Analysis: The Fellowship of Presbyterians draft document on Theology
By Carmen Fowler LaBerge, The Layman, December 15, 2011
In many ways, the Fellowship of Presbyterians’ draft documents on the polity and theology of the new Reformed body are what many had hoped the new Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church (USA) would be — less hierarchical, more congregational, less regulatory, more permissive; less denominational, more missional.
And although the Twittersphere has been bristling with negative commentary and one of the drafters of the Theology portion has publically distanced himself from it, the online and offline conversations among evangelicals, who are genuinely seeking a new way forward, are both charitable and hopeful.
Many traditional Christians in the PCUSA operate with a “trust no one” approach to anything they did not personally participate in drafting. So, there’s an active dissection of the documents under way. There is also a shared acknowledgement that this is a process of refinement and that the Fellowship is inviting that input through Jan. 6. The drafters of the Theology portion encourage serious engagement with the material and provide questions to spur those conversations along. Lingering questions will persist but consider this an initial analysis to get you thinking.
I like that the Theology draft is independent of the Polity piece. It matters little how the common life of a people is put together if the foundation is sand. So, on what does the Fellowship propose to build the new Reformed body?
Utilizing a more narrative approach to articulating the essential tenets than some prefer, the document outlines a clarified and unifying view of the Scriptures, the attributes of God including a clear articulation of the Incarnation, God’s grace in Christ, election for salvation and service, the covenant life of the church, the faithful stewardship of all of life and living in obedience to the Word of God.
Some criticize the fact that there is no listing of the traditional Solas and that nowhere does the document say that we are “saved by grace through faith.” The word justification never appears and the concept of election is more heavily emphasized than some evangelical Presbyterians may be prepared to confess.
I like to begin with the end in mind.
Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
God’s glory and the believer’s edification are the end goal. Theology, yes, but theology enfleshed in the life of a people who demonstrate the Truth and grace of God. To arrive at that end, grace must be received, a life changed by one degree of glory to another, again with a goal in view: that every believer might be presented mature in Christ, to the glory of God. Whatever else the visible church might be doing, it had better be making disciples. Which begs the question, what in the Fellowship documents articulates and promotes the making of disciples who in turn make disciples?
Turn with me to section E, beginning on page 8., Living in obedience to the Word of God.
For many Presbyterians, living in post-modern, pseudo-Christian, multi-cultural America, this simple articulation of the expectations of disciplined discipleship will be shocking.
For me, this section of the document serves as a directory for worship — personal and corporate. If we could live into the high calling articulated here, we would not only be an authentic expression of the true Church, we would also be authentic demonstrations of Christ to the world.
This describes the kind of shared Christian experience for which many yearn. This is a theology that not only works on paper or among seminary educated clergy, this is a theology that holds out the hope of transforming the lives and the common life of those who will mutually be held accountable to it.
Imagine for a moment a shared Christian experience in which you are holding your brother or sister in Christ gently but firmly accountable to:
· the worship of God, alone; renouncing idolatry in all its forms;
· the humble but living preaching of the Word and the faithful administration of the sacraments;
· the elimination of blasphemy, irreverence and impurity;
· the observance of Sunday as a day of worship and rest with faithfulness to gather with God’s people in worship;
· the practice of mutual submission and genuine honor to those set in authority over us;
· the eradication of a spirit of anger, resentment, violence or bitterness and the cultivation of a spirit of gentleness, kindness, peace and love;
· the maintenance of chastity in thought and deed, faithfulness within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or embracing a celibate life;
· the practice of right and faithful stewardship of all of life;
· the pursuit, defense and preservation of the truth, even when costly;
· the resistance to the pull of envy, greed and acquisition and the cultivation of a spirit of contentment.
What say ye? Is this how you want to do Christian life together? Do you really want mutually accountable brothers and sisters with whom you will do periodic and serious spiritual fruit inspections?
In this design, if you don’t see ready evidence that good spiritual fruit is growing in ever-greater abundance in my life, you should call me on it. I commit to do the same for you. In turn, if you see areas of my life’s garden lying untended, spiritual fields that are fallow, places where weeds have grown up or rotten fruit contaminating our common life, you are responsible before God to help me see it, confess it, repent of it and walk with me step by step. This is a call not only to rigorous theological “thinking,” this is call to genuine theological living.
If I know with confidence that we are operating out of the same theological convictions – that God is who the Bible says He is, that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, etc. – and I know that you want me to be presented mature in Christ when I stand before, then I willingly and joyfully submit to the rhythm of “regular discipline” envisioned here.
That, I believe, is the lynchpin of this entire proposal.
So, how do the drafters envision that we get from where we are to this kind of mutually edifying, God-glorifying experience of a shared Christian experience?
The proposal outlines a methodology that will require a completely different approach to ministry and leadership than is currently practiced in most churches – including the churches involved in the Fellowship.
The drafters look for answers to the question, “What are the theological practices that will provide for theological integrity and accountability” for a fellowship of believers in the context of 21st century America? I add that last phrase because I think the context in which these conversations is taking place cannot be ignored. Technology and the ease of travel will make possible for the Fellowship what simply would not have worked even 25 years ago.
I’ve left the most controversial issue from the Theology draft for last.
I was surprised that the Fellowship document recommends the entirety of the PCUSA Book of Confessions as the confessional standard of the new Reformed body. In particular, the Confession of 1967 is problematic for many who have grown disaffected with the PCUSA’s diffuse theological wanderings since its adoption a generation ago.
The writers of the
Theology draft clearly articulate their rationale, noting that:
- the constituency of The Fellowship is too ill-defined to articulate a new confessional standard at this time. “It is our opinion that the theological consensus among evangelicals has not been tested and, further, that to presume a consensus where one does not exist is to repeat one of the most significant theological failures of our generation.”
- everyone voting to create and populate the NRB would be doing so as ordained officers who have already affirmed those shared confessional standard as elders in the PCUSA. “As members of the ordered ministries of the Church, we have agreed to The Book of Confessions. Let us keep that covenant that we may be found faithful to any new theological covenant we will make.”
So now the process of “perfecting the motion” begins. Constructive feedback is being welcomed by the Fellowship.
Some very basic questions about the meeting in Orlando:
The meeting is now a month away, who will get to vote and what is the process of qualifying a person to vote?
Do you have to be a delegate from the session of a PCUSA church to be credentialed to vote or can specialized or retired clergy and those interested from other Presbyterian expressions of the faith vote?
(If gaining standing to vote at the Orlando meeting requires some action by the session of a church, if they need to elect delegates [not commissioners, but delegates], then that needs to happen now. They need to know how many delegates they’re eligible to send and they need to know what the status of others they send to the meeting will be. Many sessions will be 1/3 “new” in January and may or may not be as prepared to vote on these matters as those seated now.)
Notable retired (Joe Small) and specialized clergy (David Dobler and David Lambertson) participated in drafting the documents under consideration. How will such people continue to bear out influence in a process that is only open to those elected from elders on session?
How will the influence of naysayers be managed? Asked another way, how will the Orlando meeting filter out those who just want to abort all creative efforts toward an NRB before it ever has a chance to live?
What will those voting be voting on? Perfected versions of the Theology and Polity documents, but with or without amendment from the floor?
Will substitute motions be entertained?
Will a board be elected? What is the nomination process? Who is eligible for election into leadership of the Fellowship going forward?
What is the process by which the NRB can gain standing as a Reformed body to which the PCUSA can be dismissed by their presbyteries? Are overtures to the 2012 PCUSA GA needed to make that happen? If so, what is the content of the overtures that are needed? (Again, if overtures are needed then action not only by Sessions but also presbyteries is required on a very short timeline to meet the deadline for the 2012 GA.)
No doubt the Fellowship is considering all these questions in preparation for the constituting convention now just a month away. What we know now is that input is welcome until January 6. Email comments and constructive critical improvements to theologydox@gmail.com or politydox@gmail.com.