The Problem with Perfection: Steve Wilkins and the Federal Vision

The cliché it’s not perfect but… is familiar when making plans, building something, or critiquing a piece of art or whatever. It’s pragmatic, but it’s not as true as the phrase there’s nothing wrong with perfection. Perfection is the foremost problem with Steve Wilkins’ essay in The Federal Vision. It’s a perfect essay. There is very little wrong with it in terms of grammar, composition, and content. It’s highly polished, written with a commanding imperative without an overbearing sense of exhortation. His proof-texts are exceptionally well organized and supportive of his central thesis: “the foundation of all God’s dealings with man is covenant.” So what's wrong with it? It’s a reverse case of the Pauline sense of ‘strength in weakness’ and deserves a fresh review.

The outset of Wilkins’ essay attributes the woes and weakness of the modern church to ignorance and failure to understand the concept of covenant. Wilkins’ essay goes on to explain the pactum salutis and the Imagio Dei in biblical terms which maintains a robust Trinitarian and Calvinist framework. Wilkins great strength is that he manages the material in clear, non-technical language. But as a revisionist he, initially, overstates the problem which raises suspicion on the cure.

The basic criticism of the Federal Vision is that they ‘flatten’ or merge the covenant of works and the covenant of grace into a single mold: salvation by works and faith in tandem. Wilkins’ summary on the federal relationship between the first and second Adam is exceptional until pronouns come into play (esp. for Rom. 8:28-34 (pp. 56-58)). The moment election, us, and status appear as terms in the FV, the covenant becomes, simultaneously, settled and conditional. This violates the old principle that an opposite can never become the opposite of itself, but where election and reprobation are concerned it is better to clasp the mouth and stay the pen. Wilkins says as much in his conclusion (p. 66).

Wilkins does not explicitly say ‘faith without works is dead and cuts you out of covenant for good unless you maintain perfect obedience.’ But he comes close. He says, “the covenant is not unconditional. It requires persevering faithfulness.” Steve and the FV yoke that responsibility on believers, potential reprobates, and Christ alike. Talk about unequally yoked. Christians have a duty to Christ their redeemer, it's true. But faithful obedience in the life of Christ, is less of duty and more of gratitude, and needs to be treated as sanctification or works/faith becomes confused.

Ultimately Steve and the FV need to decide who is faithful: the church or Christ. Christ fulfilled all righteousness whereas the church is still working on it. For this writer it’s unfair and overreaching to suggest the Church, even the low Church, knows nothing about the covenant. ‘Works based introspection’ over covenant election is the worst remedy to stimulate any congregation to Gospel obedience and perseverance. As George W. Bethune observed (Heidelberg Catechism Qq. 20-22)

“Life under the first covenant was promised on a condition … Christ the second Adam assumed the condition in the room of his church, and by his perfect righteousness purchased, or merited for them, life. Our enjoyment of that life can, therefore depend upon no condition, but is simply bestowment on Christ’s part, and acceptance on ours” (Vol. 1:159).