The first theological section of the Draft is entitled , "Confessional Standards," and provided a bit of a shock for at least this self-described progressive—not because of what I disagree with in it but because I find so much in it that makes sense to me personally. The Draft, that is, starts off in a way that feels almost inclusive of the whole of PC(USA) rather than just its evangelical wing. I found that interesting. It turns out, however, that the author of this section, Joseph D. Small, does not consider himself part of the Fellowship of Presbyterians and has no sympathy with its plans to birth a "new Reformed body" that will break away from PC(USA). Small has in fact felt it necessary to write an open letter (here) explaining and defending his role as one of the authors of the Draft. He writes that he was asked by a friend to help write part of the draft, which he was willing to do for the sake of preserving at least some sense of unity and reconciliation in our denomination. Evidently he has been criticized for doing so, which is unfortunate. We should instead appreciate and thank him for his efforts—and for the contents of the confessional standards section of the Draft.
The section, "Confessional Statements," opens with an affirmation, namely that confessions of faith contained in the Book of Confessions of the PC(USA) are "the appropriate confessional standards for the Fellowship/New Reformed Body." Listing the confessions contained in the BOC, the author then observes that, "This collection is theologically faithful, ecclesially appropriate, and organizationally suitable" as standards for the Fellowship and whatever new Reformed body emerges from it.
Where does this last sentence take us? Are the eleven confessions contained in the BOC really faithful, appropriate, and suitable standards for the church today? Granting that the Fellowship may take them as such, is it wise to do so? Considering the almost gale force winds of secularity that are blowing through our churches, is it wise to take even the more recent credal statements as the standards for our faith and practice today? It seems not. New times require new measures. Or, better, new times require that we carefully rethink our theological and ecclesiastical heritage(s) in light of contemporary circumstances. Small suggests as much in his description of the "Reformed understanding of the church's confessional and theological tradition." He argues that our historical confessions provide us with opportunities for an "ongoing dialogue with those who have lived and died the Faith before us." Such a dialogue, he suggests, keeps us from being imprisoned in our own times by providing us (if we listen) wisdom from ages past. We can learn from the way previous generations struggled with the issues of their day and even discover "new apprehensions of the truth" from the answers they discovered. Their struggles and their wisdom can even provide us with an opportunity "to be utterly honest" about our own failings in the early 21st century. And in all of this the confessions of the church offer us the possibility of "liberation from the tyranny of the present" as we seek to follow God's will for our generation.
All of this is based on the idea of dialogue. The Draft (Small) affirms that the confessions of the church are authoritative, but theirs is not an authority that chains us to old answers and archaic worldviews. Instead, the authority of the confessions invites us into a dialogue with them. We learn from them. We look through them to see how previous generations of Christians "did theology" in their time and thus gain insights for our theological tasks today. The past, then, can in some sense be a bridge into the future.
This is good stuff.
Small's proposed dialogue, however, needs a bit of "tweaking." He proposes a dialogue between the authors of the confessions and their times and the church today, a dialogue between two partners. We would do well to invite a third party to the table and that third party is the secular world we live in. We need to invite science to the party. We need to invite the forces of non-sectarian democracy to the table. We need to listen to the sometimes strident voices of atheists. We need to pay careful attention to scholars, such as Peter Berger, who study secularity and use what we learn from them as a part of our dialogue with the confessions. We need to invite folks from other religions, such as Thich Nhat Hanh, to join us in our dialogue so that we incorporate as many creative and representative voices as we can in the dialogue. The Holy Spirit rides the winds of secularity seeking to bend them to God's will, and it is our daunting task to discern the Spirit's "still small voice" in those winds. To do that, we must study the winds carefully. Joe Small is correct. The confessions of the church can be invaluable aids, partners in a sense, that help us bend an ear to the Spirit, but we can't confine our dialogue to the confessions alone because then we could become imprisoned in the traditions of the church rather than liberated by our theological heritage.
I thus have to question the Draft's contention that, "Our task is to be faithful to our vows [as teaching & ruling elders], reading and studying the confessions, learning from them, teaching them, and living out their wisdom." If these activities are intended to chart the path toward church renewal in the 21st century, they are almost certainly going to be a dead end. Sure, it will be helpful to study the confessions. In some venues it will be helpful to teach them to members of the congregations (to the extent that they are at all interested). But we will only hasten the decline of our declining churches if we seek to live out today the wisdom of the confessions. Ours is a search for new ways, new means, new insights, new ways of taking reasoned risks, and while we can certainly learn from the wisdom of past generations we need to see the limits of their wisdom. None of them faced what we face, just as we will never face what they faced.
Still, this is good stuff.
