By Jeff Gissing at jeffgissing.com
Krin Vantatenhove has issued “An Open Love Letter to My Presbyterian Family” (read it here). Since I’m a member of the family, and since what Krin names in his post is something I’m observing too, I’d like to respond.
Krin’s central point is that the real fault line within the Presbyterian Church (USA) isn’t between those who support or oppose the redefinition of marriage or the ordination of non-celibate people who identify as homosexual. The fault line is between those who hold “orthodox Christian creeds and doctrine” and those for whom that expression of faith has become empty or irrelevant: “…there’s a far deeper, more organic challenge for our denomination. Many of its leaders at both the local and national level are no longer in synch with any semblance of orthodox Christian creeds and doctrine.”
It’s important to note that just as this blog post expresses my opinion–and mine alone–Krin’s post expresses his opinion alone. He is no more a representative of our denomination than I am. What he is expressing–and what I agree with him on–is that the words we use in our corner of the Christian church mean very different things to different people. What he is describing is also far from uncommon in our church. In other words, he’s not describing the fringe left but some very respectable leaders in our churches and our denomination.
The progressive position is something that is rarely explicitly expressed. It’s typically hinted at or implied by things that pastors fail to say rather than what is actually stated, as he notes:
What I’m about to lovingly share is not something I’ve kept “in the closet” during my career. It has been a part of my teaching for years. Further, I base it on discussions with many elders and clergy – women and men I respect. And I know it is only one aspect of our national discernment process.
Krin refers to himself and many of his colleagues as “universalists,” for lack of a better term and goes on to say:
We have not abandoned Jesus’ teachings. We are not neglecting the Good News of grace. We have not given up our pursuits of peace and justice. But we acknowledge that our Christian tradition – stories we tell based on one set of scriptures – are not the sole pathway to God. We respect the sanctity of other faiths. We recognize that human minds can only approach God’s presence through limited faculties. The innate human desire to experience the Divine finds expression in a richness of myths and cultures. Humanity, not religion, is our focus…
From my point of view, I take Krin at his word when he states that he hasn’t abandoned things like “Jesus’ teaching,” “the Good News of grace” or “the pursuit of peace and justice.”
From my point of view he hasn’t abandoned them; he has allowed these concepts or beliefs to evolve beyond the scope of what is recognized as the classical Christianity expressed in our Creeds and Confessions.
Read Krin Vantatenhove’s “An Open Love Letter to My Presbyterian Family”
3 Comments. Leave new
In his post, Jeff Gissing wrote:
“If we, as a denomination, are going to move forward then it is necessary that we have the integrity to name what we believe and to stop hiding behind ambiguous language. If you’re a universalist then be one, openly. If you believe in definite redemption–say so. Trust cannot exist where there is always some suspicion that we’re not telling the truth or that we’re playing games with our theology ….”
Therein lies the rub. For as long as I can remember, the progressive wing of the PCUSA has been hiding behind ambiguous language. They have used the words and phrases of historic Christianity, but meant by them things quite different from what orthodox Christians meant when they used the same words and phrases. Everyone claimed to believe in the virgin birth, for example, it was just that different people defined the word “virgin” in different kinds of ways.
This camouflage served progressives well. But it no longer works as it once did because the overwhelming majority of orthodox Christians, those still in and those now out of the PCUSA, no longer believe anything that progressives tell us. It’s not unlike the old expression: “Fool me once, shame of you; Fool me twice, shame on me.” Orthodox Christians have been fooled so many times by the slippery language of progressives that we simply do not trust them to be honest with us.
It is a noble sentiment to talk about “trust” within the PCUSA and it pains me to have to say it, but that egg has already been shattered into a bazillion little pieces and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will never put it back together again. There remains now for those of us who are orthodox believers only one very sad kind of trust, we trust progressives to behave as dishonestly and as deceitfully toward us in the future as they behaved toward us in the past.
Yes, Yes, Yes! “Progressives”, “The Open-Minded”, “The Caring Ones”, “Liberals” etc. love the “feel” of non-offensive language. This, of course, requires a high level of self-deception to express. Like Mormons, these “loving” folks hate, and I mean hate, a Sovereign, Just, and necessary God simply because it demands they abandon their most cherished good – themselves and their self conceit. They feign humility to avoid the obvious and think ambiguity provides their fig leaf. How can anyone trust those who can’t, and I mean can’t trust Christ?
It is interesting to read Jeff Gissing’s article. His assessment of presbytery meetings is not unique to a small number of presbyteries. My experience testifies that it is a general and common phenomenon in the PCUSA. Gissing comments that “for many of the people at that meeting the idea of a saving encounter with Jesus was a totally foreign concept.” He continues, perhaps in a somewhat exaggerated tone, “People don’t get saved in presbyterian [sic] churches—if you want that, try the baptists [sic].”
Naming Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior is popular in earlier German pietistic and recently American evangelical circles. But it is not in the PCUSA, not even among evangelical Presbyterians. It does not seem to be an accident or overlook that the “required” doctrinal state of Fellowship and ECO for its membership, which is known to be an evangelical reform movement among Americanized Presbyterians, depicts Jesus Christ as Lord and Redeemer, among others, without ever confessing him as Savior. It has become a term least discussed theologically by Presbyterians in America. It is, however, a most popular designation for Christ in the Bible and the New Testament designates no one as Savior except Christ or God.
In the early days of Christianity Gnostics were looking for an ideal savior. If Gnosticism was an appealing alternative to early Christianity, it was because both were primarily interested in human salvation. While the Gnostic redeemer concept was a post-Christian development patterned after Jesus of Nazareth, he was thought to be only a source of saving knowledge, not himself the Savior. The Gnostics described Christ as the Savior who only demonstrated and finger pointed the way to salvation. In this way Gnosticism denied the full humanity of Christ and thus rejected the incarnation of the eternal Son. But Apostles understood Jesus Himself as the truly incarnate Savior, not a mere way to salvation and therefore shedding Gnosticism (and any other similar description of Savior in other religions such as Buddhism) from Christianity during the early days of the Church (Cf. Colossians, 1 Corinthians, Pastoral Epistles, 1 John and Revelation).
The Nicene Creed, which is universally accepted by most Christian Churches including the Catholic Church, was formulated to elucidate the Savior of the Church. The issue debated by Nicene Bishops was whether or not the demigod savior of Arianism could provide the salvation that the Church had proclaimed to the world. The Council found the answer negative and decided to confess the Savior of the Church as truly incarnate Son of God, and thus true God-Man. The late T. F. Torrance has presented accurately “the incarnate Savior” [his term] as the central theme of the Nicene faith.
Calvin, when being accused of denying God and Christ by leaving the Roman church, defended the Reform movement as an attempt to remain with the Savior. The chief formulator of Presbyterianism made clear to his accusers that he was expositing the faith of Christianity to teach those hungering and thirsting after Jesus Christ the Savior the way of salvation.
In the history of religions, the nature of salvation one seeks is made totally dependent upon his or her view on the Savior who provides it, and vice versa. Jesus Christ is both the Head and Savior of the Church, not merely its Head (Eph 5:23). The earthly churches are the gatherings of the sinners saved by grace from their sin through their faith in Jesus Christ the Savior. When God reveals himself as the Lord three times in the Holy Scripture, the triune God reveals himself as Savior. The primary theme of the Bible is human salvation from sin.
This is the reason why the Apostles, the visible churches, and Christians have never hesitated to call the Lord Jesus Christ as their only Savior. If so, can a church survive as true church when its members are reluctant to accept and call Jesus Christ as their Savior?