An End of One Era and Beginning of a New

I am writing this as I sit at the Orange County airport in southern California. I have been traveling here for Presbytery and committee meetings since 2015. For the last several years, I have made eight or nine of these trips each year. But this was my last one, at least in that context. I will still do some traveling to California for Presbytery meetings and other church events, but this was my last one as a member of the OPC.

Yesterday the Presbytery of Southern California agreed to release me to the care of our Session given the congregation’s recent votes to withdraw from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and petition to join the CREC. The vote was peaceful and without any drama. I had many conversations with brothers whom I love, and many expressed their love, appreciation, and regret at our departure. I look forward to welcoming some of these brothers again to our congregation and doing everything we can to promote fraternal relations and cooperation in gospel ministry. The CREC may not have formal ecumenical relations with the OPC, but I hope that RPC will continue to be loved and respected as faithful brothers and fellow-workers with them in the larger Body of Christ.

I was delighted to see the progress of the kingdom and gospel ministry in this corner of God’s kingdom. The mission work in Laveen, AZ that began as a Friday morning Bible study a few years ago was organized as a mission work of the Presbytery with funding from both the denomination and presbytery and a full-time church planter. The mission work in Hawaii that has been without a full-time church planter for some time will now have one as a capable young man passed his ordination exam with the unanimous consent of the body. A new pastor was called to Westminster OPC, a second pastor was called part-time to Covenant OPC in Tucson, and one local church that has operated for many years as two congregations—one English-speaking, one Korean—was peacefully divided into two. There were many wonderful things accomplished in yesterday’s meeting, and it was a joy to witness God’s blessing on these brethren to whom we remain connected in Christ.

My heart has been full of many different emotions. This trip and event was bittersweet. If you told me one year ago that within twelve months we would no longer be in the OPC, I would not have believed you. Even though we thought such a transition was possible, maybe even likely, at some point in the future, none of us on the Session thought it would happen this quickly or soon. No doubt, over time, we will reflect on things we could have, or should have, done differently, but in God’s providence, here we are. There is some sadness in this moment, but the future is bright. RPC is healthy, united, and strong. We remain faithful to Scripture and the Reformed confessions. We have welcomed many individuals and families who love the Lord and whose lives and households are being transformed by the Word and Spirit of Christ. The Lord has given us much work to do, and there are many opportunities on the horizon. May the Lord continue to help us, keep us faithful, and make our labors together fruitful.

There continue to be reports of division in our congregation and rumors about radical, theological changes that led us to this moment, but all of you know better. We were faithful during our time in the OPC, and we remain committed to the same biblical and Reformed worship, faith, and piety that has characterized this church since God first reformed it many years ago. I thank God for every one of you. I thank God for the extraordinary privilege of being your pastor, your brother in Christ, and your friend. I am thankful for the many relationships we have with brothers and sisters throughout North America that we would not have had if we had never joined the OPC, and I am thankful for the new friendships and relationships God has given us in the CREC over the last few years. God is good. His Church is not defined or delimited by denominations. We are one Body, one family, one community of grace. --JME

Emails, Leverage, and the Error of Being "Moscow-friendly"

Readers of this blog may be familiar with the drama created by an email that was sent out to selected members of my Presbytery in January identifying me as “An FV Problem in the OPC.” You can read more about that 1-HERE, 2-HERE, and 3-HERE. This week, the original sender of that email contacted me to apologize, sort of. I have replied to him directly and personally, but since the narrative about this controversy has been manipulated by critics in unfortunate ways, I thought it best to publish an edited version of my reply. Names and information that would allow my correspondent to be identified have been removed. –JME

[Brother]:

Thanks for your note. I am happy to forgive you for handling things in the way you did. I do wish you had simply picked up the phone and called me first or even responded to the email I sent you when our Session was finally forwarded the packet a couple of weeks after you sent it out. The other brother who contributed to that analysis of my teaching replied when we sent it to him, but we never heard from you.

It is interesting to me that you sent your apology to the church’s email account. Maybe you forgot that you have my personal one from corresponding before, or you might have used my alias account that other OPC ministers use when they want to contact me. Or you might have called me since we know each other, or you might have mentioned these concerns to me directly when we chatted at GA six months before. I did think we had the kind of relationship that would allow you to share concerns with me. You might remember us chatting several years ago when I needed advice about a difficult pastoral issue, or going together to meet with a widow after [her husband’s] suicide. I understood that we had different views on some things, but it was disappointing that you would send a warning about me to men in my Presbytery without even bringing those concerns to my attention.

You said:

“When we first met, I had no idea that you were at all ‘Moscow-friendly’ as averred, though I’ve come to be concerned from things you’ve written (and also said at GA) that you have tendencies in this direction. This does concern me, as you would know from things I’ve published.”

I’m not exactly sure what “Moscow-friendly” means. I try to be friendly with brothers and sisters wherever I find them. For what it’s worth, almost no one in Moscow knows who I am. I’ve never been there, and while I appreciate the culture and a lot of the content that comes from there, I generally like my beer a bit darker than what is on tap at Christ Kirk. When your email was finally forwarded to me, it was interesting to read that, in the analysis of my preaching, nothing was identified as outside the standards or in contradiction to my ministerial vows. Yet I am a “Federal Vision problem in the OPC.” It seems the primary concern is that I am not willing to call Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, et. al. heretics. If I am teaching something contrary to our Confession of Faith, I expect someone would have filed charges rather than simply circulating emails that amount to slander and gossip.

While I do not have many friends in Moscow, I used to have a lot of friends in NAPARC, and I can tell you that has changed since your email at the beginning of this year. You may have meant it for good, but others have used it as leverage for evil. Men that once were personal friends no longer answer my emails. I have been contacted by men in the OPC (from Florida to northern California), PCA, URC, RPCNA, and the Canadian Reformed Churches that have been warned I am a Federal Visionist. Members of my church have been told I am a false teacher and teach heresy. People have been pressured to leave or not to come to ROPC. We even had a ruling elder in our Presbytery visit a Reformed Baptist Church where he was warned about Joel Ellis. I never desired to be widely known, much less infamous, but the email you sent has been used to propagate a narrative that has damaged our congregation and its reputation far and wide.

Despite that, God has continued to pour out blessings on our church. Our congregation continues to grow and is remarkably unified. Recently a presbyter prayed publicly about the divisions at ROPC and the doctrinal problems that exist. That was news to me and to the ruling elder that attended Presbytery with me. We are not aware of any division or disunity. If anything, this year’s drama has brought our congregation closer and made us more united. The Lord works all things together for good.

An OPC minister in another Presbytery contacted me several months ago to defend the email you sent out. He encouraged me to leave the OPC. “We don’t believe the things you do, and you would be happier in the CREC,” he said. In two weeks, our congregation will have the first of two votes deciding whether to leave the OPC. Such a decision might have eventually happened anyway—our elders talked about the possibility before we were labeled “a Federal Vision problem”—but it would not have happened this year without the email you sent out. We would not have lost an intern and a ruling elder over the summer if the pressure campaign arising from your email had not brought the conversation to a head in our congregation. I love the OPC, and I would be happy and content to remain and continue serving as an OPC minister until I die. That is unlikely to happen now. We have spent a lot of time talking to members and trying to convince them that the pressure we have received to leave does not represent the OPC as a whole. No one man, or group of men, can speak for the denomination. But they can make it difficult for one man, or one congregation, to remain in the denomination, and I don’t have to tell you that this is not the first time something like this has happened in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Brother, I have no malice toward you. I love you. I respect the concerns you have for me grounded in what you perceive are important theological differences. But I would be glad to know what they are. If there are real theological differences, I would have been glad to have been asked about them, confronted about them, even brought up on charges so I could identify them. Being “Moscow-friendly” is not a chargeable offense, so far as I know, but evidently it is sufficiently egregious to warrant sending a warning to a brother’s Presbytery. You apologized for not handling things in a better way. “It would have been better to send it to the clerk if I just wanted the presbytery to look at it or, even better, to have contacted you and talked with you about it.” For what it’s worth, I would encourage you to reflect on whether your concerns are valid at all. We’ve known each other for quite a few years, but so far as I know, you’ve never visited ROPC. At the very least, when someone contacts you with concerns in the future, maybe you should seek the other side first before getting involved. 

Proverbs 18:13: He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

Proverbs 18:17: The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Your fellow-servant,

Joel Ellis

The Evolution That Wasn’t

This has been an interesting year for ROPC, in general, and for me, in particular. While I have been blessed by expressions of love, support, and encouragement from men in the OPC throughout the country, the local picture has been somewhat different. I have been encouraged to leave the OPC because “we do not believe what you believe,” men who once acknowledged me as a friend and co-laborer no longer reply to emails or respond to invitations, and members of my church have been repeatedly informed that “charges” are being drafted against their pastor and that I teach “heresy.” Of course, all of this is rather silly. There are many men in the OPC who believe exactly what I believe. I still faithfully abide by my ordination vows, happily and heartily “receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms… as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,” and our congregation carefully adheres to the “the government, discipline, and worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” as outlined in the Book of Church Order. So what has changed?

It has been suggested that I have gone through a “theological evolution,” though thus far no one has explained where or how my views have evolved. Such a transformation sounds exciting except that I have read Jurassic Park and so understand that the theory of evolution posits the gradual mollification of organisms. In other words, if my theology has evolved, it hasn’t turned into a T-Rex or Velociraptor (which would make the isolation of the last year worth it), but has more likely become ordinary and less frightening. If my convictions were once a dinosaur and have now evolved into a bird, why is everyone clutching their pearls and running away screaming? Maybe instead of theological evolution they think my views have actually transformed into something like a zombie.

The problem is that I am not aware of any such evolution—do zombies know they are zombies? This is not to say I have not changed my mind on some things. The man who says he has never changed his mind either understood everything perfectly from the beginning or he has never learned anything at all. I’ll let you decide which of those two possibilities is the more likely. Anyone who studies the Bible regularly will find it necessary to adjust his views on certain subjects from time to time. But the changes in my own thinking over the last ten years have actually been quite modest. The most significant theological transition was my embrace of paedobaptism and a more explicitly covenantal theology. Can I help it that many modern American Presbyterians think more like baptists than their Reformed forebears?

During the years that I have served in the OPC, I have shared the things I was studying and thinking about with my elders as well as with other ministers in the OPC, men in my own Presbytery, and members of the Ministerial Oversight Committee. They did not recognize a major shift in my theology, nor have any of them sounded the alarm, expressed concerns to me about my doctrine, or suggested that I was no longer a good fit in the OPC. If some believe I should not remain in the OPC because of what I believe, there are many other men that should also step aside. None of the men who have suggested I ought to leave are qualified or authorized to speak on behalf of the denomination, nor are their own views determinative of the standards of the OPC. As I pointed out to one of them, I regularly vote in favor of candidates who share his particular theological distinctives, even if they are not my own. One wonders why my own views, which are within the bounds of the Westminster Confession and Reformed tradition, ought not receive the same judgment of charity and toleration.

The truth is, the people who have promoted the idea that I am a “Federal Vision problem in the OPC” did not do so because of any changes in my theology. The original email that was sent to members of my Presbytery in January 2024 indicated that the author had heard concerns about me for some time. Those who were “sharing concerns” did so long before they thought I was “Federal Vision,” and they did so for reasons that were not theological. After our Session responded to that email, a narrative has been circulated in order to weaken the fellowship I enjoyed with other NAPARC churches in the area and to attempt to destabilize and divide the unity in our congregation. For the most part, this latter effort has failed. To the extent that there are now some members of ROPC that have questions or doubts about my teaching, it should be noted that they did not have these reservations and concerns until someone outside the church suggested it. Their fears were not created by my teaching or the fruit of my ministry, both of which were considered reliable and praiseworthy until a few minutes ago.

The ones promoting a narrative in order to drive me out of the OPC and divide ROPC know who they are and what they are doing. They should know that I know them as well and why they are doing this. They can pretend this is driven by concerns about my “theological evolution,” but I know better, and so do they. The Lord knows too, and I am content to be judged by him.

If there are concerns about my teaching, then address me about those issues directly. Ask questions about what I believe and teach. Several have said they are not obligated to communicate directly with me because my teaching is public, and if that is so and their criticisms whispered in secret and behind closed doors is warranted, then let them file charges. I would be happy to address any questions and concerns in an open forum. Unfortunately, that would not help my critics but would instead leave them with egg on their faces. Tactical decisions are based on strategic priorities. You know what these men are aiming at based upon the techniques they have chosen. Speaking to me directly or adjudicating concerns in an open and ecclesiastical way would not serve their purposes. That is why they speak behind my back. Envy is real. They are trusting either that I do not know what is going on or hoping that I will not name them. They should be thankful that I do not think their behavior is worth my time.

The Lord has done a great work at ROPC over the last eleven years, and he continues to work powerfully in us, among us, and through us. I pray he always will. It was not easy to turn a barely evangelical community church into a confessionally Reformed congregation. Those who participated in that work paid a heavy price, enduring a lot of criticism and many personal attacks. We did not expect the same thing to come from members of our own tribe, but as students of Scripture, we should have anticipated it. Our transition from independent community church to Reformation OPC really was a “theological evolution,” one that led to the establishment of a healthy, active, and growing community of men, women, and children who love the Lord, the Scriptures, and the doctrines of the Reformed tradition. To the extent that some men who had the label “Federal Vision” encouraged, prayed for, and instructed us before and since we joined the OPC, I thank God. It is in the fires of controversy that we learn who our real friends are and that we learn to rely upon the Lord who will never fail us, even if the best of men sometimes do. –JME

FV and Non-Falsifiable Accusations

 

Photo courtesy pixabay.com

I typically have a pretty full schedule every week, but it has been notably fuller since our Session responded to recent allegations that I am “a FV problem in the OPC” on January 10th. Many have reached out to express concern and support for me; others have reached out to express concern about me. There have been many good conversations—by phone, email, text message, and in person. I have answered a lot of questions. In fact, I don’t think there has been even one day since January 10th that I have not spent time communicating with others who contacted me about this issue. It has taken a lot of time, every day, and there are many more of these conversations both already on my calendar and on the horizon.

I am grateful to everyone who has communicated with me thus far. These questions and conversations are a welcome contrast to the original distribution of the packet which was compiled and distributed without anyone contacting me to ask questions about my views or obtain clarification on any point that seemed unclear. Specific questions are helpful and clarifying. General allegations that someone is “Moscow friendly” or seems to be “becoming Federal Vision” are not.

The most common question I have received in the last seven weeks has been, “What’s Federal Vision?” This is due to the fact that the vast majority of members in our congregation do not come from a Reformed church background, and most of those who do have not spent much time on Reformed social media. No doubt, this may explain how they have been so easily misled by a sneaky Federal Visionist.

Inquirers have asked about my view of the covenants—you may notice the plural, covenants, suggesting I am not the mono-covenantalist that some think I may be—as well as my views on justification by faith and baptism. I am happy to answer these questions, though it seems odd to have to do so since I regularly preach sermons in which I explain and defend my views. Moreover, those answers haven’t changed much since I was examined by the Presbytery in 2016. At the risk of sounding boringly orthodox rather than excitingly innovative, my views on these matters are nicely summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But the main question that keeps coming around has nothing to do with my views on biblical and theological topics and instead centers on my admiration for a certain jolly pastor in the land of potatoes.

I have written before of my appreciation for Lord Voldemort. I met Douglas Wilson in 2022. We spoke at the same conference and even answered questions on the same panel. I am sure he is thankful that I was there to draw a crowd for him. In all seriousness, I have no doubt that if someone asked Pastor Wilson about Joel Ellis, he would respond, “Who?” Doug Wilson does not know me, but I have been immeasurably blessed by his ministry for many years, and I am unapologetic in my appreciation for him.

The primary grievance that comes up, again and again, in the conversations I’ve had over the last seven weeks has been my unwillingness to admit that Douglas Wilson is a no-good, horrible, very-bad man. It does not seem to occur to any of my questioners or critics that their eagerness for me to concede this point only makes me less willing to do so. I might have been willing to take issue with Pastor Wilson on one or two points, but I’m less inclined to cooperate when disgruntled neighbors suggest it would be good for my health to do so. J. C. Ryle once said, “The best of men are men at best,” and I am sure this applies to Doug Wilson whose cowboy boots contain feet of clay. But alas, if we are to withhold appreciation and instead denounce those whose theology we consider to be flawed, I might have a word or ten to say about some of my critics. Instead, I will simply say that I thank God for them. Insofar as they are heralds of the gospel, I rejoice that Christ is preached. Insofar as they are thorns, I rejoice that God uses them as goads to my sanctification.

Those who claim that I promote Pastor Wilson cite the fact that I once recommended the Canon+ app in a weekly newsletter, wrote a rather favorable appreciation of his work for Kuyperian Commentary, allowed members of ROPC to move to Moscow, ID, and fail to clutch my pearls when confronted with excerpts from Wilson’s novel Ride, Sally, Ride. Concerning the latter, my family can attest to the fact that I and my wife and several of my children thoroughly enjoyed it. We have given copies away as a gift and recommended it to others. If this amounts to promoting Doug Wilson, I must say that my transgression in this regard pales in comparison to my enthusiastic appreciation for the works of G. K. Chesterton (an obese papist), Robert Heinlein (a pagan libertarian), and C. S. Lewis (an Anglican whom no self-respecting confessional Presbyterian would ever read). If the fact that we allowed members to move to Moscow without placing them under discipline is evidence that my orthodoxy is in doubt, I wonder what we are to think of OPC pastors who have seen members depart for Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various forms of progressivism. I had no idea that pastors had the power to tell members where they are allowed to move. My authority is much greater than I knew.

I have been told that my admission that I could affirm the content of the “Joint Statement on Federal Vision” is my “death warrant” in the OPC. Who knew that such an innocuous statement could justify such a violent outcome? Some seem to believe this confession obviates the need for specific charges against me, a type of Presbyterian seppuku, albeit less messy. But if that admission constitutes a confession of error, then those specific errors must be substantiated. I deny that I teach anything contrary to the Confession I vowed to uphold. I am open to correction, but first I must be convinced of fault from Scripture.

The current state of controversy is a proxy war, with rumors and gossip operating behind the scenes in an attempt to destabilize ROPC—which continues to grow and flourish, by God’s grace—and questions being suggested by men in shadows to those who are willing to communicate with me but who do not know the right questions to ask. The accusations are non-falsifiable. An assertion of categorical error is made without specifics or substantiation. It is like the man who was asked if he still beats his wife. He cannot say yes or no without indicting himself, and if he claims he has never beaten his wife, we’re pretty sure that is just what a wife-beater would say. I can simply assert that you are a Federal Visionist, and don’t ask me what that means or where specifically you have erred. That’s just what a Federal Visionist would say. –JME

Pastor Mitty and Unsettling Souls

In the first century, Jewish Christians from Jerusalem spread false doctrine among the Gentile churches and “unsettled the souls” of faithful brethren there (Acts 15:24). Two millenia later, another generation of self-important teachers unsettle the souls of brethren outside of their own region by correcting what they perceive to be the errors of pastors and teachers in other congregations. Of course, these men are certain they are not like the Judaizing teachers who needed to be corrected in Acts 15. They imagine themselves to be on the side of the apostles and elders who get to do the correcting. That is why they write letters, make social media posts, and send warnings to brethren they have never met about brothers they did not trouble themselves to talk to directly. They think they are battling a new Judaizing error, but in fact, they are perpetrating a very old and equally wicked error by sowing division.

Human beings always cast themselves as heroes in the story of their lives, and if not heroes, then as a tragic, misunderstood, and pitiable character, a victim to awaken sympathy. Either way, we are sure that when we are on-stage, ladies will alternately coo, swoon, and weep while the men admire, applaud, and are moved in an appropriately masculine way. Pastors are prone to this as well, imagining they are some combination of John Calvin and Jack Reacher when in reality most are closer to Mr. Collins and Dwight from The Office. We think that we are dashing, but most of us are dweebs. We might do well to meditate on James Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” as a penitential text rather than reenacting it behind a keyboard.

The fact is there is real evil and danger in this world. Orcs are amassing outside the Church’s gates, and we may feel somewhat restless and a little desperate as we look for the White Rider in vain. Our government is sanctioning the vivisection of children in the name of gender care. Television commercials glorify sodomy and normalize relationships that are no more marriages than dogs and cats are substitutes for children. The media is hellbent on demonizing Christian nationalism and characterizes any approach to politics that is consistent with biblical norms as white supremacy. And while all of this is being done, important Reformed leaders warn us of the grave danger of being involved in “culture wars.” The absurdity is not in imagining that there is important work to be done. The absurdity is picking a fight with the brother on your right while an Uruk-hai climbs over the wall. Even Gimli and Legolas knew when it was time to put aside their ethnic rivalry and pick up battle-ax and bow and begin cleaving skulls.

The solution to our cultural calamity is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our only hope is simple repentance and trust in the Lord of all. We will never have social justice until we become committed to biblical justice. We have appealed to the better instincts of goblins and sought to find common ground with them on natural law in vain. We must preach the truth, all of it, without apology, embarrassment, or reserve. We must not only preach the Bible, we must tell the world what it means. Apollyon is standing in the path. We are doing Christian no favors by telling him simply to rest in his justification.

We can and should labor, reason, and, when necessary, fight for the truth of the gospel. We should be careful to articulate it as plainly and purely as humanly possible. The Westminster Confession is a good start and carries us a long way as a faithful summary of biblical religion. But we should beware that our enthusiasm for fidelity in theology does not become a justification for infidelity in ecclesiology. Questions about doctrine are good and can be helpful. Gossip about brothers is neither. We should aspire to be thorough and accurate in our theology, but we should remember that we are not thereby justified. We may appreciate the precision of Elven archery without denying the value of the somewhat messier methods of Dwarven ax and mace.

The gospel is not that we can be saved by our theology. We are saved by the righteousness of the Author of it—and I don’t mean a Westminster treasury of the accumulated merits of that assembly. The gospel is the message of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. He is the ascended and enthroned Lord of glory. He rules over all creation, and every knee will bow. Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification. His righteousness atones for our lust and laziness, our compromise and cowardice, our doctrinal mistakes and our self-righteous divisiveness. The gospel subdues and redeems it all. We are not saved because we articulated the gospel properly; we are saved because the gospel is true, and Jesus is Lord and Savior. –JME

Becoming “Federal Vision”?

Last Friday (Jan. 5th) a friend and fellow minister in our Presbytery called to tell me that he had received an email about me from two other OPC ministers who alleged that I am “trending in an FV [Federal Vision] direction.” Several days later our Session received copies of the two email threads in question. The emails were originally sent on January 1st. As of this date (Jan. 10th), neither of the original authors have contacted me or any of our ruling elders to share their concerns or inform us that they were forwarding them to members of the Presbytery.

The emails take issue with some of my sermons that the authors deemed unclear. For example, a concern was raised about one sermon which “has an unguarded expression ‘Your children are Christians, God's saints.’” The minister communicating the concern commented: “[Joel] is a little more sanguine about children than I am, though again, here his position is not all that different from Kuyper.” The same man comments at several places that my expressions are “not the usual way FV writers speak.” He concedes that he “might quibble here a bit… but [Joel’s] position on this point is hardly heretical.” He also notes a couple of places in which statements in sermons were “a little unclear.” At no point is a clear transgression of the Westminster Standards or chargeable offense identified.

The claim that I am “trending in an FV direction” arose from communication by an ROPC member who noted our use of covenant renewal worship, allowing young children to profess faith, my writing for Kuyperian Commentary, and my views on paedocommunion. One of the ministers who sent the emails said he knew me “when sounder” and had “come to have my concerns over him in recent years.” He says he knew I “was becoming ‘Moscow friendly’” and was not surprised I was moving further in that direction. He did not mention those concerns to me when we spoke in person in the last year.

The two men who compiled and sent these emails are well-known and highly respected OPC ministers in other Presbyteries. They are also moderators on a popular Reformed social media platform. Both of them are personally known to me. I have known one of them since 2017 and the other for about three years. Though neither have contacted me, their concerns have been formally communicated as indicated by the sender’s affirmation: “I hand this over to you as members of our brother’s presbytery.”

Am I becoming “Federal Vision”? I suppose that depends on what that allegation means. Some people say this or that is Federal Vision and expect Reformed Christians simply to accept that it is a compromise of the gospel, even if many of them cannot explain what “Federal Vision” theology is or why and how it departs from the biblical gospel and historic Reformed orthodoxy.

If this were 2003-2007, then I probably would be classified with the infamous “Federal Vision” camp. I share many of the emphases and concerns discussed by the men who were originally associated with the conferences and essays from which the name was taken. I affirm the content of the “Joint Statement on Federal Vision” put together in 2007. I believe many of the concerns those men raised are consistent with Scripture and with earlier forms of Reformed theology. I think what is often called “Federal Vision” is not a departure from but, in most cases, a faithful exposition of or at least consistent with the historic Reformed confessions. But “Federal Vision” has never been monolithic. I do not agree with everything or everyone associated with the Federal Vision, and the men originally associated with it do not agree on everything either. I do not believe men like James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, and Steve Wilkens are heretics, and I do not believe denouncing them is required to prove one’s orthodoxy, but that is considered suspicious or objectionable by many critics of the “Federal Vision.”

There are some issues on which I have changed my mind in the last few years. There are other issues concerning which, although my convictions have not changed, my teaching and explanations have become clearer. There is a third category of issues regarding which my convictions have always been what some people call “Federal Vision.” I simply did not know it. I thought those positions were simply biblical and reformed orthodoxy. I still do. I have not always been consistent. For the first few years after I joined the OPC in 2016, I affirmed that Federal Vision theology was wrong, involving a hyper-objective view of the Covenant of Grace and sacraments. I did not understand what that meant—I thought I did—but I was sincere in repeating what I had heard men whom I respected say.

My teaching is public. ROPC has a large following online. It is not hard to find out what I believe or teach, and I am not hard to find. I hear regularly from men and women I have never met from all over the world who have listened to my sermons, read my articles, and have questions to ask or appreciation to share. I am disappointed that the OPC ministers who have decided I am “an FV problem in the OPC” did not reach out to me to share their concerns before informing men in my Presbytery. If and when they or others have questions and concerns they want to discuss, I will be happy to listen to and answer them.

–Joel Ellis on behalf of the ROPC Session (January 10, 2024)

RE Bruce Blair, TE Joel Ellis, RE Rich Pudleiner,

RE John Shih, RE Michael Southard, RE Michael Williams