This is the second installment in a series of postings reflecting on a document entitled, "Draft of the Theology of the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the New Reformed Body," recently posted online by the Fellowship of Presbyterians.
Another key difference between evangelical and progressive Presbyterians is this whole thing about the "essentials" of the Reformed faith. From a progressive perspective, the idea of "essentials" seems slippery at best. Under the heading "Essential Tenets," the Draft defines the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as being the two central Christian mysteries. They are essential doctrines so far as faith is concerned. The problem is that neither one of them are found in their full expression in the New Testament. It took the church some centuries to work out each of these "essential" doctrines. Yes, both are implied to one degree or another in the New Testament—but even seeing that they are implied requires that we read later theological developments back into the Bible. The earliest generations of Christians thus did not have access to the essentials of faith that we do now. (I am assuming here that the essentials of the Reformed faith are not different from the essentials of Christian faith although the Reformed traditions may express or emphasize them in distinct ways—the Draft seems to take this same view). Was the early church defective then in its faith and understanding of Christ? That seems to be a harsh judgment to make.
Another key difference between evangelical and progressive Presbyterians is this whole thing about the "essentials" of the Reformed faith. From a progressive perspective, the idea of "essentials" seems slippery at best. Under the heading "Essential Tenets," the Draft defines the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as being the two central Christian mysteries. They are essential doctrines so far as faith is concerned. The problem is that neither one of them are found in their full expression in the New Testament. It took the church some centuries to work out each of these "essential" doctrines. Yes, both are implied to one degree or another in the New Testament—but even seeing that they are implied requires that we read later theological developments back into the Bible. The earliest generations of Christians thus did not have access to the essentials of faith that we do now. (I am assuming here that the essentials of the Reformed faith are not different from the essentials of Christian faith although the Reformed traditions may express or emphasize them in distinct ways—the Draft seems to take this same view). Was the early church defective then in its faith and understanding of Christ? That seems to be a harsh judgment to make.
More generally, the concept of theological essentials is itself murky, at least in the Draft. They are tied somehow to scripture. They are central affirmations and truths also found in the theological confessions of the church. They are "indispensable indicators of confessional convictions" about the Bible's teachings. They are something that PC(USA)'s ordained leadership should willingly accept. None of this is particularly clear, and the problem is that the Draft doesn't really explain what the essentials are essential for. Are they essential for salvation? Presumably so. But does this mean that one must believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity to be saved? What then about the earliest generation of Jewish followers of Jesus? They believed that Jesus was the messiah but had no sense of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Were they not saved by their faith in Jesus the Messiah? They believed (trusted) in Christ but not with doctrines developed only in later centuries. We could argue that these doctrines are essential today because we have developed them, but such an argument would certainly violate the spirit of the Draft, which rejects the idea that essential doctrines evolve over time. Essential tenets surely must have been essential from the beginning if they are essential now. That seems to be what the word essential means. So, either the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are not essential after all, or the earliest church did not accept truly essential essentials. Or, perhaps, it could be argued that the early church did accept the essentials of these doctrines, which means that there are versions of the doctrines that are essential and other versions that include non-essentials.
When one pokes at the concept of "essential," is truly is a slippery concept.
And then there is the perennial question of who decides what is essential. The Draft rests on the premise that there are essentials, which are contained in scripture and pointed to by the confessions of the church. It acknowledges that the PC(USA) has lost touch with these essentials—something that evangelical Presbyterians share blame for. The Draft wants to discover again these essentials and seems to be proposing that evangelical Presbyterians do so by dialoging among themselves as part of the process of forming a new Reformed body. Are these essentials to be established by a vote of a general assembly of the new Reformed body? Should they not be so compelling that any reasonably articulate and faithful follower of Christ would understand them? They are, after all, essentials—no small or peripheral matters. If they are truly essential should not even more moderate, less conservative Christians see them as such? Do we share these essentials with other faith traditions such as Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? Who decides all of this? And by what authority do they decide it?
Truth be told, the proposed search for essentials seems to be more of a quest for identity and boundaries by which evangelical Presbyterians can self-identify each other and thus exclude those who do not belong in their fold. They are essential for joining the Fellowship of Presbyterians and for being involved in the founding of a new Reformed body. More largely, a clear set of essentials will allow their signatories to judge whose faith is more faithful to Christ and whose is less faithful. So, the real issue is not so much what the essentials are essential for as for whom are they essential. Sadly, one can foresee the day when the new Reformed body angrily splits into two bodies over profound disagreement on essentials. It seems only to be a matter of time.
Let us grant that PC(USA) has failed to treat seriously the quest for faithful theologies and the importance of theological literacy, and we are paying a serious price for our failure. Is the search for essentials the antidote? It feels like a divisive search, one meant to build walls and create standards for judging the theologies of others. It feels like a largely closed process meant to exclude the unacceptable. Only certain, carefully circumscribed ways of reading scripture and interpreting the confessions will be acceptable. Over the last 2,000 years, we have gone over and over and over this same ground. We have fought wars with each other—executed each other. Would not an open process of dialogue across ideological and theological boundaries be more likely to articulate what is truly essential in our faith? Why do we keep doing the same old thing over and over and over? Does not the world deserve better of the Body of Christ?
When one pokes at the concept of "essential," is truly is a slippery concept.
And then there is the perennial question of who decides what is essential. The Draft rests on the premise that there are essentials, which are contained in scripture and pointed to by the confessions of the church. It acknowledges that the PC(USA) has lost touch with these essentials—something that evangelical Presbyterians share blame for. The Draft wants to discover again these essentials and seems to be proposing that evangelical Presbyterians do so by dialoging among themselves as part of the process of forming a new Reformed body. Are these essentials to be established by a vote of a general assembly of the new Reformed body? Should they not be so compelling that any reasonably articulate and faithful follower of Christ would understand them? They are, after all, essentials—no small or peripheral matters. If they are truly essential should not even more moderate, less conservative Christians see them as such? Do we share these essentials with other faith traditions such as Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? Who decides all of this? And by what authority do they decide it?
Truth be told, the proposed search for essentials seems to be more of a quest for identity and boundaries by which evangelical Presbyterians can self-identify each other and thus exclude those who do not belong in their fold. They are essential for joining the Fellowship of Presbyterians and for being involved in the founding of a new Reformed body. More largely, a clear set of essentials will allow their signatories to judge whose faith is more faithful to Christ and whose is less faithful. So, the real issue is not so much what the essentials are essential for as for whom are they essential. Sadly, one can foresee the day when the new Reformed body angrily splits into two bodies over profound disagreement on essentials. It seems only to be a matter of time.
Let us grant that PC(USA) has failed to treat seriously the quest for faithful theologies and the importance of theological literacy, and we are paying a serious price for our failure. Is the search for essentials the antidote? It feels like a divisive search, one meant to build walls and create standards for judging the theologies of others. It feels like a largely closed process meant to exclude the unacceptable. Only certain, carefully circumscribed ways of reading scripture and interpreting the confessions will be acceptable. Over the last 2,000 years, we have gone over and over and over this same ground. We have fought wars with each other—executed each other. Would not an open process of dialogue across ideological and theological boundaries be more likely to articulate what is truly essential in our faith? Why do we keep doing the same old thing over and over and over? Does not the world deserve better of the Body of Christ?
