This is the third 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.
From a progressive perspective, the Draft's concept of "essentials" is unclear and problematic as discussed in the previous posting in this series. The section entitled "The second task," sheds further light on all of this. It reads, "The second paper [of the Draft] invites us to discuss, debate, deliberate, and finally to decide what truths reside in the heart of our Faith and what is the proper Reformed expression of those truths." This sentence takes the Draft in two different directions at the same time.
On the one hand and remembering that the "us" is apparently Presbyterian evangelicals, the language of this sentence suggests that the Draft is seeking to open doors and build bridges as much as it is seeking to define boundaries. It is an invitation to engage in discussions, debates, and deliberations. By implication, there is going to have to be a period of listening to one another in a reflective mood. Furthermore, the thing being sought after is the discovery of a set of truths that "reside in the heart of our Faith." Such explorations are important to the whole church and especially local churches. In the hustle and bustle of weekly church life most active members are actively engaged in activities, doing things. Local churches "do" an often impressive array of things. What we don't do so much of is engage in important discussions with each other about spiritual matters. Some members belong to small groups, and some small groups do discuss the deeper matters of faith, but that isn't the usual experience of the bulk of church goers. The Draft is inviting Fellowship Presbyterians to engage in a journey of discovery, and that is potentially very exciting. One prays that it will work out well for those engaged in the process.
The following section, "The third task," points to some of the potential for this proposed process of discovery. Its goal is to identify practices important for the future, practices that can be built into the common life and the structures of the church. It calls for a learning process, which is always an exciting prospect. The goal of the process is to contribute to "the theological well-being of the church" with an eye to building this theological health into the structures and mission of the churches. The authors of the Draft "propose the establishment of theological friendships in communities of mutual encouragement and accountability." At the end of this process of theological reflection, the Draft envisages a clearly stated theological confession that Fellowship Presbyterians can adopt sincerely. It is a confession that will sustain their convictions.
One hears in these words a longing among evangelical Presbyterians for denominational and local church structures that they can buy into whole-heartedly and with conviction, ones that will reflect their understanding of the faith and that will foster a spirit of friendship among them. They are hungry for a life together that belongs to them not in a political sense but in a spiritual sense. They are seeking a theological family that they can embrace sincerely, that will give clarity to their faith and beliefs, and that will sustain them rather than seem bent on tearing them down.
Framed in this way, the rest of PC(USA) cannot but wish Fellowship Presbyterians well on the journey, knowing of course that for quite a few the journey will take them away from our denomination. That's sad but evidently inevitable. The undercurrent of ill will and of profound political and ideological tension that has permeated PC(USA) for so many decades (actually, going back as far as the 1870s) seems to have rendered reconciliation impossible, which is a severe judgment on all of us.
In all of this, however, there is a point of concern that could well cast a shadow over the process. I hinted at it in the last posting and would like to explore it a little further here. In the sentence I quoted at the beginning of this posting, the Draft calls for discussions, debate, and deliberations that will ultimately lead to decisions about which "truths reside in the heart of our faith." The three d's of discussion, debate, and deliberation suggests a worrisome and potentially divisive process that is built on people talking first and listening later. The idea of debate especially suggests an adversarial approach where various individuals bring their positions to the table and then duke it out with contending ones brought by others. Debaters first establish their own position and then defend it. One listens only to discern the flaws in the thinking of others. While the ideas behind "discussion" and "deliberation" are somewhat less in your face, they too are built on the premise that one discusses one's own position with others who have their positions. Such discussions require deliberation aimed at deciding the right and the wrong of the various positions taken. One prays that the spirit of friendship the Draft calls for will carry Fellowship Presbyterian safely through the potentially rough waters of theological debate, but the larger history of the Christian movement down to the present is forbidding on this point. We have a propensity for theological strife that is clearly demonstrated in our denomination today. Can the Fellowship of Presbyterians dodge this bullet? One can only wonder.
It would be better, I feel personally, to build the whole process on dialogue, which begins with listening and does not seek conformity. In dialogue, partners in the process are not concerned to defend their views however deeply they hold them. Rather, dialogue partners genuinely want to learn about and from others. It is true that such partners will disagree on important points, but rather than debating those differences in search of consensus, they will learn what they can from the differences and otherwise celebrate their diversity. The goal remains a common search for truth, but the process wisely understands that truth cannot be had through consensus. Such a process, we can assume, would result in a plethora of confessions rather than in the one clearly stated confession the Draft is calling for, but at the end of the day it seems very possible that the search for consensus will only serve to create more division.
From a progressive perspective, the Draft's concept of "essentials" is unclear and problematic as discussed in the previous posting in this series. The section entitled "The second task," sheds further light on all of this. It reads, "The second paper [of the Draft] invites us to discuss, debate, deliberate, and finally to decide what truths reside in the heart of our Faith and what is the proper Reformed expression of those truths." This sentence takes the Draft in two different directions at the same time.
On the one hand and remembering that the "us" is apparently Presbyterian evangelicals, the language of this sentence suggests that the Draft is seeking to open doors and build bridges as much as it is seeking to define boundaries. It is an invitation to engage in discussions, debates, and deliberations. By implication, there is going to have to be a period of listening to one another in a reflective mood. Furthermore, the thing being sought after is the discovery of a set of truths that "reside in the heart of our Faith." Such explorations are important to the whole church and especially local churches. In the hustle and bustle of weekly church life most active members are actively engaged in activities, doing things. Local churches "do" an often impressive array of things. What we don't do so much of is engage in important discussions with each other about spiritual matters. Some members belong to small groups, and some small groups do discuss the deeper matters of faith, but that isn't the usual experience of the bulk of church goers. The Draft is inviting Fellowship Presbyterians to engage in a journey of discovery, and that is potentially very exciting. One prays that it will work out well for those engaged in the process.
The following section, "The third task," points to some of the potential for this proposed process of discovery. Its goal is to identify practices important for the future, practices that can be built into the common life and the structures of the church. It calls for a learning process, which is always an exciting prospect. The goal of the process is to contribute to "the theological well-being of the church" with an eye to building this theological health into the structures and mission of the churches. The authors of the Draft "propose the establishment of theological friendships in communities of mutual encouragement and accountability." At the end of this process of theological reflection, the Draft envisages a clearly stated theological confession that Fellowship Presbyterians can adopt sincerely. It is a confession that will sustain their convictions.
One hears in these words a longing among evangelical Presbyterians for denominational and local church structures that they can buy into whole-heartedly and with conviction, ones that will reflect their understanding of the faith and that will foster a spirit of friendship among them. They are hungry for a life together that belongs to them not in a political sense but in a spiritual sense. They are seeking a theological family that they can embrace sincerely, that will give clarity to their faith and beliefs, and that will sustain them rather than seem bent on tearing them down.
Framed in this way, the rest of PC(USA) cannot but wish Fellowship Presbyterians well on the journey, knowing of course that for quite a few the journey will take them away from our denomination. That's sad but evidently inevitable. The undercurrent of ill will and of profound political and ideological tension that has permeated PC(USA) for so many decades (actually, going back as far as the 1870s) seems to have rendered reconciliation impossible, which is a severe judgment on all of us.
In all of this, however, there is a point of concern that could well cast a shadow over the process. I hinted at it in the last posting and would like to explore it a little further here. In the sentence I quoted at the beginning of this posting, the Draft calls for discussions, debate, and deliberations that will ultimately lead to decisions about which "truths reside in the heart of our faith." The three d's of discussion, debate, and deliberation suggests a worrisome and potentially divisive process that is built on people talking first and listening later. The idea of debate especially suggests an adversarial approach where various individuals bring their positions to the table and then duke it out with contending ones brought by others. Debaters first establish their own position and then defend it. One listens only to discern the flaws in the thinking of others. While the ideas behind "discussion" and "deliberation" are somewhat less in your face, they too are built on the premise that one discusses one's own position with others who have their positions. Such discussions require deliberation aimed at deciding the right and the wrong of the various positions taken. One prays that the spirit of friendship the Draft calls for will carry Fellowship Presbyterian safely through the potentially rough waters of theological debate, but the larger history of the Christian movement down to the present is forbidding on this point. We have a propensity for theological strife that is clearly demonstrated in our denomination today. Can the Fellowship of Presbyterians dodge this bullet? One can only wonder.
It would be better, I feel personally, to build the whole process on dialogue, which begins with listening and does not seek conformity. In dialogue, partners in the process are not concerned to defend their views however deeply they hold them. Rather, dialogue partners genuinely want to learn about and from others. It is true that such partners will disagree on important points, but rather than debating those differences in search of consensus, they will learn what they can from the differences and otherwise celebrate their diversity. The goal remains a common search for truth, but the process wisely understands that truth cannot be had through consensus. Such a process, we can assume, would result in a plethora of confessions rather than in the one clearly stated confession the Draft is calling for, but at the end of the day it seems very possible that the search for consensus will only serve to create more division.
