Reformed Unity #2: The Boundaries of Reformed Orthodoxy
What does it mean to be "Reformed"? What beliefs are an essential part of being Reformed? Infant baptism? Lord's Day observance? Limited Atonement? The Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?
This is a significant question for me, since next month I will be making vows, and promising to maintain and defend the Church's "subordinate standard," which is the "Westminster Confession of Faith, as amended by the General Assembly, and read in the light of the Declaratory Statement contained in the Basis of Union." As I have mentioned before, this Declaratory Statement allows for liberty of opinion "matters in the subordinate standard not essential to the doctrine therein taught."
Do we interpret the "essential matters" as "Reformed theology" Is it the same as the "system of doctrine", as in the ordination vows of the Presbyterian Church in America? (According to that church's Book of Church Order, candidates do not need to affirm "every statement and/or proposition of doctrine" in the WCF but affirm that they "sincerely receive and adopt" the WCF "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.") Or does the reference to "matters" rather than "doctrines" mean that ministers need to hold to every doctrine in the WCF?
Well, it is important that we allow a broad spectrum in our church. God has designed the church to consist of a people of diversity backgrounds and personalities, and holding to different priorities and emphases. We need people of all types in the church, and a certain amount of doctrinal diversity is healthy. The problem is, of course, determining that amount.
The reason why I mention the Presbyterian Church in America is that Tim Keller has written a great article on that church's original "contract" – diversity was allowed on eschatology, days of creation and the Sabbath, but not on Reformed soteriology, "soft" cessationism or women's ordination. But of course this makes the Presbyterian Church in America far too conservative for some, and far too liberal for others. Of course, if we imagine the Reformed faith as a spectrum, we always tend to place ourselves in the middle, and draw comfort from the fact that there are people on either side of us.
One way in which the spectrum might operate is at the level of cultural engagement. As Christians we are called to be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. The Neocalvinists tend to emphasise being in the world, while what I call the the "Neopuritans" (best represented by the Banner of Truth) tend to emphasise not being of the world. But understand this – the Reformed umbrella is able to contain many sub-groups. Both Neocalvinism and Neopuritanism form a vital part of the Reformed faith. And despite what a bunch of guys say, so does the Federal Vision.
(Post a new comment)
 |
(Anonymous)
2007-11-07 08:59
(link) |
Is our Church mature to the point that it can cope with a bit of doctrinal diversity? Rather than fragmenting further, I believe we as a denomination could profit by examining ways in which we can eventually achieve institutional unity with other Christian churches. There seems to be a fairly healthy amount of postmillenial eschatology floating about in the church these days. I wonder if it occurs to those who are so inclined that institutional unity of Christian Churches is indispensible to a realisation of the hope of a Christian future for the world? I can envision a model of a unified Church that allows member Churches considerable lattitude. In fact, I don't know that it is a good idea to remain bound to the WCF indefinitely, even with a declaratory statement that provides a bit of flexibility. Maybe we can look at something more general, like the ecumenical creeds? Surely, a coming together of the historic Churches under such an umbrella would be healthy? Any comments John? Or anybody else? I am happy to be bombarded if anyone so desires.
Regards.
George(Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2007-11-08 19:08
(link) |
are you talking about your licensing here, John? Where is that happening - in your Tasmanian presbytery or up here in a Victorian one? I'd be interested in the details if you don't mind posting them. (I might come if its in Melbourne, even though I think that licensing services are pretty tedious on the whole - I don't see why it has to be a service - men could be licensed at a presbytery meeting, which is after all a public meeting... they are like feeble imitations of Ordinations without half of the good bits)
The subscription formula we use here seems to me to have built-in a fair bit of wiggle-room - which is probably a good thing. Perhaps the vows boil down to Q"Do you, like, quite like the vibe of the WCF and promise not to go around dissing it?" - A"Yes" Q"Welcome to the team". I exaggerate for comic effect - I'm sure they mean more than that.
- ben p(Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2007-11-08 23:56
(link) |
thanks John -
good to hear that the Tasmanians have more sensible practices - hope you enjoy your license trials (which for those who don't know the system, involves preaching at a regular church service (usually) which includes a number of members of an assessment panel, who assess your sermon and talk to you afterwards - lesser men than JD might find it a bit nerve-wracking...)
bp(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2007-11-09 00:09
(link) |
It certainly is interesting that the conservative reformed tent contains the first two groups mentioned in your final paragraph. I value both approaches and believe that they both contribute very valuable things to a denomination - they are certainly both contained in the presbyterian church of victoria - though a large number of our ministers would fall somewhere between the two. The only thing that worries me about some on the pietistic wing is that they draw the circle so tightly around themselves - if you're not quite 'one of them' they don't have much time for you - and I say this as someone who likes to use the word 'pious' as a complement. As for the Federal Vision, maybe those guys, who have after all only discovered their approach in the last 20 years or so, are not destined to remain in our tent at all - they might do a Robert Sungenis... Don't they sometimes remind you of the Tractarians, who went to such lengths to prove that the 39 Articles of the Church of England could be interpreted in an Anglo-Catholic way?
bp
(Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Keep It Up
(Anonymous)
2007-11-18 22:38
(link) |
John,
I hope that all goes well at trials. I like that historic term which is not used in the US. It has the sense of some sort athletic competition.
Also, please do keep on discussing reformed unity. My wife and I have been enjoying discussing this topic. I found Tim Keller's letter quite stimulating and thought provoking. We both just finished it. As members in one of the smaller, more conservative reformed churches here in the US the points brought up by Tim Keller need to be contented with and addressed head on.
All the best to you,
Vincent Skwarek(Reply to this) (Thread) |
(Post a new comment)
|
