We come now to the Draft's proposals for a way forward based on its concerns about the current theological and confessional state of the PC(USA), which the authors of the Draft do not see as good to say the least. In the last half of the last chapter of the Draft, entitled, "Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration," the authors propose that it is now time to reengage in "theological work." This reengagement will require sustained conversations, prayer, rigorous study of Scripture, a willingness to listen "to the voice of the church around the world and through the ages," and reliance on theological wisdom. The Draft proposes that "we" (who this "we" is not clearly stated) form "theological friendships" among elders and clergy, ones that will provide mutual assistance and accountability in carrying out needed theological work. These friendships need to be deep, sustained, and broad.
All of this sounds anywhere from interesting to helpful to verging on exciting. The Draft even proposes that Fellowship Presbyterians make use of an emerging program in the PC(USA) called, "A Pastoral Rule," as a tool for developing sustained theological friendships. And it concludes by suggesting three "theological projects" that the Fellowship should engage in: (1) make a renewed commitment to a "particular confessional heritage"; (2) identify & affirm the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith; and (3) make a commitment to "re-engaging the theological enterprise broadly and deeply."
The tone of this concluding section is generally inclusive, but what is not clear is inclusive of whom. Indeed, as I think about the whole Draft it seems to reflect a mixture of values and perspectives that are not classically evangelical, at least not rigorously so. It is telling of this mixed presentation that one of the three authors of the Draft, Joe Small, is a mainstream Presbyterian who has no intention of going off into another denomination (see installment iv). Thus, sometimes the Draft comes across as "hardcore" evangelical and sometimes it comes across as seriously "ecumenical". Parts of it seem to beckon a response from those of us who are not self-styled evangelicals, but parts of it seem almost antagonistic. And, in fact, the proposals contained in this last section of the Draft are ones that the whole denomination would do well to consider. The discussion questions contained in the Addendum (p. 11) are very good ones and worthy of a good deal of dialogue in search of answers.
In the end, however, any attempt to talk across the boundaries of our self-styled theologies using the Draft as a means for such a dialogue is problematic at best. It comes back to the central concern expressed in the Draft in several places that there be a theological consensus that exhibits the Reformed heritage—a consensus that is rigorous and affirmed by all who are involved in the process of seeking that consensus. The Draft's proposed theological friendships are apparently friendships within a theological faction of the denomination rather than friendships formed across the boundaries of such factions. We catch a hint that the friendships are so limited in the list of goals for theological friendships (page 10), item c.(3), which says that the friendships should include a "breadth of participants" from "other orthodox and evangelical theological traditions." Now, one must say immediately that the list does not exclude anyone and that item (d) calls for these theological friendships to "engage other theological fellowships, thus forming broadening communities," which suggests broadly drawn boundaries. Still, apparently, those who are worthy of inclusion in the formation of theological friendships are those who are orthodox and evangelical. At the end of the day, the Draft's (and our denomination's) heritage of dissension and conflict suggests that Fellowship Presbyterians are seeking to build their theological relationships within the circle of evangelicals. Progressives, certainly, need not apply.
Fair enough. We can appreciate the heart-felt need to work on matters of faith & theology with others who share the same general perspective, especially when the goal is to define core or essential tenets. It may well prove, however, a more difficult process than Fellowship Presbyterians realize. They could well find is that they can't come to the desired consensus and that different individuals, all self-professed evangelicals, will take different stands on the essentials to the point that the process breaks down because it is based on "discussions, deliberations, and debate" rather than dialogue (see installment iii). Or it could happen that what comes out at the end is so broad and watered down as to carry little weight. The sad truth is that evangelicals often fight among themselves as intensely as they fight with the rest of us. The drive for theological consensus inherently builds walls and creates still smaller factions within factions.
Let me conclude with one other concern, one that I have voiced earlier in these postings (see installment iv). "Theological work" is a good thing, and it is important. There is very little chance, however, that it will lead to the kind of church renewal that mainline churches of all stripes need today. However hard Fellowship pastors work at it, only a fraction of their membership is going to become theologically articulate. Many more will not be interested or not have the time or not be intellectually inclined in the way required for theological literacy. Furthermore, theologically rigorous Reformed preaching is not going to communicate across the boundaries of America's growing secularity. Reformed theology requires an arcane language especially if it is going to be based on historical confessions, which themselves speak to the needs and issues of other times and places. I'm sure that Fellowship churches plan to do much more than engage in discovering a theological consensus and build theological friendships, and their hope will be in those other things—not in the theological work. It's a dead end street in and of itself.
There is little question about it. Once the Fellowship of Presbyterians creates its "new Reformed body," and numbers of clergy, laity, and whole churches break away entirely from PC(USA)—once this happens what will be left is a still weaker PC(USA) and yet another smallish new Presbyterian denomination that may grow for a time as it pulls members from the old denomination and in its initial enthusiasm attracts some others. In the long run, however, the "winner" is America's growing secularity. While creeping secularism saps the life from congregations across the nation (and especially here in the Northeast), we Presbyterians seem bent on expending great amounts of energy on fighting amongst ourselves. The establishment of yet another denomination only encourages the decline of our shared faith. That is to say that the Draft and its call for a return to the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition is actually complicit in weakening the whole Body of Christ and its ability to discover new directions for a new age. I can only add with all due humility that it is not alone in its complicity.
