I haven't paid much attention to the whole thing and now I'm curious. One of the churches that I've visited is PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), so why don't I just find out what the controversy is all about!
Joseph Minich wrote a paper and the question that he wants to ask (and answer) is NOT whether or not Federal Vision is correct, but whether it is acceptable.
That question really caught my eye - how can something I believe is incorrect, be acceptable? Then I read on and I understand.
There are a lot of doctrines that we don't think are "correct", but that are "acceptable" - Mark Driscoll put it sort of like this. We have two hands and there are doctrines that we hold in our right hand - and we hold them tightly. We believe they are not only correct, but are essential to our faith - like belief in salvation by grace, through faith, not of works, and like belief in the Trinity, the eternal existence of God, the deity of Christ and the crucifixtion and resurrection. I believe that religions such as Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT beliefs that hold these "essentials" and I do NOT believe that they are Christians.
In the left hand we hold other beliefs that we believe are correct (and important), but not essential. For the "Reformed", that might be TULIP, for Roman Catholics it might be prayer to Mary, for Arminians it might be "free will", for Charismatics it might be tongues, for others it might be infant baptism, full immersion, complementarian vs. egalitarian, etc. Because they are not essential, we can hold that hand a little more loosely. What is important is that the person that will be sitting next to us at the table in heaven may not hold the same things in their left hand - we still consider those who hold to our "right hand" beliefs to be brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of what their "left hand" beliefs might be.
What that leaves us with is that we have our essentials in order - these are all the "right hand" things that we, all Christians, hold onto dearly. It also leaves us with differences that are "acceptable" for other Christians to believe, but that we believe are incorrect.
How does this apply to the PCA and "Federal Vision"?
PCA doctrine conforms to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and they stand on the belief that these confessions and catechisms accurately reflect Biblical doctrine. So how does "correct" vs. "acceptability" apply?
"Correct" means that "Federal Vision" then it adheres fully with the confessions and catechisms, all that is in "Federal Vision" is in those confessions and catechisms and there is nothing in "Federal Vision" that is NOT in the confessions and catechisms. If this is true, then all PCA members must accept "Federal Vision" as true doctrine.
"Acceptable" means that "Federal Vision" does NOT adhere FULLY to the confessions and catechisms, and that there are statements that do not appear in the confessions and catechisms, but there is nothing that contradicts the confessions and catechisms. If this is true, then a PCA member can belief that "Federal Vision" is correct - or incorrect - and still fully comply with the confessions and catechisms.
This is an important distinction - as it allows individuals to examine the belief against Scripture and decide for themselves (as the Bereans did) whether stacks up against God's Word.