 Has Reformed theology been left behind? By Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman Volume 34, Number 2 Posted March 26, 2001
Meanwhile, the Office of the General Assembly is distributing overtures that will be considered by the 213th General Assembly when it meets in Louisville in June. Among them is an offering from Sierra Blanca Presbytery, which either was sent joshingly, with tongue firmly in cheek, or, if serious, provides an ironic commentary on the state of official theological reflection in the Presbyterian Church (USA). ‘Our salvation’ The council’s statement was intended to address the controversy caused by the Rev. Dirk Ficca, a Presbyterian minister and a keynote speaker at the Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference last summer. There he implicitly urged abandoning Jesus’ teaching, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) and replacing it with the belief that all get to God by whatever methods they choose. The Biblical teaching that Ficca denied has been affirmed by the Church for two millennia. Within the Reformed tradition, it has been crystallized in the slogan “Christ alone.” The alternative presented by Ficca is known as religious pluralism, the belief that all religious beliefs are equally valid. In upholding the legitimacy of Ficca’s remarks, the council said that they themselves were “committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and our salvation through Christ” (emphasis added). Conspicuously absent was the historic Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and the sole path of salvation for all people. The council concluded, “We affirm the propriety of open dialogue at GAC-sponsored conferences to explore emerging perspectives and we urge speakers to further explore what our constitution may say on their topic to educate the participants about historical Presbyterian/Reformed doctrine.” A defense against fiction While denominational staff and elected leadership vigorously defend the right of a Presbyterian minister to deny basic Christian doctrine at a Presbyterian conference, Sierra Blanca has issued a call to man the barricades against an onslaught of fictional books written by non-Presbyterians.
It further asks the assembly to “instruct the appropriate agencies of the General Assembly to provide assistance and resources to congregations where dispensationalism is causing confusion and dissension to the Reformed faith.” ‘Whatever’ The juxtaposition of the overture and the council statement rewards exploration. If Ficca and the elected and staff leadership now supporting his views are to be believed, an adequate replacement for “Christ alone” would be “Whatever” since, in their opinion, Jesus is just one of many valid paths to God. Needless to say, this aggressive denial of Scripture is, to use Sierra Blanca’s language, “not in accord with our Reformed understanding.” And it has indeed caused “confusion and dissension to the Reformed faith” within our congregations. Yet, concerning this threat from within, Sierra Blanca remains silent. Perhaps Sierra Blanca merely was following a precedent set by the 2000 General Assembly, which overwhelmingly denied the existence of any substantive theological differences within the PCUSA. In rejecting an overture from Beaver-Butler Presbytery, which recognized eight areas in which evangelicals and liberals are unable to find common ground, one commissioner declared, “We do not disagree over significant issues.” “Significant issues,” according to Beaver-Butler, include: Biblical authority and interpretation, the atonement, sanctification and salvation. The commissioner’s opinion carried the day, as the assembly voted 453-71 to remain in theological denial. The 2000 assembly simply may have been following the lead of the 1996 assembly, which rejected a request to identify the “essential tenets” of the Reformed faith. What makes that refusal so puzzling is that PCUSA ordination vows specifically ask ministers and elders if they “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith …” An affirmative response is required for ordination. Yet, in answering “Yes,” our officers are agreeing with that which does not exist, since the tenets officially remain undefined. Requiring officers to agree with a statement that no one is willing to make could cause “confusion and dissension to the Reformed faith.” On the issue of essential tenets, which would appear essential to the ability of pastors and sessions to distinguish between dispensationalism and “our Reformed understanding of covenant theology,” Sierra Blanca remains silent. ReImagining theology Perhaps what is needed is to have denominational staffers with theological expertise respond when theological issues threaten to cause confusion and dissension among the faithful. Perhaps, but the last time that was tried, the staffers nearly had their heads handed to them. When Joe Small and John Burgess of the Office of Theology and Worship composed a brief critique of the 1993 ReImagining conference, reaction was swift and furious. Small and Burgess were publicly lambasted by many, including their supervisor, for daring to disagree with statements made by non-Presbyterians at a non-Presbyterian event, this despite the fact that the conference was underwritten by a Presbyterian grant and attended by numerous high-ranking denominational staff members. A pattern A pattern is emerging. A dispensational understanding of Christian theology is more conservative than the Reformed theology articulated in the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions. Ficca’s pluralism is far more liberal. Dispensationalism is attacked. Ficca is defended. Beaver-Butler courageously identified areas in which beliefs and practices promoted by the PCUSA have departed from the Reformed understanding of Christian faith. Its request to recognize those distinctions was denied. Ficca was invited to keynote a denominational conference. Even some principled liberals managed to acknowledge that aspects of the ReImagining conference went beyond the bounds of Christian faith and practice. Yet, when denominational theologians named those areas, they were pilloried – and the rights of Presbyterians to plan and attend similar events still are being aggressively defended. Now, Sierra Blanca Presbytery wants denominational theologians to critique a fairly recent, conservative theological movement that may lie behind a popular series of novels. Left behind The pattern that emerges from these examples, to which many others could be added, is that Presbyterian leadership seems eager to pander to deviations from Reformed theology that veer to the left of our Reformed theological center, while being highly critical of any perceived theological agenda that they identify as drifting toward the right. As long as this pattern continues, other equally unhealthy patterns of division and decline will continue to plague the PCUSA. In the words of the psalmist, “The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods” (Psalm 16:4). In the language of today, if our ministers, staff and elected leaders continue to chase “emerging perspectives” while insisting that Reformed theology is merely “historical,” they will be left behind. |
|||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
