In the previous posting in this series (here), I spent a full posting on the first paragraph of the final chapter of the Draft. Moving on, we find in the next paragraphs the Fellowship's central complaint against the PC(USA) as they experience it today. PC(USA) has lost interest in forging a theological consensus. It prefers ambiguity and is suspicious of certainties. It rejects as "arcane" the issues debated by the church in earlier generations and again shows little interest in "doctrinal work." Pastors try to teach the truth to their parishioners without laying "foundations of the truth in the hearts and minds of the congregation." Ruling elders have become mere managers and aren't able to teach the Faith themselves. In all, the church has neglected "the substance of the Faith" in a way that evidently pervades the denomination.
There is truth in these charges. The evangelical unrest with PC(USA) is not without reason, whatever one's theological orientation. We have given short shrift to what the Draft calls, "theological work," and we have failed as churches to inculcate an articulate faith among the faithful. Truth be told, part of the reason may well be our reluctance to talk about things where we might differ if we did talk. For many church members, theological differences seem to be a dangerous minefield best stayed away from. And it must be said bluntly that evangelicals (not all, of course, but many esp. among the more demonstrative evangelical folk) are as much to blame for that condition as anyone. When in this chapter the Draft notes that many of our theological debates have been graceless and divisive, one trusts the authors and the Fellowship understand their role in making it so—not they alone, again of course, but the vocal evangelical presence in PC(USA) has been at times blatantly graceless, unloving, and divisive. Sadly, vocal progressives have at times given as ill as they received.
Where we again part company is at the point where the Draft's authors state, "We have forgotten the humble recognition that ambiguities exist and must be respected, and now dwell in a land where ambiguities are preferred, and certainties are suspect. We are coached to celebrate diversity of theological conviction, rather than seeing this as a sign of important work yet to be done." That is, we Presbyterians do not humbly acknowledge or respect such ambiguities as do exist but paradoxically prefer ambiguity and uncertainty. Does that make sense? Perhaps from the perspective of some of our evangelical brothers and sisters it does because they undoubtedly feel as though progressives have pursued their agendas in the denomination uncompromisingly, which is true. Vocal progressives have not recognized or respected the ambiguities that many evangelicals feel. But that is also the kettle complaining about the soot on the pots and pans. Both sides of the argument have treated each other in that way.
The charge that must be taken more seriously is the sense that we in PC(USA) prefer ambiguity and are suspicious of certainties. To a degree, I believe that many of us are guilty as charged and with reason. It is the same reason I alluded to in the previous posting, and it has to do with idolatry. For me, personally, faith is not a call to certitude but to trust. I remain firmly convinced that my doubts and uncertainties are an important part of my faith. They keep me from being too self-assured and, at least I hope, from being too self-important. They remind me that I don't have a handle on Jesus and demand humility from me (not that I pay attention to the demand all the time!). There is so much that we cannot understand that doubt and uncertainty are natural to our "epistemological condition." If faith is not ambiguous, it is not faith. We depend on trust because we do not know for sure. Certitude too often leads to arrogance.
And then there is the temper of our postmodern times, which itself has an almost innate mistrust of grand schemes of belief (so-called "meta-narratives") and tends to frown on the very concept of objectivity. I admit to having been "infected" with such inclinations—as are many other progressive Christians. Evangelical Presbyterians, apparently, continue to inhabit a "Newtonian" universe where there is one universal objective truth and where words have basically one meaning for both writers and readers, hence they are able to read the Bible in the way its original authors intended it to be read. In that universe, theology is does not emerge from metaphors but rather is grounded in objective facts.
Progressives and evangelicals inhabit different cognitives universes. And, apparently, never the twain shall meet. The thing that is at the heart of the matter thus is not differences about Christ as real as our differences might be. The heart of the matter is that we really do live in different mental worlds. I'm not sure, however, why that means we can't inhabit the same denomination. I lived for 25 years in a nation, Thailand, and a cognitive universe, Thai culture, not my own. I learned how to live in that universe and to speak its language with some facility. I found it stimulating and challenging to be able to function in a world not my own, and I'm a better person for it. It is ironic that we who share so much in common are so determined to be defeated by our differences in spite of our common faith in Christ.
