The Ethics of Strict Subscription

One of the projects I have been working on is creating a harmony of the Westminster Standards (yes, I know that there are books which have already done this). One of the strengths of the Westminster Catechisms is its inclusion of a significant treatment of the Ten Commandments. The Larger Catechism in particular has extensive reflections on what is required and forbidden in each commandment. Consider the following selections from the Larger Catechism on the ninth commandment, “You shall not bear false witness:”

What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting the truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth…speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging tale bearers, flatterers and slanderers…

What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own, especially in public judicature…raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense…

It was with great distress that I read Mr. Fesko’s review of N. T. Wright’s Romans commentary and theology in the February edition of New Horizons. Aside from the expected challenges to Wright’s view of justification, Mr. Fesko shockingly accused Bishop Wright of Trinitarian heresy. This accusation was met with numerous demonstrations of Wright’s orthodox Trinitarianism, from Wright’s writings and speeches and also the testimony of other respected, Reformed leaders. One of the men cited in support of Dr. Wright’s orthodoxy was Dr. Richard Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary. In the May edition of New Horizons, however, Dr. Gaffin objected to citing his pervious endorsement of Wright’s integrity on the Trinity. Not only did Dr. Gaffin qualify his previous statement and refuse to affirm Wright’s orthodoxy on the Trinity, he went on to question his Christological orthodoxy.

At the core of the debate about the New Perspective in Reformed circles is the Westminster Standards’ perspective on justification, and that espoused by New Perspective authors, especially N. T. Wright. It is clear that significant differences exist between Wright and the Confessions’ stance regarding justification. But, where is the consistency in fighting for Confessional integrity regarding justification in a manner that is in violation of the Catechism’s teaching regarding the ninth commandment? Will those pushing strict subscription be as hawkish to hunt those whose refuse to “preserve and promote the good name of our neighbor” and who are all too willing to “admit of an evil report?” Will Presbyteries be instructed to examine the attitudes of candidates to see if “they sorrow and cover the infirmities of our neighbors, while acknowledging their gifts and graces” along with their views on creation and justification? Will the official publications of the OPC show as much diligence in refusing to “raise false rumors, receive and countenance evil reports and stop our ears against a just defense” as it is in printing articles and reviews critical of the doctrinal faults of others? Strict subscriptionism requires equal diligence in the doctrinal and ethical portions of the Confession. It is all or nothing.

Why Reformed Theology Must Adapt or Become Irrelevant III

A third area where I believe Reformed theology must adapt involves conflict. While the other issues I raised, confessionalism and demographic and cultural diversity, revolve around a resistance to change, I believe this issue confronts a sin cherished in many Reformed institutions. Faced with doctrinal disagreement or diversity, Reformed theology too often refuses to distinguish the doctrines central to the Christian faith, and those expressions, even if not fully clear or precise, do not violate the core tenants of Scripture. When faced with conflict, Reformed theology all to often engages in discussion in a manner not consistent with the Biblical mandate.

The history of Reformed theology, especially during this century, is a history of conflicts. The OPC in particular aptly demonstrates this in its history. The church was born in the fight against false doctrine and errant teaching. Soon after this, a struggle for the identity of the denomination in relation to strict fundamentalism was fought, with the result that biblical liberty prevailed. While these initial conflicts may have been necessary and even commendable, it is not long before Reformed theology turns inward and attacks itself. The vitriolic struggle, continued even today by some, between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark is one of a number of prominent struggles within Reformed theology that have maimed its history. More recently, discussions regarding the number and nature of covenants, the length of the days in Genesis 1 or even preaching style has been the occasion for conflict, waged by some in an uncharitable manner. Most recently, issues surrounding the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision have been the focus of much energy among Reformed churches. While the New Perspective is a wider movement in New Testament theology, the Federal Vision is confined within Reformed theology. The near universal condemnation of these developments have rallied those who not long before were at each other’s throats on other issues. The experience of those who were not long before on the outer fringe of the Reformed consensus has not translated into equitable and Biblical treatment of those who now find themselves on the cold outer fringe. What is particularly disturbing is not so much that the conflict exists, but the manner in which the conflict is being conducted.

Conflict, even intense conflict, is not in itself sinful. But, there are Biblical principles which govern conflict; and when those are violated, sin enters into conflict. The first principle which must govern all conflicts is honesty. We must never be tempted to misrepresent the positions of another. This finds expression not simply in accurate citation, but accurate placement of citation within the author’s overall thought. Once can easily abstract a statement from any author and on that basis question their orthodoxy. Second, we must judge by the proper standards. Ultimately, the standard is the Word of God. However, especially for those within the Reformed tradition, when engaging those outside our tradition, the Westminster Standard is not our starting point; rather, we must begin with the author’s own theological commitments. For an author such as N. T. Wright, this means that we must measure him against the 39 Articles, and not a standard he has not committed himself to teach. Third, we must allow for acceptable divergence within the absolutes set forth in Scripture. Certain doctrines are necessarily accepted by all who would reckon themselves Christians, such as the universal sinfulness of humanity, the death and resurrection of Christ, Jesus as the only way to God and many other similar doctrines. However, not everything that may be true is necessary. I am convinced that paedobaptism is Biblical, yet failure to affirm this doctrine does not result in damnation. While discussion on disputed points should continue and agreement should be sought; we must clearly distinguish these peripheral areas from those central to Christian doctrine. Fourth, we must be wise to determine what is a “wise” conflict. Paul consistently advises Timothy to “avoid foolish controversies.” How many prominent leaders in Reformed theology heed this apostolic command? Many of the debates which scar our history would have been avoided had this advice been followed. Fifth, love must override and govern all conflict. Our goal is never to win an argument, but to defend and promote the honor of Christ and the health of his body. When one must engage in conflict, love and concern for the other individual and their spiritual concern must guide the interactions.

The dictum attributed to Augustine is as necessary today as it was when it was first uttered, "In essentials- unity; in nonessentials- liberty; in all things- charity." May God grant us the discernment and the ability to apply this to the issues of the day.

Why Reformed Theology Must Adapt or Become Irrelevant II

A couple months I began some thoughts on the current state of reformed theology, and particularly areas where it must adapt if it is to remain a vibrant and relevant expression of the Christian faith. This post is my second on this theme.

One of the basic principles guiding the “mega-church” movement is homogeneity. For many churches, homogeneity is a deliberate strategy and goal, for many Reformed churches, homogeneity is a reality. The vast majority of American Reformed and Presbyterian churches are primarily white, middle-class, cultured English-speakers. While homogeneity may be a sociological phenomenon and a desired result for some churches, stagnation in this state is a failure in realizing the identity and mission of the church.

I am happy to say, I am a member of a church which attempts to break the standard reformed sociological straightjacket with a significant Hispanic ministry, and have had the privilege of serving another groundbreaking church in Camden, New Jersey. Sadly, churches such as these are the exceptions, and true anomalies within the broader Reformed community. The OPC as a whole has a small but significant outreach into the Spanish culture in the United States, which really excited me. Yet there are numerous other American sub-cultures, African-American, the urban poor or younger individuals, which have had no significant contact or outreach by Reformed churches. Unless Reformed theology desires to remain an insignificant fringe movement in the American church, it must deliberately find means to interact with and influence the existent American society.

Perhaps the greatest reason for the sociological isolation of Reformed theology is its cultural history. Reformed theology and Presbyterianism in America are closely connected with Dutch and Scottish cultures, and continue this connection today. In terms of missions and growth, Reformed theology is having a significant impact in Africa and Korea, yet in America it struggles reaching out beyond its own cultural tradition. Perhaps this is because much of the expressions and forms used in Reformed churches have appeal only to a particular sub-culture. The singing of metrical hymns may be a rich part of the Presbyterian heritage and a great contribution to the history of liturgy, yet it has little appeal for others. Responsive readings from Scripture and from historic creeds and confessions has little impact on a larger culture struggling with literacy. Are we as Reformed churches willing to lay aside out liturgical history in order to connect meaningfully with our culture?

A second contribution to Reformed theologies lack of wider cultural influence is its close identification with a particular subculture. It is commendable that the preaching of the Word, pure and simple, forms the center of the service in Reformed churches. Biblically, this is the way it must be. However, in many churches the sermons are geared towards a small minority of the possible listening audience. Much of the language used in the sermon is well-suited for the churched and the theologically astute. Many times, sermons are rich with information to feed the mind, but poor with food to nourish the soul. Further, many churches in the Reformed tradition balk at the idea of a primarily evangelistic sermon. If this pattern continues, will Reformed churches grow beyond their own borders into an increasingly alien culture? Other forms used in worship likewise contribute to the alienation of much of the wider population. Worship wars generally rage around issues of instrumentation and style of music. By and large, as is evident by looking at the “official” songbooks of most Reformed congregations, a traditional and high-culture orientation is the norm. But does the average Reformed orientation connect with the average American? Does music more familiar to listeners of Public Radio have much connection with the average American listening to the Top 40’s on the radio? Like other Evangelical churches, but perhaps to a greater degree, Reformed churches struggle with retaining their youth not only in the church but the faith. Considering Reformed theology’s view of covenant children, this is not simply a misfortune, but a grave catastrophe. Does the musical choices of a congregation contribute the loss of the church’s youth? I am sure I am not alone in feeling the disconnect between the music style on I participate in on Sunday and the music I listen to the rest of the week. Is it possible that these and other accidental elements of the service, slavishly held on to, contribute to the alienation many young people feel about their church, and their faith? Shall we commit ourselves to a high-culture orientation at the cost of the church’s youth?

A third reason for the isolation of the Reformed community is its attention to matters of doctrine. Doctrinal purity and concern is a great strength, but any strength can become a weakness when abused. Reformed theology does well in fulfilling the Great Commissions’ mandate to make disciples by teaching them to observe all of Jesus commandments, but less so on the “going.” While there will always be dissatisfied Baptists and other evangelicals who trickle into a Reformed church; cross border growth is not viable growth option. Reformed theology must find a way to communicate meaningfully with the “man on the street,” and not only those making the journey into Calvinism. In order for Reformed theology to connect with the “man on the street”, we must not practice theology in a vacuum. Are we are Reformed churches willing to spend less time quibbling about the mechanics of justification and more time considering, by the light of Scripture, the struggles of fallen men and women in a fallen world? Will our study committees and our General Assemblies condemn social injustice and racism as strongly as it does certain movements in Reformed theology and New Testament Studies? Will we spend as much time considering how to meaningfully minister in Christ’s name to the urban poor, the immigrants (legal or otherwise) and the developmentally disabled as we spend considering who can do what and say what in a service?

Reformed theology has much to offer a church needing reform and a world needing a redeemer. Will we be those who hoard these riches for ourselves, or are we willing to do everything we can to share these riches with those who need them?