We Protestants have inherited from the Reformation the very praise-worthy desire to be continually about the work of reforming our churches to bring them into line with the Scriptures. That covers all sorts of areas of church life - liturgical, ethical, governmental. It also covers, I take it, theology. We want to be continually examining our doctrine in the light of Scripture, and we certainly intend to be prepared to change our doctrine to conform it more closely to the word of God.
On the other hand, we have inherited from the period directly after the Reformation the praise-worthy desire to defend the gospel from attack and misunderstanding. It is to this desire that we owe our great confessions, documents designed to set out the truth in summary form. These documents to a certain extent codify what is to be believed if one is to be considered faithful to the gospel.
It is not hard to see how these two desires could come into conflict. What happens when you become convinced that the 'traditional' way of expressing things is not entirely in line with Scripture? The great confessional statements very easily become badges of identity and litmus tests of 'soundness' - to the point where simply using different words (even if in material agreement) can place someone beyond the pale.
How do we make semper reformanda a reality in the realm of doctrine without cutting loose and letting anyone say what they want? How do we maintain confessional standards without shutting ourselves off from the word of God?
Important stuff isn't it?!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a small part of the answer is in regulating the way in which confessions function within a denomination or circle of fellowship. I'm pretty much against rigid subscription and in favour of substantial subscription.
This demands all the necessary and right relational work and time in understanding each other's positions, and might avoid falling out over differences in language where substantial agreement is there.
In addition, even where sibstantial departure from a confessional standard exists, there should be latitude for decisions to be made over just how much this difference in substance matters.
I know in some reformed/ presbyterian denominations in the states this is how the Westminster standards functions. Candidates for ministry register their departures from the standards with their presbytery, who have to make decisions about how much this matters. Obviously, such a system is open to mistakes and to abuse like anything else, but I think it adds a useful fluidity without being relativism. It also allows for there to be a time when the majority of ministers disagree with a part of a confessional standard, and everyone knows about it, and it's all fine.
That does sound like a good arrangement. Of course, there will come a point where you just have to revise your standards - I guess there should be a mechanism for that.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you emphasise that this has to be done in relationship: I think a lot of the trouble with confessions arises when they're used outside of close, godly relationships with other believers/groups of believers.
A combination of doctrinal statements and relationships would seem to be good. Too far one way without the other isn't going to work, but with both...
ReplyDelete" I'm pretty much against rigid subscription and in favour of substantial subscription."
ReplyDeleteBut I have often found that, having submitted, in time all doctrines fall into place, and truths and connections one would otherwise never given time for, are revealed. If men and women cannot assent, let us instruct!
But I do think latitude important, and despise excommunication (except for out-and-out heretics and rebels).
Traditionally, Anglican ministers would lop off the relevant buttons on their 39-buttoned cassocks to let all know.
"How do we make semper reformanda a reality in the realm of doctrine without cutting loose and letting anyone say what they want? How do we maintain confessional standards without shutting ourselves off from the word of God?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to, actually ... if and when confessional hermeneutics (i.e. Scripture conforming to the confessions) reaches its "limits", there ought to be a revitalisation in the use confessions by reversing the approach, i.e. "turning the confessions around" to conform to Scripture (and perhaps pre-scholastic orthodoxy - first generation Reformers, especially true in Lutheranism). In other words, the confessions themselves shouldn't be problematic as these are not meant as revisionists would have it - historical documents, but essentially a-historical documents intended to be applied everywhere, in all place and received by everyone.
The problem in much of the Reformation communion these days is revisionism whether in the shape of neo-legalism (neonomism)prevalent in the Reformed tradition or "deification" as promoted within the Finnish school of the Lutheran tradition, etc. In short, justification by faith apart from the works of the Law is re-defined to include the Law. In any case, justification coram deo therefore is a movement towards heaven. This represents a complete reversal of the Incarnation and Atonement, which is God's movement towards mankind. Hence, grace is just an anti-Pelagian "codicil".
ReplyDelete