Reflections on a Draft Theology (ix)

This is the ninth 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.

The concluding subsections of Section III of the Draft, "Essentials of the Reformed Tradition," under "Essential Tenets" points to both the possibilities of and obstacles to dialogue between the self-styled evangelical and progressive wings of the church.  Those subsections include: C, "Covenant life in the church," D, "Faithful stewardship of all of life," and E, "Living in obedience to the Word of God."  Let's take the obstacles first.  These subsections twice touch on the question of homosexuality by defining the God-created relationships we should live in as being between men and women and by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The definition of marriage appears in the Draft's commentary on the Ten Commandments (in Section E, "Living in obedience to the Word of God"), which do not themselves actually so define marriage.  The Commandments merely charge us to not commit adultery or to covet our neighbor's wife.  Homosexuality,in any event, is the latest issue we fight about and walk away from each other over.  And that's the one clear obstacle between us, at least so far as these three subsections are concerned.  There are other points over which to dialogue, again especially the Draft's very low view of humanity.  But the one clear obstacle to  dialogue (and, apparently, reconciliation) is the possibility that homosexuals can be ordained in the PC(USA).

On the other hand, there is much that unites us.  In the second paragraph of subsection C, for example, the Draft eloquently affirms diversity in humanity and the church as being created in us by God.  In subsection D, the Draft affirms the right of women to full participation in "all ministries of the Church."  In subsection E, the Draft's brief commentary on the Ten Commandments, mentioned above, contains some very good commentary.  I, personally, find its description of the Sixth Commandment particularly apt.  It states that those adhering to the Draft will hold each other accountable to, "eradicate a spirit of anger, resentment, violence, or bitterness, and instead cultivate a spirit of gentleness, kindness, pace, and love."  If Presbyterians of various persuasions had treated each other by this principle, our present would have looked very different from what it does today.  In general, there is very little with which I would argue in these three sections and much that I would affirm without reservation.

Indeed, that fact suggests an important reason why the separatist faction of the Fellowship seems bent on forming yet another Reformed denomination rather than hooking up with one of the more conservative ones that many individual disaffected PC(USA) churches have joined in the past.  The hardcore evangelicals, the ones who cannot abide the ordination of women, for example, have already left PC(USA), most of them long ago.  Those who are going to leave now, apparently, have "bought into" a less absolutist expression of evangelical faith, one that allows for more diversity and even for embracing elements, notably women's ordination, that are clearly prohibited by a literalist reading of the Bible.  Were it not for the ordination of homosexuals....  But, that is today's hot button, we will not tolerate dissenting views issue—for progressives as well as evangelicals.

One wonders what those of us who are left will argue about next.  One wonders what those who leave will find to fight about after they leave.  Oh well.

---

The final paragraph of the chapter on essential tenets (p. 9) merits a special note.  It reads,

In Jesus Christ we see the perfect expression of God’s holy will for human beings offered to God in our place. His holy life must now become our holy life. in Christ, God’s will is now written on our hearts, and we look forward to the day when we will be so confirmed in holiness that we will no longer be able to sin. As the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, Jesus leads us along the path of life toward that goal, bringing us into ever deeper intimacy with the Triune God, in whose presence is fullness of joy.

 OK.  Yes.  But I would like to suggest another of my "minor" adjustments, this time to the words "perfect" and "perfecter of our faith."  The concept of "perfection" has nothing to do with our human experience other than the fact that there is no such thing as "perfect" in our real world.  God, again as best I can tell on the basis of the process of creation as we know it to be through science, doesn't create perfect things but, rather, things laden with potential and programmed to evolve.  I would thus like to suggest as an alternative reading, first, "In Jesus Christ we see the full expression of God's holy will..."  Those for whom "full" means perfect can read it in that way.  Those for whom "full" means that God has set Christ as guidepost of the direction in which we are headed can read "full" in that way.  In place of "perfecter of our faith," I would suggest "model of our faith" for much the same reasons.  And I would thus whole-heartedly agree that Jesus leads us into a future just as the Draft states it.  Our faith can never be perfect so long as we are human so Jesus as "perfecter" of our faith points to something we cannot attain, namely perfect faith.  As the "model" for our faith, Jesus sets before us a goal, a direction that one day by the grace of God we just might attain—and we will call it the Kingdom of God.

This isn't just playing with words.  Perfection is a trap.  Fullness is a hope.  Amen.

Reflections on a Draft Theology (viii)

This is the eighth 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.

In the last posting in this series (vii), I was working on Section III of the Draft, "Essentials of the Reformed Tradition," which is in the chapter on essential tenets.  Where the draft states that "since the fall our natural tendency" is toward evil, apparently total and complete, I argued that it should drop "natural" and state merely that we have a tendency toward evil.  Our God-given natural inclination, I argued, is toward goodness.  Admittedly, our evil tendencies frequently (one might even say "habitually") and tragically overshadow our good inclinations.  I particularly, however, objected to the sweeping claim in that section that humanity "prefers" evil.  That is by no means uniformly and universally the case.

Reading on in the draft in that same section, we are told that the consequences of our rebellion against God are "everlasting death."  Sin touches every part of human life (this is true, obviously), and what we take to be "natural" no longer "corresponds to God's will (true, but not entirely so).  Our rebellion so stains us as to render us helpless.  We depend on God's undeserved grace.  The Draft marches on with such sentiments to the conclusion that, "In union with Christ through the power of the Spirit we are brought into right relation with the Father, who receives us as his adopted children."  The crucial factor here is the identity of the "us".  "We" are those who are united to Christ's humanity by the Holy Spirit in baptism in such away that Christ's victory over death is also "ours".  In other words, baptized Christians are freed from the sentence of eternal death that hangs over the rest of humanity.  Only "we" can become the adopted children of God, and Christ is the "only Way to this adoption."

This is one of the points on which evangelicals and progressives simply do not agree.  Evangelicals tend to privilege a narrower reading of some parts of scripture and thus insist on an exclusive view of salvation.  Only those who profess a a true faith in Christ and are baptized may be saved.  Different evangelicals will draw the boundaries of salvation in somewhat different ways, but by-and-large those who call themselves evangelicals will agree that only Christians can be saved from eternal damnation.  There are many of us outside of the fold, however, who read the same passages and stories that the evangelicals read, but we come to very different conclusions.  As best as I can tell this is not really a matter that can be decided "reasonably."  Each "side" finds the reasoning of the other flawed.  We begin at different points in our thinking and inevitably arrive at different conclusions, and all too frequently we simply cannot honor the thinking of the other "side."

The thing that I find difficult as a progressive is that once I have stated that I do not believe that salvation is limited to Christians, the run-of-the-mill evangelical places me in the category of those who are beyond the pale of salvation.  There seems to be no room for discussion let alone dialogue, which is not surprising because exclusivist thinking assumes a dualistic, black and white world view.  One is either right or wrong.  One is either on God's side or not.  There are no gray areas.  That is why still more evangelicals are planning to depart the PC(USA).  The decision to no longer tie ordination to sexual orientation has for them placed the whole denomination beyond the pale.  We are wrong on homosexuality, so dualist thinking runs, and therefore we are wrong.  Period.  We are faithless.  Period.  We dishonor God.  Period.  We "play games" with scripture.  Period.

When I read the teachings of Christ, however, the God that I meet there is the one who takes our burdens on himself, who celebrates the return of the prodigal (without any hint of damning the prodigal if he doesn't "return"), and who has a heart for lepers, prostitutes, women, tax collectors, and other marginalized peoples.  Jesus built bridges to others, witness the Samaritan woman at the well, rather than walls between people.  The judgment Christ proclaimed in Matthew 25 doesn't divide us by religious persuasion but rather by our compassion for those in need.  I understand that there are other passages that can be read in other ways, but as best as I can understand these things a non-dualistic, inclusive, universal reading of the New Testament is the one most faithful to Christ.  As best I understand these things.

This is discouraging.  I do not understand the mentality of those who hold to absolutism, exclusivism, and dualism.  And it is clear that "they" don't understand the mentality of those of us who hold to non-dualism, pluralism, and relativism.  Indeed, for each side the words that describe the other side are almost anathema.  Understanding that  I have been and still am part of the problem, I really do wish we could find a way to build bridges across these walls, but it is so rare that we do that I have little hope that it could actually happen—at least in PC(USA) in the next couple of years.

What is really sad is that instead of being an answer to the deep distrust rife in our nation today because of the culture wars we in the church are serious players in those wars.  The whole church is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, which surely puts all of us—progressives as well as evangelicals—at odds with the superintending work of the Spirit, which works for reconciliation, healing, and renewal.  Perhaps, however, we should take heart in Gabriel's statement to Mary when she objected that she couldn't birth a son because she was a virgin.  Gabe reminded Mary that with God all things are possible—and maybe that even includes reconciliation, healing, and renewal among Christians of differing persuasions.  Someday.  One only wonders if we will wait until we have become  a small, irrelevant remnant of a religion before that day, someday.