1. At the 2004 PCA General Assembly a member of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP) New Perspectives study committee (hereafter, "MVP study committee" or simply "the committee") asked TE J. Steven Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (AAPC) if he would meet with the committee. This member of the committee had approached RE Milton "Dale" Peacock of the AAPC earlier to see if he thought Wilkins would be willing to meet. Wilkins replied in the affirmative.
2. In November 2004, one member of the MVP study committee reported that the committee had met together only one time, back in the spring.
3. At an MVP meeting on 2 November 2004, the committee was scheduled to present a preliminary report. As of noon on that day, testimony states that none of the committee members had yet seen the report, allegedly including TE Guy Waters who presented it as "the" committee report. In other words, the evidence suggests that TE J. Ligon Duncan drafted the report himself.
4. Before the end of November, TE Wilkins spoke to TE Duncan to determine why he had not been invited to speak to the committee. TE Duncan replied that the member of the committee who had spoken to TE Wilkins had reported that Wilkins was not interested in meeting (though the committee member himself claims he reported Wilkins willingness to meet). Wilkins reiterated his desire to speak to the committee. Duncan later explained that he was "confused" regarding what he had been told.
5. At the time of his conversation with TE Wilkins, TE Duncan did not deny that the preliminary report was not a product of the whole committee and presented it instead as a merely "informational report." This claim appears in tension with both the reported understanding of the members of the committee and the stated nature of the report as it appeared on the First Presbyterian Church (FPC, Jackson, MS) website under the title of "New Perspectives Committee Report." The title of the report on the website was subsequently changed to "A preliminary informational report," without any further explanation of the change.
6. In the same conversation, TE Duncan informed TE Wilkins that the committee had met "numerous times" since the previous spring and that the week prior to Presbytery they had met to approve the report. TE Wilkins has been unable to verify whether the committee met "once" or "numerous times." Divergent testimony presents discrepancies.
7. On 5 December 2004, The Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (AAPC) responded to the charges implicit in the preliminary MVP report.
8. On 29 December 2004, TE Wilkins and RE Peacock of the AAPC, along with Dr. Rob Maddox, a member of AAPC, met with the MVP study committee. Only five of a reported ten members of the committee were present. The committee members along with Wilkins and Peacock for the first time were able to see a report with footnotes added by either TE Waters or TE Duncan, making reference now to specific writings of specific people. Two of the five committee members present, one of whom was TE Guy Waters, are reported to have engaged in no dialogue with the AAPC representatives. One of the five committee members who did speak admitted that he did not understand the issues. When Wilkins attempted to discuss theological issues, Duncan repeatedly said that the meeting was not for that purpose, contrary to the expectations of the AAPC representatives. RE Peacock later requested a copy of the minutes of the MVP study committee from TE Roger Collins, the Stated Clerk of MVP. Collins reported that the MVP had declined this request.
9. The footnoted version of the report soon appeared on the FPC Jackson website to replace the initial, un-footnoted report. At the meeting, TE Duncan made it clear that whether or not the AAPC position was within the bounds of the Reformed tradition or not was "irrelevant" and that it is within Westminsterian "plain vanilla Presbyterianism" that the controverted views must fall.
10. At the AAPC conference the weekend of 1 January 2005, Bishop N.T. Wright, a person of interest to the MVP report, spoke on topics germane to the committee's work, in conversation with OPC TE Richard B. Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary. Eight professors, representing Covenant, Reformed Theological (Orlando), and Westminster (Philadelphia) seminaries, attended the conference. TE Duncan and the other members of the study committee were absent at this opportunity for clarification.
11. 1 February 2005, the MVP Final Report was issued. It claims:
...the Presbytery's committee sponsored more than thirty hours of lecture and discussion on the assigned subjects, and held a face to face meeting with representatives of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana. (lines 39-41, cover letter)
Yet, the face-to-face meeting referenced had occurred at the last minute and was instigated by TE Wilkins, not by the committee. Further, the "hours of lecture and discussion" constituted several seminar series conducted by TE Waters critiquing the New Perspectives on Paul, Norman Shepherd, and the so-called "Federal Vision." These were held in a situation that allowed for no interaction between Waters and unsympathetic listeners. Among those commonly associated with the "Federal Vision" no one reports ever having been invited to or having an opportunity to interact in these settings or with the material presented there.
12. A discrepancy also emerges between the claim that the three lecture series were sponsored by the committee and TE Duncan's prefatory introduction to the third lecture series (which concerned the "Federal Vision"), in which he states:
"Good afternoon. I'm Ligon Duncan. And I'd like to welcome you to this, the third of our John Hunter Lecture series sponsored by the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson Mississippi, but this time also jointly sponsored by the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley. For around a year now, the Presbytery of Mississippi Valley..." (emphasis added, Click here to hear the audio (mp3))
Duncan implies that the other lectures were not co-sponsored by the committee or the Presbytery that appointed the committee. Further, the chronology seems to imply that some of the lectures in the previous two series (those on the New Perspectives on Paul and on Norman Shepherd) may well have been conducted prior to the appointment of the MVP study committee in early 2004.
13. The report also claims:
One book has already been published as a result of the committee's labors, Guy Waters' Justification and the New Perspectives (P&R, 2004) and another is on the way, Guy Waters' Covenant Theology Improved? (P&R, 2005). (lines 33-35, cover letter)
These books were reviewed on the way to publication only with reviewers selected by TE Duncan and not subjected to blind peer-review, nor was courtesy extended to those individuals critiqued in the books to assist the author in his understanding of their views. Further, available evidence raises the question whether the books really represent the labors of "the committee." One may well ask, furthermore, what there is that connects these books to the labors of a committee besides the fact that Waters is both the author and a committee member and that Duncan shepherded the books into publication via a sympathetic editor.
14. Despite limited, face-to-face engagement with so-called "Federal Visionists" and a report that appears to be essentially the work of one or two persons, some other Presbyteries are now viewing the MVP report as a "good work" to the extent that they are, in some cases, inclined toward not completing their own work.
The Western Carolina Presbytery, for instance, has ceased its committee's work noting on 26 February 2005:
Preliminary findings from each subcommittee, discussed by the committee as a whole, anticipated many of the conclusions contained in a report adopted by Mississippi Valley Presbytery on February 1st, 2005. Given the adoption of this report, and the expectation of reports from other presbyteries, it is the considered opinion of WCP's committee that our own continued labors at this time will not add significantly to the current discussion regarding "Federal Vision" theology and its implications for the PCA. Without necessarily affirming each proposition of MVP's report, we express our thanks to that presbytery for its labors, and commend its report to any and all who have interests or concerns related to the so-called "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" theologies.
15. The prospect of another work by TE Guy Waters, this time treating the so-called "Federal Vision" theology and entitled (at that time) Covenant Theology Improved?, led some targets of Waters' audio critique (assuming they would be subjects of the book) to inquire of P&R Publishing and TE Waters whether they might be permitted to provide confidential comment on the manuscript so as to avoid easily clarified misunderstandings. Additionally, TE Wilkins spoke with Waters both before and after his meeting with the MVP study committee, requesting that Waters talk with him about any questions he might have regarding Wilkins' views or other related issues. While acknowledging these requests, neither P&R nor Waters have accommodated such requests and, P&R at least, seemed to maintain a policy of reviewer secrecy. Nonetheless, several "Federal Vision" study committees in the OPC and other Reformed denominations, as well as other individuals holding office in the PCA but outside of the review process, were permitted pre-publication access to the manuscript for use in their own deliberations about the theological issues involved.
16. Prior to the 2005 PCA General Assembly, the MVP submitted the report as a "Communication" to be distributed to all PCA Presbyteries. This "Communication" was determined to be likely unconstitutional and it was withdrawn by the MVP and re-submitted as an Overture, asking that the report be distributed to all Presbytery clerks. The Overture was answered in the negative without prejudice as to report's content, lest distribution indicate a tacit endorsement of the contents of the report and create a burdensome precedent.
17. The 2 August 2005 meeting of MVP voted to distribute the MVP report to every Session of the entire PCA. The mailing was to be funded by a private donation.