministries. We may disagree on “patriarchy,” and many others would disagree with his views, such as paedocommunion or paedobaptism (infant baptism, held more widely by conservative Presbyterians). Yet differences on such things don’t disqualify from the body of Christ. And doctrinal disagreements should not lead to deceptive statements — if it’s intentional, that requires repentance, and if unintentional, that still requires apology and correction.

Thanks to R.C. Sproul Jr. for being a good sport about it. Perhaps we can have a more honest and God-honoring discussion sometime about “patriarchy”? In the meantime I’d like to take this opportunity to reiterate two truths, truths that have been well-known throughout the history of this great institution Christ founded, the invisible and unified Church, His redeemed Bride:

1. It would be great to hear what “fall-through-the-cracks” Christian myths others have heard of and would enjoy graciously debunking — others such as, say, R.C. Sproul Jr.
2. Thanks to this situation, I had much less work to do today, writing an original column.

Next week, Christmas activities-permitting: Marketing moralism this holiday season. As a good Presbyterian would say, soli Deo Gloria.

To all newbie homeschoolers,

Congratulations! You have made an excellent choice in choosing to homeschool your children. Whether that decision was recently, or five years and four children ago, I can say from experience: homeschooling is great. You have more time with your children. You don’t need to face as much atheism, pagan sex education, ungodly peer pressures and other garbage. Homeschooling seems to fit closely with the Bible’s ideal.

I’m a homeschooled graduate myself.

Where you are in the early Hundreds, newbies, my parents once were in the late Eighties, back during the homeschooling “pioneer” days. Ask them.

Been there, done that. Lifepac English, Saxon¹ math, Bob Jones history. Paperback books by Mary Pride, large family, public comments (some positive) or stares (most negative), and becoming an oldest brother all over again at age 17. Along with that, a snarky stage of aren’t-I-the-fine-decent-homeschooled-kid that I blame only myself for having, and which I hope I’m mostly through with today.

In 2001 I finished homeschool and started college. About ten years later, I have a print journalism degree, a job at a small-town community newspaper, a young wife, bills to pay, and everything.

So in 15 to 20 years, your young children may resemble me. By then they may have the same challenges, reactions, struggles and positive development as I can report now.

This brings me to the fact that I don’t find myself in the position of hating homeschooling or my Christian upbringing. In fact, my wife and I hope to homeschool our own children when we have them. Even when we began courting², I recall, one of our first discussions was what we liked and what we would do differently.

From your perspective, I suppose, all this brave new homeschooling world looks very new and shiny, revolutionary, exciting and more than a little scary. Especially if you were not homeschooled yourself, you are following in the footsteps of the original homeschooling pioneers.

Yet these same pioneers, looking back now, would surely do things differently, not just with teaching methods, but in many assumptions they had at the first.

My suggestion: learn from their mistakes and negative experiences, and carry forth the lessons into future generations. But were there negative experiences? Can you place yourselves in that frame of reference, and ask this question:

What are the unique pitfalls of homeschooling?

This has an inherent pre-question: Are there any pitfalls?

The reason I ask is because most newbie homeschoolers, in their it’s-all-so-shiny-and-amazing stage, may see only the good reasons, and fewer pitfalls.

That’s understandable! Compared with public schools, the pitfalls may seem shallow.

Of course, everything has pitfalls, but that’s not reason enough to avoid doing something. Christianity itself has pitfalls (such as losing your life for Christ’s sake to save it). Homeschooling has pitfalls, too — lots of them.

But before considering them, and especially the main one I’ll describe here, the above question and frame of reference is vital. Without recognizing these homeschooling pitfalls exist, you’ll have blind spots. You may repeat the errors of previous generations.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of that happening in the modern homeschooling movement.

So much could be said here. But if I tried to cover all the pitfalls, without balance on the other side, it would likely look like a long screed against homeschooling altogether. Instead I will focus on what I consider the number 1 pitfall in homeschooling today.

It’s an annoyance at least, and at the most, it’s hideously dangerous.

In the worst cases, it flatly contradicts the Gospel.

Pitfall no. 1: un-Biblical “patriarchalism”

This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. This is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles.

Without that insistence in mind, anything here will seem like it’s advocating feminism!

For years, organizations such as Vision Forum have been pushing “patriarchy” as the essential component of homeschooling family structure. Doug Phillips is one such leader; others, such as Douglas Wilson³, comprise a growing movement known as “federal vision.” Women such as the Botkins form the female side.

Again, by patriarchy I don’t mean merely husband-leadership, wife-submission, or children-obey-your-parents. All of those are Biblical concepts. Rather, the word denotes a father-ruled system, in which wife and children, especially daughters, are meant to submit to the father and support his vision for the family. This includes not just spiritual growth, but his career, likely a home-based business, and keeping the family stable.

Another term is patriocentric, or father-centered. For many, these are interchangeable.

And they are un-Biblical, for they equate all kinds of notions about what submission should and should not mean, with legitimate Biblically defined husband/wife roles.

Rather than upholding Biblical guidelines for a husband/father’s spiritual guidance, this view turns him into a default “high priest,” between God and his family. That includes his wife. That includes his children — no matter how old they are. It overextends the metaphor of Ephesians 5, and considers the father as in charge, not just a means of, his wife’s and children’s sanctification. And what his “vision” is, theirs should be too.

In these circles, a father is also said to have a special role in the lives of their daughters, being the main man in their lives until such time as he gives them to actual husbands of their own. Daughters in turn serve as their father’s “help-meets.” This includes a lifestyle beyond normal learning of home-making skills; daughters should supposedly serve their father in ways like their own mother. And the most vocal of patriarchalist leaders, male and female, insist that anything otherwise is rebellion.

A young woman once asked me how, if the daughters-as-helpmeets view is wrong, the Bible says daughters should be interacting with their fathers. The answer is that the Bible is completely silent about daughters specifically! “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1) and related verses about children, sons and daughters, are as close as you get. Daughters don’t get specific instructions about getting along with Dad, any more than sons get specific instructions about Mom.⁴

Clearly, fathers should serve as examples of Godly men to their daughters. But patriarchalist teachings, specifically those of Vision Forum and “Visionary Daughters,” go too far — beyond what is right, beyond grace-based living, beyond Biblical balance.

Encouragements for newbies

Again, this is not the same as Biblical husband/wife roles. Read John Piper’s and Wayne Grudem’s big book on the subject, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, with essays from many writers. Piper also has excellent sermons on roles, based in the Bible and on grace. Complementarianism is Biblical. Neither feminism nor patriocentrism are.

So what does all this have to do with brand-new homeschoolers?

Many of you grew up with wrong or un-Biblical assumptions going the other way. Maybe to you, hearing about a movement that puts men front and center is such a refreshing change. There’s much that’s good about that. But as described above, so much of it is not good. Rather than a return to Biblical balance, it’s an overcorrection.

A related question then becomes: can someone react from feminism too much?

In so many situations, I have seen the answer is yes.

My advice is then, as a homeschooled graduate who hopes to stay Scriptural in the way a home is run and children raised: test everything with the Word. Patriocentrism doesn’t pass the test. But so many newbie homeschoolers don’t know that, because it all looks so shiny — and better than feminism and secularism.

But both of those are un-Biblical. Don’t overcorrect for one and slide to the other extreme. Be vigilant! And maybe someday, you’ll have a family whom God has ultimately raised and guided, as their only Mediator, to thank Him for giving you.

More to come on homeschooling pitfalls, depending on reactions from readers.

Your thoughts?