Category Archives: Reformed theology

Standing Judicial Commission, Presbyterian Church in America, Decision In The Pacific Northwest Presbytery Case

Leave a reply

With thanks to the “usual suspects” – De Regnis Duobus, Green Baggins, and Tchula Presbyterian Church – we are alerted to the news that yesterday the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their decision in the case of Bordwine, et al. v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.

The brief background on the case is that the 35th General Assembly (2007) approved a report on the Federal Vision Theology stating that it was not in accord with the Westminster Standards (the Standards).  Since then, presbyteries have been examining members who have declared exceptions to the Westminster Standards and this case results from one of these examinations, the exam of TE Peter Leithart by Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW).  While the Presbytery decided that Pastor Leithart’s views were not out of accord with the Standards some of the dissenting members of the Presbytery filed a complaint first with the Presbytery, and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the SJC.  In brief, the SJC agreed with the complainants.

First, it is important to note that this is a “Proposed Decision” which under the SJC Manual 19.5 is not binding on the parties but if a party objects within 14 days they may request a rehearing on the case before the full Commission.  The final decision will be issued in March, 2010.

In their decision, the SJC reviews the history of the case and the work of the “study committee” the Presbytery put together to investigate the differences that TE Leithart voluntarily offered to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery following the GA approval of the report.  The SJC notes:

The PNW Study Committee was charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 General Assembly’s receptions of the Ad Interim Committee’s Report on the theology of the Federal Vision.  In spite of being entitled a “study  Committee,” [sic] what was essentially formed was a committee with an assignment to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.

It is helpful to note at this point that a “BCO 31-2 investigation” is the response of a session or presbytery when there is a report regarding one of its members “affecting their Christian character.”  That section goes on to say that if that investigation “should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved” then a judicial case is in order.  I bring this up here because the fundamental question answered by the SJC is whether the Presbytery failed to properly find a “strong presumption of guilt.”

The SJC decision then goes on to say:

The work product of this Committee, including the Committee Report, the Minority Report, and Leithart’ [sic] Response, constituted an excellent BCO 31-2 investigative report. The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Standards.  This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian.  He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside of the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart’s views place him outside of the Standards as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.

Regarding the specifications of error by the Presbytery, there were three with two upheld and one not sustained.  The one not sustained was that findings and rulings in a previous SJC decision were misapplied. However, the BCO (14-7) says that previous decisions are to be given “due and serious consideration” but are only binding on the parties involved.  Therefore, for another presbytery to not follow a previous decision is not in itself an error.

The two errors sustained had to do with how the Presbytery handled the initial complaint.  In one case they ruled that it was a motion to reconsider and having voted in the minority the complainants were not in a position to bring such a motion.  In the second case the Presbytery  had ruled that without charges actually be filed in the case a complaint was out of order.  To both specifications the SJC reminded everyone that under BCO 43-1 “it is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject.”

The SJC decision then makes extensive, detailed, and specific reference to Leithart’s statements to support the opinion that there is a strong presumption of guilt that he is out of accord with the Standards.  They note that while Leithart appeals to Scripture in support of his views, and that Scripture is the “supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” (WCF 1.10) they also point out that although the Constitution is subordinate and fallible the BCO (29-1) affirms that it is still adopted as “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”  The decision then goes on to say:

By appealing to Scripture in this way to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation.  If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them to be “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture.”

In my mind that summarizes the essence of being Presbyterian – we acknowledge Scripture supreme and our interpretations fallible, but our discernment of Scripture and God’s will in our courts (in the Presbyterian sense) as a collected body is on the whole more sound than our individual interpretations.

Anyway, back to the decision… What next?

It is our opinion that PNW, even though confronted with statement(s) and writing(s) of Leithart that place him out of accord with the fundamentals of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America, chose to place Leithart’ [sic] statements in the kindest of light and engage in critical thinking and reasoned judgment… [long quote from the PNW report not included]

In failing to exercise this critical thinking and reasoned judgment, PNW has failed to guard the church of teachings and writings “which injured the purity and peace of the church,” (BCO 13-9.f) and in doing so has caused much pastoral confusion and harm.

In conclusion the decision states:

In determining what is the appropriate remedy, the SJC remands and sends this case back to PNW with instructions to institute process, based on this finding of a strong presumption of guilt, and appoint a prosecutor, to prepare an Indictment of Leithart and to conduct the case.

A final decision will be issued in Marc
h 2010.

While I am sure there will be a lot of reaction coming out in the next few days as the decision is read and maybe a full hearing is requested, and I will post some of that when appropriate, today I will leave you with the words of TE Jason Stellman, one of the complainants in this case, in his concluding comments on his blog De Regnis Duobus:

Please be in prayer for all who are involved in this matter,regardless of which “side” they are on. When it comes to issues surrounding the so-called Federal Vision, there are those who believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake, and on the other hand there are those who feel that mountains are being made out of molehills and our denomination is being turned into a mere sect. But what no one should forget is that intertwined with all the doctrinal debate are the personal relationships and livelihoods of those involved. All that to say that this is no occasion for congratulatory back-slapping. Just as the Reformed distinguished themselves from the fundamentalists in that they left the mainline churches weeping rather than rejoicing, so we who witness the state of our churches would do well to lament our own lack of unity.

.
There are no real winners here.

[For some more great discussion with TE Stellman about this case that really helps fill in a lot of details and put the human face on it I highly recommend the November 2008 installment of the podcast Ordinary Means.]

UPDATE: Peter Leithart has posted a theological response to some of the SJC’s comments about his views.

Happy Reformation Day 2009

Leave a reply

In honor of Reformation Day I spent yesterday and today doing something really, well, Reformed.

The annual Assembly meeting of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PC(USA) happened this weekend.  Appropriate to fall on Reformation Day 2009. 

And while in Reformation Day we commemorate a specific event — Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church door in Wittneberg on this day in 1517 — that event is remembered by a wide range of Protestants as a defining moment in church history that would shortly include a number of other reformers around Europe.  (With due recognition of Luther’s predecessors like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.)

From that we of the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions get our concept of clergy and ordained laity ruling jointly with parity in all the courts of the church.  Not a synod, conclave or conference that calls only the high level clergy together to make decisions.  Not a bicameral body where the clergy meet together in one room and the laity meet separately in another room.  But a meeting where those of us without formal theological training participate side-by-side with church professionals on equal footing to make ecclesiastical decisions.

And the really radical part is that serving on an equal footing means that the ruling elders can lead the meetings.  A geologist and computer tech like me can be the one called and elected by the governing body to plan and chair the meeting.  This is radical — the thought that someone without formal theological training could run the meeting of a church governing body.  Sure, I have a whole bunch of church experience and am well versed on church polity and some aspects of theology.  But in few places do you see the person up-front without a clerical collar, robe, or staff.

So on this Reformation Day we remember what the Reformers brought to the Christian church — bringing the Church to all the people.  This includes the Holy Scriptures in the common language.  The opportunity to pray directly to God without an intermediary.  The responsibility of those chosen from among the congregation as leaders to serve as the shepherds of the flock.  In short – the idea that the clergy in the church are not inherently closer to God than the people in the pews.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be.  World without end. Amen.

Considering the Belhar Confession — The PC(USA), RCA And CRC Are All In The Process

6 Replies

In an inter-denominational synergy (or maybe a cosmic convergence or providential parallel) it turns out that the Belhar Confession is currently under consideration in three Reformed churches in the U.S. — In addition to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it is also being looked at by the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) for adoption as a confessional standard.

If you have not had a chance to get acquainted with the Belhar Confession yet, it was written by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa, under the leadership of the Rev. Allan Boesak, and it spoke to the concern that the concept of apartheid was at odds with the justice and equality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Belhar Confession is now one of the standards of unity of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa.

Of the three denominations the one furthest along in the adoption process is the RCA which has been studying it in the wider church since 2000.  In 2007 it was provisionally adopted by the General Synod and this past summer the General Synod approved the formal adoption process and it must now be approved by 2/3 of the 46 classes (like a Presbyterian presbytery) to become their first new standard in over 300 years.  (OK, the three standards, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Heidelberg Catechism were written over 300 years ago but adopted by the RCA in 1771.)

As it turns out the process in the CRC is a bit ahead of the PC(USA) but their study period will close at the same time as the PC(USA) in 2012.  The CRC has been in consultation with the RCA about this and their Synod 2009 recommended that the church study the Confession and that it be adopted by Synod 2012 as their fourth confessional standard, the same as the RCA.  For the CRC the approval by Synod 2012 is the final step and no vote of the classes is required under their polity.  (A unique feature in my experience.)

Concerning the PC(USA), if approval is gained at each of the planned steps then it would enter the PC(USA) Book of Confessions following the 220th General Assembly in 2012.  The specific steps are the formation of a study committee by the 218th GA, report back of the study committee recommending adoption to the next GA, the 219th, and approval of the confession by that Assembly.  It would then be sent to the presbyteries for approval requiring an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the presbyteries.  There must then be a final vote of the next GA, the 220th in 2012, to finish the process successfully.  The first and second steps, creation of the study committee and a positive recommendation of that committee have now been completed.  The committee’s work has included consultation with the CRC and the RCA, even holding their first meeting back in June in Grand Rapids, MI, a location chosen to better dialog with the CRC.

While this is not the hottest topic (maybe this, or this, or even this is) in the Reformed circles of the blogosphere, it does have pretty good coverage.  Bloggers from the RCA (e.g. Steve Pierce and Kevin DeYoung) and the CRC (e.g. Algernon Peak) are weighing in on the confession.  And of course, there is plenty of opinion from the PC(USA) as well (e.g. Toby Brown, Byron Wade, Viola Larson, and Mark Koenig).

There is general agreement that the Belhar Confession would bring a couple of new items to the Book of Confessions — its focus on equality and justice as well as its Southern Hemisphere perspective.  Those are aspects that you may or may not agree should be represented in the Book of Confessions.

Regarding the justice aspect there is a concern among many of the bloggers that it comes from the perspective of Liberation Theology.  In the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, the second bullet-point reads “We believe…that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  The current debates revolve around the phrase “is in a special way” and what that means.  In some varieties of Liberation Theology the scriptures are viewed as saying that God not only comforts the poor and oppressed but is inherently against the rich and powerful.  Algernon Peak comments on this saying:

The first aspect of the Belhar that makes me uncomfortable is that it makes the claim, “that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  While Scripture makes clear that God cares for the poor, and Christ says in Luke 6, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, we go too far to say that God is in some special way God to those who are impoverished.  According to the Scriptures, God is God in a special way to his chosen people, to go beyond that truth is to say more than the Scriptures do.  This does really concerns me, because that particular portion of the Belhar seems much more indebted to contemporary liberation theology than it does to the Bible.  We are lost if we start allowing our confessions to say that which God’s revealed written testimony does not give us the right to say.

The aspect of the Belhar that is probably the focus of the greatest debate is how the pronouncements about justice and equality regarding racial divisions can be extended to current controversies of gender orientation equality.  That this extension can be made seems
to be acknowledged by all engaged in the debate.  In the case of the Rev. Joseph Small of the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship this is a good and legitimate extension.  The official PC(USA) press release says this about his comments to the committee:

Adopting the Belhar also means more than presenting a simple statement against racism, Small said.

“It does speak to the contemporary reality of racial discrimination in our church and the world,” he said. The church can’t ignore the situation of apartheid that led to the Belhar, Small told the committee, but also can’t limit it to that. “Belhar is something that speaks about the diversity of the church but doesn’t restrict it to one dimension.”

That openness to a wide range of social conflicts could also be a barrier to adoption for Belhar, which some could argue opens the door to gay and lesbian ordination. That issue was raised recently when the national governing bodies of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) also considered Belhar.

But the confession mentions only membership in the church — not ordination — and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people have long been welcomed as members in the PC(USA), Small said.

One of the people raising concerns about the extension of the Belhar Confession to this current debate is Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary.  His is an interesting voice in this discussion because, as he describes in his recent piece about it, he has significant experience with all three of these Reformed branches as well as the individuals and denomination that wrote the Belhar.  (He has an earlier article from last Spring raising concerns as well.)  In the article from last week he wrote:

So why am I opposed to our—the CRC, RCA, and PC(USA)— adopting Belhar as a confessional document? When I wrote about this earlier I mentioned that Allan Boesak, also one of the gifted anti-apartheid spokespersons in South Africa’s Reformed community, had recently appealed to Belhar in support of including active gays and lesbians in the church’s ministerial ranks. I might also have mentioned that many fear that Belhar will now be used to reinforce an unnuanced anti-Israeli stance.

I think those worries are real. But my critics, many of whom share my views about same-sex issues and Middle East matters, rightly insist that this is no reason to oppose Belhar as such. What we must do, they rightly argue, is to make sure that Belhar is understood as a prophetic word against racial and ethnic discrimination within the Christian community.

We will see to what extent Belhar is held up as a “particular stance” in particular circumstances at a particular time versus how it is applied as applicable today to any perceived injustice or inequality.

But Dr. Mouw continues on from there to express an even greater concern on his part — the nature of confessional standards in general and how this one fits into that framework.  The nature of confessional standards is something I have discussed before and this is of concern to me as well.  I encourage you to read the whole discussion, but here are some excerpts that I hope gives you the basics of what seems to me to be the strong case that Dr. Mouw makes:

My real concern about adopting Belhar has to do with the broader issue of the nature of confessional integrity in our Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I think I know all three denominations very well. I was raised in an RCA pastor’s home, and attended two of that denomination’s colleges and one of its seminaries. I was an active member of the CRC for 17 years. And for two decades now I have been similarly active in the PC(USA).

When I was studying at an RCA seminary in the 1960s, one of my more conservative professors explained the differing views on the status of the Reformed “Standards of Unity”—Heidelberg, Belgic, and Dort—in this way. The CRC, he said, takes them very seriously. If you are Christian Reformed you are expected really to believe what is in them. […] Some people in the RCA, on the other hand, said the professor, tend to see the book of confessions as a kind of museum. […]

I think the professor had it right at the time. But today all three of the aforementioned denominations basically endorse the museum approach. Or it may be a little more like a “Great Books” approach. The documents from the past are all there up on the shelf, and we all acknowledge their importance, but some of us really like James Baldwin and others of us prefer Jane Austen.

[…]

These days it is rather common for people—CRC folks included—who have taken ordination vows publicly to express their disagreements with what I take to be essential Reformed doctrines. Indeed, I am often treated as a curiosity of sorts when I make it clear that I still subscribe to the actual doctrinal content of the Reformed “Great Books”—predestination, individual election, substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, Christ as the only Way.

So, let me put it bluntly. If we—for all practical purposes—don’t care about genuinely subscribing to the actual content of, say, the Belgic or the Westminster confessions, why would we think that adopting Belhar would be in any way binding on the consciences of persons who take ordination vows? When detached from the content of the rest of Reformed thought, many of Belhar’s formulations—as stand-alone theological declarations—are dangerously vague. Belhar deserves confessional status only in a community that takes the rest of its confessions with utmost seriousness.

To sum up this whole issue his concluding paragraph is concise and to the point.  I leave you with that:

The most compelling case being made for adopting Belhar is for me the pleas of underrepresented racial-ethnic minority groups in our denominations. They have a right to ask us to declare our firm conviction that racism and ethno-centrism are not only unjust, they are theological heresies. But I fear they are assuming that we are more committed to confessional integrity than we actually are. When all of this debate is over and Belhar—as is very likely—is on the confessional shelf, I hope they will push us hard on whether we really take that whole shelf seriously.

Presbyterians Certainly Are A Peculiar People

8 Replies

After putting my earlier post to bed I continued thinking on the topics I raised in that discussion about Presbyterian reorganization and started to do additional analysis on some of those thoughts.  This is a follow-up based on what I have contemplated and researched in the last couple of days.

To remind you of my thoughts from Saturday, in a nutshell I said that in historical Presbyterian divisions I regularly see certain proportions in the divisions.  Those are generally about 1:1, 2:1, and 19:1.  Put another way, when a division happens it regularly involves either 50%, 33%, or 5% of the Presbyterian branch.

What happened next was that I decided to be a bit ecumenical about this and look at some other Protestant branches:

Observation #1: The split of the Anglican Church of North America from the Episcopal Church is a 5% split.  (Actually it is 4.5% if you use the ACNA membership of 100,000 but only 3.1% if you use the 69,000 number that is also floating around.  This from a total of 2.2 million for the Episcopal Church.)

Observation #2:  As I went looking for historical divisions in other traditions I started looking for the “family tree” type charts for other churches.  Short answer, they are few and far between.  There are charts for all of Christendom (example 1, example 2 – note the Pentecostals with no connection to the trunk of the church).  There are a few that show division or union on a particular branch.  But with the exception of a great chart for the United Church of Christ, I could find nothing comparable to the Presbyterian charts.  Why?

The answer could be operational – I might not have found the right search terms for the search engines or things like this for other denominations might not be on line.

But I think the answer is also likely denominational.  Are Presbyterians peculiar in some way that we need these charts?

One explanation could be retention of our shared tradition:  Often, when divisions occur in denominations a new denomination is formed. (And it would therefore leave the chart.)  A prime example of this is the creation of the Methodists from the Anglican church.  Even within the Presbyterian tradition we have the Disciples of Christ originating from Presbyterianism, but never recorded on our family trees.  But for Presbyterians that seems to be the exception rather than the rule and usually when Presbyterians split there is simply another flavor of Presbyterians formed.  Our complexities of tradition could be attributed to dividing branches staying “in the neighborhood,” so to speak.

Another possible explanation is that there is something about Presbyterian governments that make our divisions, multiple branches, and reunions more likely than in other forms of church government.  (It actually would be an interesting discussion of whether it is the polity itself or if it reflects the type of people who are attracted to that polity.)  But given the recognition that, within the bounds of the collective judgment, a governing body can not bind an individual conscience the stage seems set for disagreements leading to a parting of ways.  More on that another time.

So are Presbyterians just more inclined to these divisions and mergers that, if we are to keep track of our tradition, give us a need for these complicated charts?  And can we take this a step further and ask if because we have these charts and are aware of our heritage of reorganizations, has that lowered our resistance to future divisions?

Put it another way, how much is it a part of, or maybe even inherent in, our system and how much is it because “that’s the way we have always done it?”

The bottom line is that as far as I can find on the web Presbyterians seem to corner the market, or at least dominate it, in diagrams showing our reorganizations over the last five centuries.

This led to the third point for today, (WARNING: this is about to get very geeky) I started thinking about the use of fractal behavior in numerical models of church division and recombination.

The numerical modeling of church division is not new to the last post — As you may have noticed from other posts I have some numerical models of mainline decline which I am working on to make them independent of denomination.  One of the features of these models is that the decline of a mainline church is not linear to zero but will reach an equilibrium point.  What I have been struggling with is what conditions to place on the calculation of that “plateau.”  My recent thoughts on the possible fractal nature of denominational size may help provide those conditions.

It was at this point in my previous post that I made a logical jump that may have left a lot of my readers behind.  I began by talking about proportions in church divisions and then turned to seeing if various Presbyterian traditions might be fractal.  The thing I should have added there is that if divisions regularly occur with about the same proportions then the various branches that develop will have similar ratios of their sizes.  That is to say that two small branches would have the same relative proportions compared to each other as two large branches.  This “self-similarity” is what is known in the jargon as “fractal” behavior.  A concrete example in a moment.

So what would the development of a fractal church look like?

A quick answer is taking the beginning population (Scottish churches in 1560?) and progressively divide them according to some ratio over a certain number of cycles.  If you take five cycles you end up with 32 different churches that each has one of six possible sizes.  Using a 70:30 split the continuing “main” church has 17% of the members and the “always minority” church has 0.2% of the population.  For a 95-5% split (19:1) the numbers change to 77% “always majority” and an effectively zero “always minority.”

But the interesting thing is that if you compare the largest branch to the second largest branch it will have the same ratio as comparing the second smallest branch to the smallest branch.  For the 70:30 split that ratio is 2.33 and for the 19:1 split the ratio is 19.  Going back to the previous post I observed that a number around 6.5 was seen as a ratio for American Presbyterianism in several cases and that would result from an 87-13% division.

Two refinements are immediately obvious:  1)  Provide for merger of branches based on theology and 2) Provide for merger of branches based on practicality when one or both are too small to survive.

How you introduce mergers will clearly influence the outcome.  One simple model is that in each cycle the minority of one branch finds more theological kinship with the majority of the neighboring branch and merges with them.  (Think PC(USA) churches moving over to the EPC.)  This gives six separate branches after five cycles.  The unmerged ends (only splits) have the same proportions mentioned above, but the four middle and successively reorganized branches have varying sizes.  For the 70:30 split the largest branches end up being part of the reorganization with one having 36% and ano
ther 30% of the total population.  For the 19:1 split no other branch has enough membership to grow to rival the unmerged majority with the second-largest branch having 20% of the population.

But with the mergers the ratio of sizes is now varied but lower than it was in the no-merger case.  In the 70:30 split a number around 1.5 is commonly seen and in the 19:1 case there are a few lower numbers (3.8, 9.5, 1.5) but the very smallest branches have very high ratios (such as 473).

From here countless refinements are possible including pruning or merging of branches that fall below a particular threshold of sustainability, the introduction of a virtual coin-toss to decide if two branches would merge and add a component of variability, and some sort of rule or probability that would result in mergers with the edge branches.  Maybe over the Thanksgiving holiday I’ll program up a Monte Carlo simulation.

So there are my extended thoughts on all of this.  I’ll provide future updates on where my reading or modeling takes me with this.

Law And Gospel

2 Replies

It has been an interesting week in the Law and Gospel department.  The Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been meeting in Minneapolis and the high-profile topics have been related to same-sex relationships, both regarding the church’s role in civil union and marriage as well as serving in church office.  It is interesting to listen to the Lutherans work through their business and note the similarities (getting hung up in parliamentary procedure, standing in line for microphones, the arguments on both sides of the same-sex relationships issues) and the differences (bishops, technical terminology, theological distinctives). 

One of the most interesting things to me is that in their arguments regarding same-sex issues there was a recurring theme of Law and Gospel.  While this argument always comes up in a variety of forms in these debates and discussions, my impression is that it is more prominent here than in Presbyterian discussions, probably because it was a major emphasis of Martin Luther‘s work.  We Reformed deal in Depravity and Election, Lutherans appear to wrestle with Law and Gospel.  We talk about translations and confessions, New Testament passages and Old Testament patterns.  They were discussing the various categories of Levitical laws and how they have been superseded or replaced by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

At the bottom line there is nothing really new in the arguments.  But what struck me was how our slightly different theological perspectives change the emphasis and focus of the arguments we make.

Maybe the most exciting (not necessarily in a good sense) external event at the Churchwide Assembly was a tornado touching down next to the convention center and damaging the far end of the building as well as the Lutheran church across the street.

Got to love the City Pages blog that writes:

So what happens when you crowd thousands of Lutherans in a convention center and a tornado comes along? Nothing. The humble folk of Scandinavian heritage took news of the storm as calmly as one would take news of a church potluck.

(Actually, Lutherans go nuts over potlucks. So that comparison is off a bit.)

But there was a predictable response, or at least the Twitter crowd predicted it, from certain quarters that this tornado was a sign or punishment from God related to the same-sex topics. (So PC(USA) be warned for your meeting there next year, although there was no such sign for the Presbyterians last year in San Jose or the Episcopalians this year in Anaheim.)  The most prominent of those declaring the possibility of God’s warning was Minneapolis Baptist minister John Piper writing in his blog.  And because of his high profile it did get news coverage in both the regular as well as religious press.  (And with 492 comments to that post, at the moment, it struck a nerve with readers as well.)

So another variation on Law and Gospel — The message of punishment is a message from God that His Law has been transgressed.  There is still a place for Law in the Law and Gospel tension.

But in the Law and Gospel debate this week there has been an even more widely and hotly discussed topic — the release of the Lockerbie bomber from Scottish prison on compassion grounds.  The Church of Scotland was in favor of the release and issued this statement:

The Church of Scotland today praised the decision that meant Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released today on compassionate grounds by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said:

“This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?

This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.

We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. It is a defining moment for all of us.”

I found it interesting that it was about being Scottish and not distinctly being Christian.  In an interview with CNN Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill echoes this.  Some of his responses:

MacAskill: Well, each and every compassionate release that has been granted, and there have been 30 granted since the year 2000, is done under individual circumstances. And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price.

Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn’t show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we’re allowing him some mercy to return home to die.

[snip]

And certainly this atrocity was a barbarity that we have never experienced before in our small country. And it’s a barbarity we hope will never be replicated here, nor would we wish it anywhere else.

But equally, the Scottish justice system is predicated upon justice being enforced, but mercy and compassion being capable of being shown.

Many around the world were not in favor of the release, including the U.S. Government, victim’s families, and airline pilots.

Scanning the news reports I see more objection from this side of the Atlantic.  But again, it challenges us as to how we hold Law and Gospel, judgment and mercy in this case, in tension.  This compassionate release appears to be a more accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.  But it is not unheard of here as a California news item today shows.  Very different crimes, but both releases on compassionate grounds for terminally ill prisoners convicted of murder.

Update: T
here are now posts from or about Scottish pastors who have weighted in on the release.  There is a piece about Fr. Patrick Keegans,  who visited the prisoner in jail, believes he is innocent, and welcomes the release.  On the other side, there is a post by Church of Scotland minister the Rev. Ian Watson who argues that forgiveness and compassion are the place of the individual and not the state.  Maybe most interesting are his comments about how his thinking changed over the days following the release.

While you may come down on one side or the other of each of these examples, each is a strong reminder that our God is a God of both Law and Gospel.  God has set down laws and requirements for us to meet.  There are definite rules to be followed and consequences if we don’t.  But in the end, we as humans are incapable of fulfilling the Law and our only hope of salvation and eternal life is the Gospel.  Now, as the people of God, how do we model and balance the Law we are under and the Gospel that has ultimately saved us in our everyday lives.

Good luck and let’s be careful out there.

The True Preaching Of The Word Of God

2 Replies

In case you haven’t noticed my blogging has slowed to a crawl the last few weeks in spite of a lot of stuff going on that I really want to discuss.  But the nature of my life when I am teaching a class is that I lose my lunch hours that are otherwise devoted to blogging or research for this blog.  (Now if you want a review of the global seismicity for the last six weeks I can produce that pretty quickly.)  With the class now completed I hope to increase the output of my Reformed and ecclesiastical thoughts while giving my mind a break from network protocols and non-elastic deformation of fault zones.  (But with some deference to writing that I need to get done for the Special Committee.)

This past weekend was a very nice one in spite of the fact that my oldest headed back to college and took the youngest along for a couple of weeks.  On Saturday I had a wonderful conversation with a recent high school graduate that while discussing trust and human nature drifted into the topic of human sinfulness.  Now it didn’t go there by that name, but the Reformed theologian in me wanted to engage this young Methodist in conversation on human nature and sin but unfortunately that would have taken the conversation in a direction that was outside the bounds of the discussion.  Maybe another time.

And yesterday in worship we heard the “true preaching of the Word of God” and had the “right administration of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.”  Our speaker yesterday was a preacher that my wife and I almost never disagree over what they preach and how it is preached.  We can’t say that about all the preachers we hear, although there are some we distinctly both approve of and some we uniformly question.

Our youngest is at the point where he is learning to carefully listen to a sermon and discern the spiritual content of the message.  We were encouraged a couple of years back when he told us that the preacher he most (or is that actually?) enjoyed listening to was a good friend of ours who I consider one of the best young preachers in the region.  It reminded me that when I was growing up I too had a particular minister at our church who was best at keeping me engaged in the message.

We had a “teachable moment” a few weeks ago when we heard another preacher none of us had heard before.  Maybe the most telling was reaction of some others in the congregation who thought it was a wonderful sermon.  My reaction was not as glowing.  It was not a bad sermon by any means.  I assure you that I have heard worse, a lot worse.  That is part of the price that is paid when you serve as a COM liaison to Pastor Nominating Committees.  And through the experience of listening to as many as ten sermons a week I came up with a series of things I look for when I evaluate a sermon.  Now I teach earthquakes, not homiletics, so trained professionals might have additions or subtractions from this list, but as we as a family were discussing the recent sermon these are some of the things I mentioned, albeit in a more kid-friendly form.

  • First is fidelity to the scripture as a whole.  Is there anything in the sermon that just does not agree with what the Bible says and the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches.  The moment I hear something that I understand as contrary to Scripture, be it blatantly contrary or even the possibility of being a misunderstanding, I usually stop following the sermon as closely.  A pastor we had a number of years ago, who was clearly orthodox in his theology, said that if he saw me flipping through my Bible during the sermon he got nervous that he had said something wrong.  Glad I found that out later.
  • Second, is the preacher sticking to the passage chosen for the day?  (I will leave it for another time to discuss lectionary versus sequential versus “this is what I want to preach on” selection of the scripture.  Let me just say that I personally use the lectionary passages and mark in my own notes if the speaker does or does not.)  The question at the end of the sermon is not “was that an interesting sermon” but did they exegete that passage or did they use that as a jumping off point to just talk about some other passages scattered throughout the Bible.  There is no problem in my mind with comparing and contrasting various passages in the sermon.  Scripture is indeed interpreted in the light of Scripture.  It is when the announced passage is only briefly touched on before launching into what would more aptly be called a Bible survey talk.  That would be using the Bible to make a point, not taking a specific passage and finding the point in that passage.  Since “God acts first” the message should flow from the scripture, not the other way around.
  • Is the Gospel preached?  I would guess that some readers would want this listed first, with good justification.  But if you notice I have developed this as a series of concentric circles zeroing in on this central mark.  The ultimate goal of the true preaching of the Word is the “proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of humankind.”  But to get there you need the first two.  And there is a tension in this between just throwing something in at the end about the justifying work of Jesus Christ and how you need him in your life on the one hand and finding a Messianic overtone in every single verse of the Old Testament on the other.  The former trivializes it and the latter can obscure the message inherent in that text.  Our preacher yesterday made the transition from the Old Testament text to how it points to salvation in Jesus Christ in such a profound, artful, and relevant manner that it really did emphasize both the Old Testament message as well as the gospel of salvation.  It was a thing of beauty.

In addition to my “technical score” based on my exegetical guidelines I also have the more practical aspects that go into the “style points”:

  • Does the message hold together?  Is there a logical progression through the sermon from the Scripture text selected to the concluding points at the end.  I don’t automatically look for a three-point sermon, I have heard what I would consider great sermons with only one point and some with seven points.  The idea here is the effort that went into shaping the sermon into an understandable argument and not a deadly “Saturday night special” that went together at the last minute.
  • Do all the stories, jokes, and quotes support the point of the sermon?  These added touches have their place but when used in a formulaic or excessive manner can distract from the delivery of the message of Scripture.  The message should speak through these additions, not be obscured by them. 
       For the pastors that always begin with a random joke just to warm up the audience that is an automatic half-point deduction in my scoring.  (I have to see the connection within the first minute or two of the message.)  When quotes are used just to add a different voice but the quote is only tangential, that also gets counted as a negative.  I am sure more than one preacher at my church has used a humorous comment in our worship service and noticed that while much of the congregation is chuckling I’m straight faced and shaking my head because I could not see the connection or value.  (Be warned, our family pew is right under the pulpit.)  And a sermon that seems like a stand-up comedy routine drives me crazy with the over use of the humor.   There is no intrinsic problem with any of these additions and when used well they can play a great service when they both enhance or illustrate the point being made while adding another “voice” to the preaching.  The problem comes when they are overused, used in a formulaic manner, or are gratuitous and don’t really add anything to the message.
  • Is the delivery engaging but not distracting?  Our human nature is such th
    at our minds tend not to drift as easily if there is an element of “entertainment” when we are listening to a presentation.  Fluctuations in the voice, dramatic pauses, and leaning over the pulpit rail are one thing.  But running around the chancel, continuous wild arm movements, a multitude of items for an “object lesson” and the like draw attention to the preacher not the message that is being preached.  But on the other end of the spectrum, one of the most famous sermons ever preached, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” by Jonathan Edwards was reportedly simply read with no “hellfire and brimstone” flourishes and very little modulation of the voice.

A couple of items that may be most noticeable to some people are not on my list above.  One of the sacred cows in some churches is length.  Working with PNC’s one of the items some made a top priority was how long the speaker went.  It was not unusual for the first comment made after the tape was turned off was “that was too long.”  I can’t say I was very successful dissuading them of placing that criteria so high.  Personally, I have heard some terrible five minute sermons and some excellent 45 minute sermons.  We need to learn to listen for the message not watch the clock.  (And I will stop there otherwise I’ll get into the rant about not needing to watch the clock in worship because it is the Lord’s Day anyway and we should not be filling it up with other stuff that we need to rush out of church on time (whatever that is) and get to…)  But back to the topic of length — there is a place for making the sermon the “right length,” but the message and the worship service should decide the length, not the brunch reservations.  With the possible exception of a worship service that is broadcast live and must fit the format, the elders telling the preacher that sermons last 12 minutes is a disservice to the preaching of the true word of God.

Another item that some people have legitimate opinions over but is not on my list is the use of pulpit versus podium versus nothing.  I must admit that this is not a big thing for me.  I do appreciate and honor the tradition of the pulpit, and maybe we need to educate our congregations on that tradition and heritage.  But in my mind the true preaching of the Word is more a matter of content than location.  And this may have something to do with the fact that on a sermon tape you usually can’t tell where they are delivering it, and also that I have led worship on our church camping trips for many years where the community is simply gathered in a circle in the woods.  The use of a pulpit does tend to cut down on the unwanted dramatic touches however.

Finally, I know that many people have strong feelings for and against the use of video clips in sermons, especially some churches where it is an expected part of the message.  Again, this is a neutral item for me.  It is in the same category as jokes, quotes, and stories.  If it enhances or illuminates the message than use it, if it is a gimmick only to get people’s attention or is formulaic, than it may be a problem.

So, these are my guidelines developed after listening to, and making notes on, hundreds if not thousands of sermons.  But I fully acknowledge that they are what works for me as I apply the test of the “True Preaching of the Word of God.”  I’m sure many of you have different opinions on some of these items.  In the end the important thing is that the Word is truly preached.

Reflections On Corporate And Individual Salvation — It Is Not Either/Or But Both/And

Leave a reply

from Wikimedia Commons
 A couple of weeks ago the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, began a heated debate with these comments in her opening address to the Episcopal Church General Conference:

The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being.

This comment has been taken in many quarters to equate to the statement of Cyprian of Carthage:

Outside the Church there is no salvation

Part of the reason that this was taken negatively was that it seemed to be addressed at particular churches and dioceses that were departing from the Episcopal church and realigning in their own, new ecclesiastical structure.  For more on how this was taken within the Anglican world as an insult or threat you can check out comments from VirtueOnline, Anglican Curmudgeon, and Sydney Anglicans.  In the broader blogosphere there were comments, as much about the theology as the church politics, from Apprising Ministries, Internet Monk, and Bible Belt Blogger.  Maybe most notable were comments from two seminary presidents — Richard Mouw at Fuller and Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist.

The comments got me thinking both about confessional Christianity as well as the ecclesiastical relationship to salvation.  I’ll leave the former to another time and just address the latter now.

Let me state my thesis right at the beginning:  Based on my understanding of Scripture and Reformed thought this is not an either/or proposition but a both/and situation.  To put it in the simplest form — The Church is the bookends around individual salvation.

Part of the expressed concern is a long-standing theological tension that exists between individual salvation and corporate salvation.

On the individual side there is the ancient confession that “Jesus is Lord,” and the more modern tool – the Sinners Prayer.  As Dr. Mohler nicely points out in his piece, the mechanistic use of these formulae can be manipulative and gives a simplistic representation of the meaning and depth of salvation.  There is also concern for “Lone Ranger Christians” and the “Jesus and Me” situation, both of which are labeled heresies by some, where the only thing that matters is if a person has a right relationship with Jesus exclusive of the role other Christians play in that relationship.  All of this presents a simple view of the rich experience of Christianity.

On the other side is the belief that all you need to do to be a Christian is to jump through the hoops to become a member of the church.  The individual relationship with God is not what is important, but rather it is the relationship in the community — fidelity to the teachings of the church and participation in its sacraments.  You are saved by being a member — corporate status precedes salvation.  This view negates the personal call and responsibility that is involved in the Christian life.

Now most theological positions are more complex and I have caricatured the two extremes.  The varying theological positions are generally found in the middle ground.  Dr. Mouw in his article reflects this by saying that individual salvation is important but “that individual salvation is not enough.” (emphasis his)  He also mentions the centrality of the church in salvation.  I suggest that the answer to individual versus corporate lies very close to the center of this spectrum.

To begin, let us turn to the first post-ascension, and in many ways the archetype, conversion experience — the Day of Pentecost.  On that day one of the men in the crowd asks Peter “what should we do?” (Acts 2:37) and Peter responds:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

The center of the conversion story is the recognized need, individual repentance and baptism leading to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

But note the full context in the story — It begins with the believers receiving and being empowered by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4)  When the crowd mistakes their divine empowerment for inebriation (Acts 2:13) Peter preaches a sermon (Acts 2:14-36).  Only then comes the question about what they should do.  And the response includes baptism.

For those of a Reformed bent you probably caught where I am going with this, but for those who are not as familiar with it, the Reformed view of the marks of the church can be expressed like this:

Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matth. 18: 20.)  [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.9]

The repentance and conversion experience are bracketed by the Word preached and the sacraments administered.  The individual is buttressed and supported by the corporate.

And what happens?  “And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47b)

The interplay of the corporate and individual is remarkable.  The core of the experience is individual — you must repent for yourself.  But the initiative belongs to God in the empowering by the Holy Spirit that produced a sermon that with the Spirit’s touch convicted those that heard it such that they were “cut to the heart.” (Acts 2:37a )  The first Great End of The Church: The proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of human kind.  But the story does not end there because with individual repentance comes the sacrament of baptism that produces new believers that are added to “their number,” that is the New Testament Church, daily and share the breaking of the bread.

Empowered by God the Church supplies the preaching of the Gospel that leads to individual repentance which through the sacraments bring those individuals into the Covenant Community that is the Church.

In fact, in John Calvin’s thinking, salvation through election and the Body of Christ found in the Church were inseparable and each presumed the other.

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.7]

I won’t repeat the argument here that I made in my last Calvin post, but the essence is that if salvation is the act of adoption by God into His family then the Church and Salvation are two sides of the same coin.  It reverses Cyprian’s statement so that “Outside salvation there is no Church.”

Now I won’t pretend that either Scripture or the writings of John Calvin are totally clean cut on the issue.  There is the story of Paul and the jailer in Acts 16:25-35 where the jailer, after the earthquake, asks what he must do to be saved.  And the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 where Cornelius has a vision and sends for Peter.  In both cases there is a divine prodding, earthquake and vision, and there is a proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is also a baptism of those present after hearing the Gospel proclaimed.  The nature of the repentance or individual acceptance of the good news is a bit murkier.  It is clear that in both cases the head of the household has an individual conversion experience.  But the result is the baptism of the whole household.  It is left as an exercise for us, the readers, to decide if all members of the household had an individual conversion experience or if the repentance of the head of the household, and maybe some others, was enough.  I won’t pursue that any further except to affirm that at a basic level there was the pattern of divinely assisted proclamation of the gospel, some level of individual repentance, and the inclusion of multiple individuals into the Covenant Community through baptism.

From another perspective, Calvin includes in the Church Invisible, the true church known only to God, individuals who are not part of the visible church body but who have none-the-less not rejected Christ or the Church. (Inst. 4.1.9)  While this might argue against the need for the role of the Church and the possibility of isolated individual salvation, remember that Calvin is viewing this in the context of the Church Invisible.  Community and salvation form an indivisible union.  From a practical standpoint, and from my reading of the Institutes, this represents a particular moment in time and does not necessarily speak of the conversion which came before or the Christian life that is to follow.  And of course, this all ultimately falls in the realm of the Sovereignty of God and His perfect will.

It is probably also necessary to acknowledge that the idea of “individual salvation” takes on a nuance for the Reformed side that is not part of the view of much of the rest of the Church.  This difference is not a major issue for the discussion here where the focus has been on individual salvation in the sense that salvation comes to each of us individually apart from whatever role the wider community plays in the process.  Outside Reformed circles the “individual” nature of salvation also includes the idea that there is an individual choice in accepting salvation based on our human free will.  The Reformed view is that our condition is far enough corrupted by our sinful nature that left to ourselves we can not make the free choice for salvation and God must do that for us.  So while God saves each of us individually, as opposed to a chosen nation of the Old Testament, we can differ over what role an individual can play in that salvation.

So in summary, what scripture gives us as examples of salvation in the New Testament church is the necessity of the corporate component and the individual part, but neither is sufficient by itself.  The church’s ministry of Word and Sacrament are the foundation on which in individual receives salvation — the Word to convict and the Sacraments to affirm.  It is not individual salvation or corporate salvation but individual salvation through the corporate presence.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 3: Election Leads To Covenant Community

Leave a reply
 
from Wikimedia Commons

Still a community is asserted, such as Luke describes when he says,”The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” (Acts 4: 32) and Paul, when he reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” (Eph. 4: 4). For if they are truly persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart their blessings to each other. [Inst. 4.1.3]

For John Calvin the conclusion is inescapable:  If humankind was incapable of doing anything, anything at all, to save itself because of the taint or corruption of Sin, and if some are saved for eternity, then it must be the Sovereign God that has saved us.  On the one hand this is nothing new for this argument can be found back at least to Augustine.  But in the climate of the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation Calvin was the major proponent and the doctrine of election may be his most famous, or infamous to some, teaching.

But the concept of predestination is only the start of a very important logical chain, not the end-all of Reformed thought.

As the scripture quote at the top says, with our election by God comes not just salvation for eternity but adoption.  God is the “common Father of them all” because in election comes adoption.  And if adopted, than we are all part of God’s family, the Body of Christ with “Christ as their common head.”

Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal, (August. Ep. 48,) for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ. [Inst. 4.1.2]

To collapse this chain down, if predestination then the Church.  There can not be one without the other, at least in Calvin’s reasoning.  The two are inseparable.  Calvin speaks of the Invisible Church:

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. [Inst. 4.1.7]

And a little bit later Calvin says something very interesting about the Invisible Church:

The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrines and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision. [Inst. 4.1.9]

So if I understand Calvin’s words in this translation, the invisible Church is not just those that attend, but single individuals that do not attend but have at one time accepted Christ and have not subsequently rejected Christ.  If that reading is correct, this has very powerful implications I will come to in a moment.

Taking the logic chain even further we are confronted with other realities that must follow from this conclusion.  The Church is not just like a family — it is a family in God.  Not only can we not chose our family members, we can not even chose our own family ourselves.  We are placed in the Church and those around us in the church, whether we like it of not, are given to us to care for each other as charged by God and guided by Christ.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Church, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

One implication is that like it or not, we belong to each other.  And this is not belonging in the sense of seeing each other every Sunday morning for an hour, maybe 65 minutes if the preacher goes long.  This is belonging in the sense that those around us are truly brothers and sisters in a divine family that each of us has been adopted into through no merit or decision of our own.  The responsibility descends from God — as He has shown his care for us we need to show that care for those around us.  And it is an awesome responsibility because, whether we agree or disagree, whether we like each other or not, we are family together.

But the quote above about single individuals really shook me.  The implication is that there are those around us that are part of the Invisible Church yet are not part of a local congregation — And we have no way of being for sure short of their outright rejection.  The conclusion is that there are a bunch more people around us that we need to treat as brothers and sisters in Christ.  Yes for the sake of the Gospel and because all humans contain the image of God we should not mistreat or dishonor any other individual.  But beyond that there are others around us who are part of God’s family.

While many have considered Calvin’s model for congregational care in Geneva, the regular visitation by the elders to determine the spiritual health of each household, as controlling and prying, in Calvin’s view of the Church it was a proactive care of his spiritual brothers and sisters.  In our “my business is none of your business” modern western culture how many Presbyterian and Reformed churches send out elders to visit their whole congregation on a regular basis.  My church does it every few years, far to infrequently, but I was privileged to be serving on session one time when we did do it.  I will tell you that it was a very inspiring and meaningful activity to go out and get to know these individuals in their own home, one that has brought me closer to them in a way that seeing them on Sunday morning never could.  As the elder making the visits I was truly blessed.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 2: Human Sinfulness And Making Decisions Collectively

Leave a reply

Article 4 – Natural Man
We acknowledge man by nature to be blind, darkened in understanding, and full of corruption and perversity of heart, so that of himself he has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God as is proper, nor to apply himself to good works. But on the contrary, if he is left by God to what he is by nature, he is only able to live in ignorance and to be abandoned to all iniquity. Hence he has need to be illumined by God, so that he come to the right knowledge of his salvation, and thus to be redirected in his affections and reformed to the obedience of the righteousness of God. [1536 Geneva Confession]

(Note: I use the 1536 Geneva Confession extensively in this post and in the other posts as well because of the concise form in which it presents many of these concepts.  I should point out that it is believed the Geneva Confession was written by Calvin’s colleague Wilhelm Farel so while not directly attributable to Calvin it almost certainly reflects the thoughts and influence of Calvin.)

While the Sovereignty of God is one side of the coin in Reformed theology, the Sinfulness of Humankind is the opposite side.  This is another foundational doctrine on which John Calvin built his theological framework and which influences Presbyterian polity today.

This is also one of the most controversial points of Reformed theology because of the extent to which Calvin considers humans sinful.  We do not just do bad things that are wrong and sinful.  We are not good at heart and can correct our ways by ourselves.  We have been infected by the original sin of Adam and Eve and are born in a sinful condition.  And this original sin is such that our sinful condition taints everything that we do.

(While I do not intend to do an exhaustive discussion of our sinful nature I do want to clarify for those not familiar with Calvin’s view of the sinful condition that he does not say the human beings are “totally evil” or can do nothing good under any circumstances.  He does say that even the good works we do have at least some self-interest embedded in them and are not done completely out of pure and selfless motivation.  As Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves. [Inst. 2.1.2]

At least for me that hits a bit close to home.)

It is important to note that Calvin distinguishes between the Natural Man (as in Article 4 above) and the Regenerate Man that has received salvation through Jesus Christ (Article 8 of the Geneva Confession).  Yet, while the Natural Man is blinded and “has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God,” the Regenerate Man is better but still has no hope of complete perfection. As Article 9 begins:

Finally, we acknowledge that this regeneration is so effected in us that, until we slough off this mortal body, there remains always in us much imperfection and infirmity, so that we always remain poor and wretched sinners in the presence of God.

A point here is that confession once does not clear us but we need to be aware of our continuing sinful nature and need for on-going confession and pardon.
And Article 9 also says:

And, however much we ought day by day to increase and grow in God’s righteousness, there will never be plenitude or perfection while we live here.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sinfulness of Humankind, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

The most significant point from a Presbyterian polity perspective is that because of this continuing taint of sin, this lack of perfection in human beings, a group collectively making decisions will be better able to discern the will of God than a single individual acting alone.  It is why Presbyterians always hold power and authority in governing bodies rather than in particular individuals.  The wisdom of the group will be better than the wisdom of the one.  They hold each other accountable and help to bring out the best in each other.  The discernment of the group helps to cancel out individual motives and repress personal ambitions.

Does this always work out?  No, for all synods and councils “may err, and many have erred.” (Westminster Confession XXXI.4) but for the most part collective decision making will do better than individual authority.

This does not negate the primacy of a minister of Word and Sacrament having the freedom to preach as they are led by the Spirit.  But, within the community there is still the leadership, governance, and discipline of the ruling elders to hold the preacher accountable and assure that the Word is rightly preached.  And likewise, it is the congregation’s responsibility to elect those who meet the moral and spiritual standards to be elders over them.  And the higher governing bodies have the right and responsibility of review of lower governing bodies, yet are made up of commissioners from the lower bodies.  In all things the different parts of the Body of Christ hold each other accountable so that together we may fight against the taint of sin to best work the will of God.

One application of this is for the officers of the church to take seriously their role in discerning the will of God.  Realize that the goal and objective of the various procedures of review and approval is to help verify that what is being done is what God would be having us do.  It is not to jump through another hoop or for the governing body to “show who is in charge.”  It is a collective discernment and each group that is part of the process needs to take its role seriously.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 1: The Sovereignty Of God And The Gift Of The Church

2 Replies

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9) to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem, (Gal. 4: 26.) [Inst. 4.1.1]

Probably the most frequently cited distinctive of Reformed theology is “The Sovereignty of God.” To put it very simply, God is in charge, we are not, and God has the power and authority to do whatever pleases him in his good and perfect will.  To put it another way, God created this world and God allows us to live in it.  The Geneva Confession Article on God begins in 2.1 with:

Following, then, the lines laid down in the Holy Scriptures, we acknowledge that there is one only God, whom we are both to worship and serve, and in whom we are to put all our confidence and hope: having this assurance, that in him alone is contained all wisdom, power, justice, goodness and pity.

While this may seem an obvious theological principle of Christianity, in John Calvin’s theological framework the logical consequence of God being in charge leads to the conclusion that God gets to decide who is saved for eternity, the concept of predestination.  But that is a very rough and brief statement, it leaves our one important logical step, and is a subject for later in this series.

But as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

While there are a multitude of implications the one I want to focus on now is the gift of the Church.  If God is absolutely sovereign then the Church is not a human institution and does not belong to us.  As Chapter 25.6 begins in the Westminster Confession “VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ…”  In Calvin’s Geneva Catechism it is similarly expressed:

Master. – You therefore mean nothing more than Paul says, namely, that Christ has been appointed head of the Church, and raised above all principalities, has obtained a name which is above every name. (Eph. i. 22; Phil. ii. 9.)

Scholar. – It is as you say.

And later in the questioning:

Master. – What is the Church?

Scholar. – The body and society of believers whom God hath predestined to eternal life.

So, because the Church belongs to God, God gets to decide who is part of it.

But the other side of this is that God also provides for the Church.

But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity has added much helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people, (Eph. 4: 11) he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. Forseeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity,has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him. [Inst. 4.1.1]

Specifically, God provides leadership, particularly for the preaching of the Word, and God provides the Sacraments so that “we might still draw near to him.”  The leadership and Sacraments are for our benefit and by extension the benefit of The Church.

One application of this is that the officers of the church, teaching and ruling elders as well as deacons, need to see their role as stewards or shepherds.  The Church of Jesus Christ is entrusted to us, what are we doing to return that which is entrusted to us back to its true owner in better condition than when we received it?