|
VOW |
THE CHURCH or THE UNIVERSITY by Sylvia Dooling and Bob Davis The other day, I was grumbling to my husband about a problem that keeps popping up in a variety of places – the fact that so many of our denomination’s programs and resources fail to uphold our Presbyterian standards with any kind of consistency. When he asked for an example of what I meant, I pointed to the latest issue of Horizons magazine (May/June 2007). Its theme is “Bible 101,” and it contains a variety of “How To” articles on bible study and interpretation. Some of the articles offer solid guidance and help, but others blatantly deviate from our Presbyterian benchmarks. The same phenomenon also pertains when it comes to the Horizons Bible Studies. This year’s study is outstanding; last year’s, however, was just the opposite. My question, of course, was, “Why?” Why the unpredictable and almost erratic variations in the quality of these and other denominationally-produced materials? My husband was quiet for a moment. Then he reminded me of something that Bob Davis wrote several years ago lamenting the fact that the Presbyterian Church too often tries to be like a university. Bob Davis (known widely as Presbybob) was the first Executive Director of the Presbyterian Forum, and is now Head of Staff at the Chula Vista Presbyterian Church in San Diego Presbytery. Fascinated by the contrast between church and university, I contacted Bob to ask if he would be willing to write again on the subject. He graciously agreed. Please read carefully what he has to say. There
is a tendency in most institutions to broaden their attractiveness by
pushing out boundaries to draw a wider circle. This tendency finds its
precedent in academia, where “new” is valued and “old” is suspect. Good
scholars question the foundations of what is popularly believed. Academics
who simply pass on what they have faithfully received do not gain the
respect of their peers; it is those who are groundbreaking, new, or
creative who garner the most attention. Following
the pattern of academia is not healthy for the Church. The purpose of
academia and the purpose of the Church are very different. Academia serves
to broaden what humans can know; the Church proclaims narrowly what God
has done. Paul states this clearly in 1 Corinthians 1:18, “For the message
about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who
are being saved it is the power of God.” (NRSV) The
problem with the direction Presbyterian Women is pursuing organizationally
is the same trap into which the institution of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) has fallen: it wants to function more as a university than a
church. Faith
is a conviction; it is not a hypothesis to weigh objectively.
Humans
are fallible judges of what is good. Adam and Eve’s sin in eating of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not result in perfect
discernment. Judgment remains the eternal province of God, who alone has
revealed to us what is good through Jesus Christ. All faithful inquiry has
to start from the point of examining God’s self-revelation for what it
teaches – not to decide whether it is trustworthy. It will always be error to
seek to refine God’s righteousness by human assessments of what is good.
This confusion has had a high cost to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
On
the one hand, in the Book of
Order, it is declared, "The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) states its
faith and bears witness to God's grace in Jesus Christ in the creeds and
confessions in The Book of Confessions. In these confessional statements
the church declares to its members and to the world: who and what it is;
what it believes; and what it resolves to do." (G-2.0100 a. "Purpose
of Confessional Statements"). Later in the same section, it says, "the
creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within
the history of God's people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and
experience within a living tradition" (G-2.0500b). On the other hand, specificity
and clarity of declarations of faith are out of vogue in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.). Questions
put to potential officers for ordination and installation ask whether the
individual receives and adopts the "essential tenets" of the Reformed
faith as expressed in the confessions. There is a document called the
"Confessional Nature of the Church Report" -- approved by the 198th
General Assembly (1986) and added as the preface to the Book of
Confessions by the 209th General Assembly (1997) -- which notes
this: Since 1983 ordained persons are asked to receive and adopt the "essential tenets" of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions. Although some other wording may better express the intent, the phrase "essential tenets" is intended to protect freedom with the limits of general commitment to the confessions. That this is indeed the purpose of the phrase is made clear by the fact that both the former United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and Presbyterian Church in the U.S. repeatedly answered in the negative overtures requesting that the church make a precise list of a few fundamental doctrines (once called "essential and necessary articles of faith") that must be accepted by ordained officers. Moreover, while Chapter II of the Form of Government lists a number of general theological affirmations to summarize the broad general character of Presbyterian faith and life, it too prescribes no specific understanding of any of these affirmations to test the acceptability of people for ordained office in the church. The ordination question that asks for commitment to the "essential tenets" of the confessions brings freedom in the church at several levels. Ordained persons are free to be "instructed," "led," and "continually guided" by the confessions without being forced to subscribe to any precisely worded articles of faith drawn up either by the General Assembly or by a presbytery. (Presbyteries, too, are bound to the constitutional language that excludes demand for adherence to any specifically worded interpretations of a few selected doctrines. In a presbytery the decision for ordination is always determined by a concrete encounter between the presbytery and the candidate.) Presbyteries (in the case of ministers) and church sessions (in the case of elders and deacons) are free to decide for themselves what acceptable loyalty to the confessions means in their particular situation without being bound to any "check list" prescribed by higher governing bodies of the church. In other words, as long as we understand other truth claims, that is sufficient. The choice among truth claims is up to the individual and any choice is just as valid as another and is a valid as God’s word revealed in Scripture. Unfortunately, that is the method of operating as a university, not a church. A
church has a message to proclaim. The Book of Order says it well: "The
Church is called to present the claims of Jesus Christ, leading persons to
repentance, acceptance of him as Savior and Lord, and new life as his
disciples." Herein
lies the problem for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): in order to survive
in a post-denominational environment where it is chronically and
dramatically losing members, the institution must choose a purpose. Is it
a church or a university? If it is a church, it must have a message. The
message for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is spelled out in the
Constitution -- the Book of
Confessions and Book of
Order. It's good stuff. However, if the message is
lost or not important enough to proclaim, the institution will fail -- no
matter how well funded it is with property, endowments, annuities, and
interest income. The church shouldn't hide its light under a bushel. If
the church loses its flavor, it should be thrown out and trampled under
foot. Okay, now we have a grasp of the problem. But what do we do about it?
Of primary importance, of course, is that we pray for wisdom and guidance as we work for reform in our denomination. Then it is equally important to act. I would suggest that whenever you study a resource, or attend a program supported by the PC(USA), and hear diverse philosophies presented that contradict our biblical and confessional heritage, you should respond directly to the people who are responsible for that particular resource or program. Write a letter. Make a phone call. Speak clearly and directly to the issue. And, do it as often as is necessary. If it is a written resource with which you are concerned, ask your session, your pastor, or your Christian Education Committee to study it. If the material is not sanctioned by the session of your church, write a letter that communicates why your session has refused to use it. The denomination should be grateful for this kind of input – if for no other reason that it makes good business sense. If what they produce doesn’t sell, they’d better find out why, and then do something about it. But, the most important thing to remember is that the church is not a university where diverse ideas stand equally side-by-side, and where the highest goal is “to make people think.” The church’s responsibility, rather, is carefully and accurately to pass on the truth that God has revealed in his Word to each succeeding generation. So, now that you’ve heard a particularly articulate pastor describe the problem, what are you going to do about it?
|