|
| Home > Theology > Thoughs on the Present Controversy: Part 1-1/2, Take it to the courts? |
| Thoughs on the Present Controversy: Part 1-1/2, Take it to the courts? | | Date Created: Oct 08, 2005, 09:19 PM |
Some genuinely odd positions have surfaced in the current controversies in PCA circles. One of them is this argument that all "new" doctrine or exegesis must be aired in the church courts first and not in articles, books, or conferences - especially not on blogs! If any pastor or professor has problems with the Westminster Confession of faith and wants to argue that the Bible might correct or supplement our confessional understanding, then we are told it must be done in the courts of the church first. Indeed, it seems that if someone wants to use terminology or categories other than those used by the Westminster standards to explain or promote Reformed theology, then he must get permission from the courts of the church. After all, the courts of the church are the bodies given the authority to declare doctrine, not seminaries, publishers, or conferences. So the argument goes.
I've heard this argument a number of times from different sources during the recent debates. But I honestly don't understand it. For example, I've written and taught publicly on the doctrine of the Trinity and said things that some men have considered "new" and even "novel." I've been raked over the theological coals for describing the inter-personal relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "covenantal." That, I've been told, is extra-confessional, even anti-confession since the confession assumes a certain definition of the covenant that seems to be at odds with my formulations.
Well, first off, I seriously doubt whether this is all that "novel." I do believe I am reformulating things in new ways in order to bring out what is latent in traditional trinitarian doctrine and in order to speak to modern problems. That's what theology is supposed to be if it is to be a faithful servant to this generation.
I am, truth be told, a disciple of John Frame's perspective on the nature and task of theology. Most of the "Federal Vision" men are as well. It was Frame that helped me move from a strict subscription stance to a "system subscription" stance. Theology is application. One doesn't do theology and then think about how to apply it. Theology is itself the application of the Bible to contemporary questions and problems.
I will confess to not being able to muster a lot romantic feelings about 17th-century theological language and categories. I'm a biblicist, if there's a word for it. Some men have expressed their great fear that using new terminology and language to do theology will be the PCA's undoing. We need to be faithful to our tradition of theology! I fear the opposite.
If anything, I believe traditionalism will be our undoing as Presbyterians. John Frame's essay Traditionalism and Sola Scriptura may be prophetic.
On the other hand, I do not believe in unbridled speculation. I do think we should be concerned with showing how new developments "fit with the confessions" and are genuine extensions of the genius of Reformed theology. Take paedocommunion, for example. I believe that that paedocommunion is a great example of extending the theology of the Reformed churches by correcting blind spots in the theologians of the past. The practice of letting our covenant children eat dinner with Jesus so that they find a place at his loving, gracious Table is fully consistent with the best in the Reformed tradition teaching about the place of children in the covenant. If they are in the covenant, they ought to participate in the covenant meal. It was a high view of the place of children in the covenant that sent me back to the Scriptures to discover (I believe) the error of the early Reformed church on this score.
So is paedocommunion "extra-confessional"? Yes. Is it against the "system of doctrine" taught in our confessions? I don't believe it is. I think it's an extension of Reformed theological distinctives, not to mention fully grounded in the exegesis of many Old and New Testament texts.
In any case, periodically I'm am sent emails demanding that I cannot say these things without first going through the church courts. I don't even understand what they want me to do. Nobody does this. Books and essays are constantly written and published that challenge us to think in new ways about old doctrines and that use new language and categories to describe and apply traditional teachings. Lectures are regularly given in seminaries and at conferences that do the same. Should all these men submit their lectures and essays to their presbytery for approval?
For example, the advances that have been made in formulating the doctrine of union with Christ in the last hundred years or so have not "been aired first in the church courts." They have been taught, published, discussed in communities of pastor-scholars in order to test and refine the new formulations and insights. Indeed, I think that is going on as we speak. Let the debate continue!
Another example: the "sonship" teaching of the past few decades employs new formulations about the old doctrine of adoption. These were not aired first in the church courts. Not at all. They began to be taught and discussed among circles of friends, at conferences, and in real life pastoral situations. The same can be said about all sorts of theological advances.
The courts of the church are not the place to begin discussions like this. Church courts are adversarial environments. The "courts of the church" are not even set up to allow intra-denominational or inter-presbyterial discussions of theology. If you listen to the first AAPC conference - take John Barach's lecture, for instance. It sounds like he's thinking out loud about the covenant and election. He says as much. Now, should Barach contact a presbytery and say - "hey guys, how about setting aside one hour to discuss the relationship between covenant and election with me? Here are five books that each of you need to read in order to participate intelligently in this discussion." How is that going to happen? Plus, that cuts off scholarly work by our men. Do they need to run journal articles past the presbytery before they're published? It also assumes that the courts of the church are populated with men equipped and motivated to discuss these matters and understand the nuances. How does a court discuss theology? "I make a motion that we discuss theology"?
The Presbyterian tradition has always had the model of a "pastor-scholar." Pastors have written treatises and published and most often with the blessings of their sessions, but not always with the blessings of their peers. This has always led to scholarly debates, both at the seminaries and in journals, etc. Sometimes the matter comes before a church court, but our courts are really designed to settle disputes, not head them off. If one minister wants to bring another up on charges, those kinds of disputes can be handled by a church court.
But if a pastor sees himself as extending and improving a theological formulation within the bounds of the confession, why is it incumbent upon him to do anything other than share this with his elders and ministerial peers in order to get their feedback on his teaching? And then, as a natural result, he might end up developing these thoughts into an article or book. That's a natural progression. He might even be invited to speak on something at a pastor's conference at another church because he has something stimulating to say.
Contrast this with the Roman Catholic church. They have a body called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That body listens to complaints and gives rulings on theological matters. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod also has such a body. It's called the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). We really don't have anything like these bodies. We don't have a career path designed for people to receive the training necessary to serve on such a body, and we don't have, in our presbyterian structure, a place for a trans-presbytery clearing house for clarification of various doctrines. Our system is more decentralized, and we grant each other charity in our formulations until it can be shown that someone is risking the system of doctrine in the Westminster documents.
Unfortunately, I think the rhetoric of "submit your ideas to the church courts first" is often used to squelch debate before it even begins. Church courts can be helpful, but they can also easily turn into little Sanhedrins which attempt to stifle dissent in the service of some political end. When that happens the conversation and manly debate never even gets started because everyone is prematurely polarized and every position is politicized. Which means that nobody is able to speak freely and count on the Christian charity of their brethren because everything you say can and will be used against you in the courts of the church.
Go to Part 2 |
|
