As we anticipate the next gathering of the Fellowship of Presbyterians I thought I would riff for a few minutes about their draft Theology Document…
One month ago the Fellowship released both a draft Theology and a draft Polity document for the new Reformed body ( NRB ) in preparation for their meeting in just under two weeks. The close of the comment period for the drafts was yesterday and registration closes on Monday. The Fellowship says that at the present time 2100 people have registered for the meeting so it looks will have significant participation.
For those interested in polity, parliamentary procedure and process I think you will find some of the analysis by Carmen Fowler LaBerge in the Layman of some interest. She highlights many of the process issues that will come up at the meeting, e.g. Who can vote on these documents? Will substitute motions be permitted? I’m sure the organizers have this all in hand but an announcement of these process issues has not been posted to the Fellowship web site. She also echoes a couple of my thoughts about the Theology document, which I will refer to in a minute.
While my first musing was on the polity related to subscribing to the theology, when the documents were released I probably looked forward to reading the theology document more than the polity — after all, our polity flows from the theology. There were several things I anticipated in the theology document and I can say that I was wrong about several of them.
Maybe my biggest question, and my biggest surprise, was the approach they took to confessional standards. The proposal is to adopt the whole of the current Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions as the initial standards. The Forward to the document begins with this (page 1):
The first task is to identify the statements of our confessional heritage that will connect us with the one holy catholic apostolic church and express our distinctively Reformed convictions within that church. We propose the collection of confessional documents in The Book of Confessions as the appropriate theological expression at this moment in our life together. These creeds, confessions, and catechisms have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us, and can uniquely serve as the central documents for a new Fellowship that strives to retain meaningful connections among congregations, some of whom will be within the PC(USA), some of whom will be in a new Reformed body. (emphasis as in original)
Later it continues with (page 2)
We recognize that The Fellowship and/or the new Reformed body may, after a time of building and testing theological consensus among us, alter this judgment. But it is our opinion that the theological consensus among evangelicals has not been tested and, further, that to presume a consensus where one does not exist is to repeat one of the most significant theological failures of our generation. As members of the ordered ministries of the Church, we have agreed to The Book of Confessions. Let us keep that covenant that we may be found faithful to any new theological covenant we will make.
As I said, Carmen Fowler LaBerge echoes my surprise at this broad inclusion when she says:
I was surprised that the Fellowship document recommends the entirety of the PCUSA Book of Confessions
as the confessional standard of the new Reformed body. In particular,
the Confession of 1967 is problematic for many who have grown
disaffected with the PCUSA’s diffuse theological wanderings since its
adoption a generation ago.
I could ask whether the playing field would have been different if the Belhar Confession had been adopted — but since it was not this really is a hypothetical and moot question at this time.
Now, I am going to take the document at face value about their reasoning, but also add that there are obvious pragmatic benefits to this choice: The document mentions the shared confessional standard that would benefit union churches and affiliations as well as the fact that they are beginning with a standard currently accepted and vowed to by those in the Fellowship. But, when you consider the time frame that the drafters were under as well as the potential for bogging down an assembly in fine-tuning a new confessional standard, the benefits of an off-the-shelf known entity are obvious. It also means that the NRB does not have to worry about publishing their own volume of confessions just yet.
The Confessional Standards are the first substantive portion of the document and the second is the Essential Tenets (of the Reformed Faith). I think that most would agree that the Essential Tenets section does a good job of articulating the historical orthodox Christian beliefs as well as what most would consider the traditional Reformed distinctives. Throughout it there is good agreement with the Foundations section of the PC(USA) Book of Order. In general, whether you personally agree or disagree with Reformed theology and basic Calvinism, you have to acknowledge that for the most part this section holds closely to that. And doing this section as a narrative, and not bullet points, I would say enhances the value of it.
The point where the disagreements would most likely begin is in the final “application” section – the document calls it “Living in Obedience to the Word of God.” This is the section that uses as a framework the Ten Commandments. While I discussed some of my hesitancy with this in the previous post, this is the section that applies the preceding confessions and tenets to specific lifestyle issues that a good portion of the church might see in a different light. For instance, the second point says:
2. worship God in humility, being reticent in either describing or picturing God, recognizing that right worship is best supported not by our own innovative practices but through the living preaching of the Word and the faithful administration of the sacraments;
Church historians and polity wonks may recognize that the term “innovative practices” is a loaded term in Presbyterian tradition. This is a current topic among churches, like the Free Church of Scotland, that are discussing flexibility in worship styles, particularly regarding exclusive unaccompanied Psalmody. As one article on the Regulative Principle puts it – “The regulative principle of worship requires man to worship God only as
He has commanded in His Word. To add elements of human innovation into
the worship of God brings His just displeasure.” (emphasis added) Many of these Presbyterian branches would consider some of the worship practices seen across the PC(USA) as “human innovation.”
Specifically, the term “innovations” is a technical term in many branches of Presbyterian polity whose depth of meaning I won’t go into at this time. One place it is regularly found is in the Barrier Act – the standard in many Presbyterian branches descending directly from the Scottish Reformation that says when an act of the General Assembly/Synod must have the concurrence of the presbyteries. A polity discussion from the Free Church Assembly regarding worship practices discusses the Barrier Act of 1697. The sub-title of the act is “Act anent the Method of passing Acts of Assembly of general concern to the Church, and for preventing of Innovations.” (Yes indeed, capitalized as a proper noun.)
But getting back to the Theology document… This complexity around the application of the second commandment is just one example. My point is that it is usually when the church tries to translate doctrine into practice that we run into the biggest differences of opinion.
Moving on I’ll finally get to what I like best about the Theology document, and that is the concept behind section three on Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration. Let me back-track to the Forward for the real punch line here (page 1-2):
Casual affirmation of our theological heritage by our generation has severely weakened our worship and witness. We are squandering the gifts our confessional heritage could give us. We confess we have not been good stewards of the Faith. We must now reengage the Faith of the Church in ways that are more deeply committed to its truth and thus its value in ordering our life toward faithfulness. We have a strong conviction that our current theological failures are not the failures of the bishops at Nicea, the divines at Westminster, or the confessors at Barmen; the failures are our own. Now is the time to confess it and strengthen our theological covenant.
It later (page 2) says
Structures for doing theological work and for keeping theological integrity need to be established. Theology is not only to be established in our minds and become formative for our hearts, it is to be embodied in our manner of life and in the structures of the church. Companies of Pastors and Orders of Elders need to be formed. Teaching and Ruling Elders must relearn how to fulfill their missional callings in light of the Faith of the Church. Our faithfulness depends on it. We strongly propose that new structures will be formed for the purpose of making a contribution to the theological well-being of the church so that our Faith can make its full contribution to the mission of the Church.
[Rant mode on] This may not be true for your congregation but I sometimes ask myself “If we have a Book of Confessions, why don’t we use it?”
One of my concerns with adopting the Belhar Confession was that we have so many documents now that just sit on the shelf, what is the value of adding one more? And I’m sure my pastor is getting tired of my commenting that we don’t use confessions enough in worship and education, or when we use one from another tradition why don’t we use more from our Book of Confessions.
Don’t misunderstand me – just as this Theology document finds the standards “have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us” I agree and value both the historical and the timeless voice in which they speak. It is not in their intrinsic value that I have questions but in their visibility and application in the church today.
[Rant mode off]
I really like the fact that the Theology document recognizes this and proposes a process for keeping the confessions “on the table,” making sure theology comes first (page 10):
Renewed commitment to sustained conversation is needed. At its best, sustained conversation is characterized by prayerful and rigorous study of the Scripture with attention to clarifying the Reformed theological lens through which we read the Scriptures, by grateful listening to the voice of the church around the world and through the ages, and application of theological wisdom to every part of life before God and for the world.
Toward these ends, we now commit ourselves to the formation of theological friendships in communities that include all teaching and ruling elders – gatherings of elders which covenant to study and learn together, providing mutual encouragement and accountability for the sake of sustaining and advancing the theological and missional work of the church.
If the creeds, confessions and catechisms are living documents, then we must live with them and into them. I very much appreciate that this document and the proposed life of the NRB addresses that fact.
Well, there are a bunch more things I had in my head to muse about, but my time is up and this got longer than I thought it would. At this point I don’t anticipate another musing before the FOP has their next gathering so I’ll sit back and watch Presbyterian polity at work in a new venue. Prayers for the gathering and I’ll catch up with the FOP on the back side.
“Rant mode on] This may not be true for your congregation but I sometimes ask myself ‘If we have a Book of Confessions, why don’t we use it?’ One of my concerns with adopting the Belhar Confession was that we have so many documents now that just sit on the shelf, what is the value of adding one more?”
Amen! Couldn’t agree with you more. I was fortunate enough to be planning worship for our congregation on New Year’s and was delighted to include three questions and answers from the Heidelberg Catechism as an affirmation of faith. We normally use only the Apostles’. But that portion of the service is one that could be utilized so much more to familiarize us Presbyterians in the pews (where I usually am) with the riches and diversity of the BoC. I would like to see Office of Theology & Worship (or someone!) publish a collection of passages from the BoC that, with due respect to context and keeping things together with integrity, could serve as appropriate confessions of faith in liturgical settings.
I haven’t yet read the Fellowship’s foundational documents, so I can’t really comment on your critiques of them (though they sound sound to me!), but just wanted to give a thumbs up to your rant – it’s one of mine, too!
I do wonder, in passing, if the Fellowship will soon experience the tension so many other Reformed/Presby bodies have had in trying to live with both the living tradition of a book of confessions and a static list (whether in narrative form or not) of “essential tenets.” There is a reason, nearly three centuries after the tradition came to America, that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) doesn’t have such a list, and they are good reasons. In my opinion, anyway.
Glad to know that there are others who have the same concern – and thanks for your use of other confessional excerpts in worship. I think your idea of a resource to help us find corresponding portions from the Book of Confessions is a good one.
Regarding the static lists – this has been a tension in confessional churches since the beginning. Moreover, a generation out we have trouble with some of the fine details in the confessions themselves. That has been the tension throughout the whole history of Presbyterianism. I am hoping that there is some discussion of this at the Fellowship event next week. We will see.
Dear Steve,
I certainly resonate with your Book of Confessions concerns–using all of them so that none of them seems to have much use except the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Sometimes Heidelberg. But I cannot remember ever having used the Westminster Confession or Catechisms (or even referencing them) in a Presbyterian worship service in my 54 years of attending. Nor in a Sunday School class. (I have heard them in Baptist and Vineyard services.)
I think the FOP statement on use reflects the fond hopes of at least one member–Joe Small–who did not seem to be successful in elevating the BoC use during his many years in Louisville.
Dear Peggy,
Thanks for sharing your experience. It is interesting that our pastor does make regular reference to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (The chief end of Man) on a regular basis. So we do frequently get a touch of the Westminster – but only that piece and only from the front.
Your other observation about the authorship of the FOP document I think is right on — That was the next item of the “bunch of things in my head” that I alluded to at the end. I don’t know if I will ever get back to that but I just ran out of time on this post. I know that seeing Joe’s name on the document was a real surprise for me, and Carmen says that it was for her as well. I don’t know if that will be an issue next week (I hope not) but a couple of people I’ve spoken with have mentioned it along the lines of the “elephant in the room.” I don’t know how much I would want to psychoanalyze this and his open letter, but his marks seem to be all over this document. As you say, a way to try to accomplish something he didn’t get done while on the staff.
Having said that – I would add that I personally agree with a lot of Joe’s writings that I have read. Don’t know him very well personally, but on church leadership and the creeds and confessions we seem to have very similar thoughts.
We have found it refreshing to utilize the shorter catechism to recite in our services as an affirmation of faith.
Having finally read the Theology document, I liked a lot about it, but I was left wondering whether or not it puts Jesus and the Bible on the same level. It claims “God’s Word” is “the sole authority for our confession” – ok, fine. But then to talk about the Word “both incarnate and written,” as though they are equivalent, in 1:1 correspondence, rather than Jesus Christ being the one Word of God (so Barmen) and Scripture being the unique and authoritative witness to him (so C67). The document states, “We glorify God by recognizing and receiving his authoritative self-revelation, both in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and also in the incarnation of God the Son.”
Perhaps it’s just my (sympathetic to neorthodoxy) bias; I would need to go back and look at Westminster and the older confessions; but I would think the Incarnation should get top billing over the Scriptures. The Word didn’t become a book in our faith (as in Islam), the Word became flesh. The dcoument’s sentence “The revelation of the incarnate Word does not minimize, qualify, or set aside the authority of the written Word” sounds, to my ears, almost like an apology for the Incarnation, as though we need to set up some kind of fence around the Bible to protect it from the incarnate Word.
Have I read it wrong? I do see that they state the Holy Spirit illumines us to receive “both the Scriptures and Christ himself aright.” So I don’t say the document discounts the ongoing role of the Spirit in reading and interpreting Scripture. But this (again, as I see it) lifting up of the Bible to occupy the same revelatory status as Jesus doesn’t quite seem right to me.
I think you have read it right.
I caught that and it raised questions for me but I passed on commenting in the main post. This “word of God” versus “Word of God” scripture/incarnation distinction seems to have become one of the theological discussions de juor. While I have followed the general discussion there seem to be a number of nuances that I have not fully grasp and I have tried to not wade in too deeply here until I better understand the discussion. Thanks for your comments because I think you help navigate through some of the nuances.
I also think there is a tendency to fall back on scripture because of some of it’s “you shall” and “you shall not” language that can be pointed to in support of an argument. While Jesus should get top billing sometimes the Word incarnate can be interpreted through too many lenses.
Our session this year is presenting the monthly opening devotional from the various confessions. Many have never read any of them except the Nicene and the Apostle’s . Hard to “be guided by” what you’ve never been aware of! My parents required each of their 6 children to memorize the Shorter Cat and answer all questions at one sitting. My 4 sons had to read the SC and talk about it with me, but memory has not been as prized as it was in earlier generations. I look forward to more emphasis in the new church on shared theology and confession.