There are good and bad ways to seek church unity.
One bad way is is not to seek it at all, to give up on the project. I think that a lot of people who would say they are still working for unity have really embraced this option. We've been in the Age of Denominationalism (I put the beginning marker at about 1690) for so long that most of us have gotten used to it and don't really believe things could ever change fundamentally before the end of the world. We look around us and see all of the different churches with their myriad of sometimes large, sometimes extremely tiny but apparently non-negotiable differences, and we feel that the task is hopeless before, perhaps, the time of the millennium (when that will be being one of the differences). For example, is it really realistic to think the exclusive psalmodists and the hymn-singers will ever manage to come to an agreement? Really, no matter how much both sides might speak of being concerned with truth and being open to correction from the Bible, isn't everybody really just too biased and comfortable to ever expect any widespread change? Well, my answer is, I have no idea. Humans are humans, and they do tend to be extremely stubborn about such things. On the other hand, hopefully some of us are actually regenerate and really do care about truth to some degree, and perhaps we really could learn something new and admit that we are wrong if that turns out to be the case. Perhaps we could come to see ending the Age of Denominationalism as more important than holding on to some tradition that we really like and feel comfortable with but which really can't be defended biblically.
I truly believe that if we really wanted to, if we really cared, if we really put in the effort necessary, we could end the differences within Christianity on a widespread scale within a few months. The reason this hasn't happened, I believe, is ultimately because we aren't really trying. And perhaps we're not trying partly because we've convinced ourselves we can't do it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. We really need to snap out of it. Is the Bible clear, or at least sufficiently clear so that, with reasonable effort, we can understand what God is trying to teach us through it? Well then, we should be able to do this, shouldn't we? I think so. Instead of looking at denominational division as a permanent, unavoidable state of affairs we must live with, let's start looking at it as a temporary problem to be solved and which can be solved within a reasonable period of time, and then let's start acting accordingly and do what we need to do to solve it.
Of course, some other people are quite convinced denominationalism can be solved, but their method of going about solving it is unbiblical. I speak of those who would bring about the merging of denominations through a watering down of distictives due to apathy about those distinctives. Now, if our distinctives are not biblical, we should stop caring about them--indeed, we should reject them. But what I'm talking about is the downplaying of biblical distinctives, as if unity is the only real goal and who cares what that unity is really based in or if it requires us to abandon aspects of the whole counsel of God. This is unacceptable and unbiblical. We do not have license to compromise on anything God has taught or commanded us, no matter how comparatively minor it might seem (Luke 16:10, Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 11:42).
But if we're all going to insist on being completely biblical, and we're not going to connive at any systematic, constitutional departure from the whole counsel of God, doesn't that doom us to never being able to end denominationalism? How in the world could we ever get all Christians to agree on everything in the Bible?! Well, we probably won't ever manage that, even on the most optimistic appraisal. After all, not all professing Christians are real Christians, and even real Christians are still beset by sin. But, as I said above, I think that if we stop complaining about how impossible the task is and actually try to work at it as if it could be done, I think we would find it is much more doable than it may appear. It reminds me of junior high or high school students complaining about doing certain math problems (I ought to know, as I was certainly one of these!). "It's impossible!" they cry. "I'll never be able to do this!" Of course, if they stop complaining and work at it, before too long they'll find they can do it after all, and it doesn't end up being nearly as hopeless as it seemed at first. I think the same thing is true here. We just need to stop defeating ourselves before we even begin, and we need to patiently apply ourselves to the task until it is done.
But we do need a method. We need a plan for how we can go about efficiently dealing with our differences and trying to overcome them. So here's some thoughts on that:
Before my thoughts will be understandable, you need to understand my ideas on church unity, presbyterian church government, and the implications of denominational separation. If you aren't at all familiar with them, you can find those thoughts (among other places) here, here, and here. Actually, you really only need to read the first article, as the others merely expand on things mentioned there (as does this article).
So here's a systematic method for resolving denominational differences:
1. First of all, figure out which denomination you think is the right denomination to join. You're going to want to look at things from the perspective of that denomination. For me, it is the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS).
2. Once you know from which denomination you are viewing things, pick some other denomination. For example, I might pick the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC). It would be good to first focus on denominations that are closest to our own positions, and then move out from there. I put forward the FCC because that may be the closest denomination to the FPCS.
3. Now, investigate that denomination, including probably talking to people and authorities in it. Ask them why they aren't joining your denomination. Ask them what is keeping them from doing so. Perhaps they will respond by simply saying, "Because I don't want to," but hopefully they will give you some substantial thoughts regarding why the two denominations are separate, and concerns they have about your denomination. I have phrased things the way I have--"Why aren't you joining my denomination?"--because my assumption is that you are part of the denomination you are part of for substantial reasons, because you believe it has a right to separate existence. If that is true, then it is appropriate for you to approach the other denomination with some confidence in your own position (though without behaving cockily, of course--and being willing to respond to their questions to you as well). Asking this sort of question will help produce a list of things that are keeping the denominations apart.
4. Next, go through the list you got from #3 and systematically discuss each issue, dialoguing to reach an agreement. Your list might include historical issues--such as, "I don't join your denomination because I think it came into being schismatically and needs to repent." In those cases, your dialogue will involve an examination of the historical issues with the goal of reaching agreement on them. For example, the FPCS and the FCC disagree about whether or not the FPCS should have left the earlier Free Church in 1893 or whether they should rather have remained seven years longer and come out with the group that became the modern Free Church. So my conversation with my FCC interlocutor will involve questions such as, "Was the 1893 FP split justified?" This is important, because if that split was justified, it is evident that the FP church has a higher historical claim to have a right to separate existence, since the modern Free Church came into separate existence after the FPs did. So if both denominations are exactly the same in every other way (which is not quite the case), the default goes to the FPs and the FCC ought to see its separate existence as schismatic. If I and my FCC correspondent could agree on this, the conversation would then be over.
Your list will likely include doctrinal issues as well. In these cases, of course what you will want to do is sit down and go through those issues one by one to see whose views are more biblical. For example, say you disagree about the celebration of extra-biblical holy days. Well then, the question will be, "Is it biblically justifiable for the church to incorporate such celebrations in its ongoing worship? Does this violate the regulative principle?" Each question you look at might raise other questions which also have to be looked at. Just keep at it systematically until you've gone through what needs to be gone through. The temptation will be to give up because it seems too hard, or to get frustrated with each other, or to pull out oneself if things get uncomfortable. Well, don't do those things. Keep at it with honesty and systematic-ness.
5. Once you've gone through everything and reached agreement on each point, the two of you (assuming a conversation of two here) will be ready to join in full communion. Either he will join with you, or you will join with him, or some other option, and you will agree on what needs to be done. If we will all follow this sort of pattern on our own, in conversation with friends and others in other denominations, in larger groups (but they must be strict about not getting off track in any way), etc., I believe that we will largely end denominationalism within a relatively short period of time. We won't fully end it, for undoubtedly there will always be those who simply won't be able to go along with where things lead for various reasons, but we will be far, far, more unified than we are now, and that unity will provide pressure for further unity and unification efforts, and it will strengthen the proper denomination and weaken the others. We may find that the schismatic denominations will quickly wither away once those who care about truth in the midst of them move off to a better denomination and they are left nearly only with those who don't really care about truth. They will probably liberalize at an accelerated rate and blow up before too long, and this too will aid church unity.
I think part of what holds back church unity is the sense that it should never have to involve any of us having to simply leave our current denominations. We imagine we should be able to stay where we are and just come together with other denominations. But unless every single person in all the schismatic denominations decides to abandon his wrong choice of denomination, this is not going to happen. If unity is to be sought, we all, as individuals (or smaller groups), must decide to do the right thing whether all of our denominational companions agree or not. If there are enough people who agree they should leave their denomination, perhaps they may have enough power to vote the denomination into an agreed merger with the proper denomination, but this will not always happen. I think we have a duty, when it is possible without shirking other duties, to leave schismatic denominations and to join the proper denomination, perhaps sometimes after a reasonable, limited time spent trying to convince others to join with us. A lack of willingness to consider that this course of action will be right and necessary sometimes will hinder unity.
So does all this sound naive? I understand. But I really don't think it is. Again, if we believe that God has been successful in communcating to us a Word that can be understood, and if we approach that Word and all the issues that cause division honestly and with full and proper care, we should be able to do this. With God's grace, I think we can, and we don't need to wait for the millennium (and without God's grace it will never happen to all eternity). Let's commit to doing our part to end the Age of Denominationalism within this century. The biggest, most difficult obstacle to overcome will not be any particular historical or doctrinal issue we may need to deal with. The biggest obstacle will be overcoming our own bad attitudes and committing ourselves truly to do our duty, putting it before our personal preferences and prejudices whatever forms they may take.
Posts
Earendel at Epiphany
3 years ago
9 comments:
Hi MArk,
Interesting thoughts. My own view is that until Scottish Presbyterians collectively repent of their tribalism our denominationalism will continue to be a problem. We are characterised by an "us and them" mentality. All other Presbyterians are too often just that, other. More to be berated than loved. We have lost our sense of the oneness of the body of Christ. We focus on and trumpet our distinctives and are too happy to draw the world's attention to each other's failings. Simply put, we are a mess. And until we all repent in seriousness for our own parts in it then we cannot expect God to bless us with unity.
I would observe that your methodology would lead to a serious destablisation of the Church polity in Scotland. That may be a good thing or it may be confusion. My concern would be that, while it is necessary for individuals to prayerfully consider these issues, it is impractical for everyone to pursue the procedure you outlined. Time and access to authority figures would militate against most of us. There must be a place for the denominations themselves to pursue unity at the synod/presbytery level. Leaving denominations to go rogue does not seem wise to me.
You say that there must be one denomination with an uncontestable claim. What if there isn't?
Hi Donald! Good to see you over here!
Are you a member of the RPCS? One imperfection of blog conversations is that we never introduce ourselves and so it is never quite clear to whom we are speaking. We are all just bunch of disembodied opinions floating about.
I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, though I have full subscription to the original Westminster Standards rather than to the American revised version. I am also a Philosophy teacher at a local university in the Salt Lake City, Utah area. I am married and have seven children. Well, at least there's a bit of biography!
Did you come here from Our Confession? I noticed that I was getting visitors from the forum there, but I couldn't go back and see what is going on the forum because I don't fit the description of those who can have an account there.
"My own view is that until Scottish Presbyterians collectively repent of their tribalism our denominationalism will continue to be a problem."
I entirely agree. And I would expand the discussion beyond Scotland to the world in general, as the church of Christ is not to be one merely in Scotland but in all the world.
"We focus on and trumpet our distinctives and are too happy to draw the world's attention to each other's failings."
I think we need to distinguish between two different kinds of "distinctives." If our distinctions are biblical, we need to trumpet them and insist upon them, for we have no license to compromise on anything taught in the whole counsel of God. Agreement on bublical doctrines and practices is a requirement for denominational unity.
On the other hand, if our distinctives are unbiblical man-made rules, we need to abandon them, and others have the right and duty to point these things out to us for correction.
And there is a third category, I think: distinctives that are simply cultural practices that need not be set in stone, such as your example of wearing suits. Showing reverence is a biblical requirement for worship, but not necessary the specific practice of wearing suits. The idea that "wearing a suit is reverent" is a cultural association. I do not think that such cultural associations are unbiblical per se. In fact, I think they necessarily happen in any society, in any culture. In any culture, certain practices become customary, and they are naturally linked with certain attitudes. For example, if a pastor were to wear sunglasses and a Hawaiian shirt into the pulpit, just about everyone (in conservative churches at least) would say he was acting irreverently. The Bible doesn't say anything about sunglasses or Hawaiian shirts, but western culture today has associated such attire with informality and a non-reverential attitude. For that reason, I think we ought to respect and not flout the custom and avoid wearing these things in the pulpit if we are prachers, while also recognizing the cultural contingency of the custom and refusing to elevate it to the level of a biblical rule. In these kinds of situations, denominations ought to be willing to compromise with other denominations in order to pursue unity, if these are the only kinds of issues keeping up a separation.
To be continued (since the program won't let me post a long post) . . .
. . . continued.
"And until we all repent in seriousness for our own parts in it then we cannot expect God to bless us with unity."
True. And we need to be specific. For example, if the FPCS is doing something wrong that is hurting the cause of unity, it ought to be specifically pointed out, and the FPCS ought to repent of it specifically. Of course, part of the whole problem is that there is not agreement between denominations on what specific things are good or bad and therefore ought to be kept or repented of, and so the need for dialogue comes in.
"I would observe that your methodology would lead to a serious destablisation of the Church polity in Scotland. That may be a good thing or it may be confusion."
I'm not sure how my suggestions would do this. Actually, my suggestions are extremely common-sensical, I think, and hardly worthy of being called a "method" at all. Basically, all I've said is that we ought to figure out where we differ and talk about it until we come to agreement. I think this is nothing more than common sense, though sometimes we all need to be reminded of common sense!
"Time and access to authority figures would militate against most of us."
True, but I didn't say we all have to talk to authorities. I just mentioned that as something good if possible. I also mentioned talking to individuals, or groups talking to groups, etc. What we are doing now I would count as a good example, along with what goes on at Our Confession and at Catherine Dickie's blog.
"There must be a place for the denominations themselves to pursue unity at the synod/presbytery level."
Yes, although it seems to me that the conversation gets harder the more people who are involved, and formal meetings have a tendency to go nowhere. Individual conversations can sometimes accomplish a lot more, and those conversations and their conclusions can have practical effects and be communicated to others of ones associates on the same side. But I don't rule out conversations on the level of whole denominations.
"Leaving denominations to go rogue does not seem wise to me."
I'm not sure what that means.
To be continued . . .
. . . continued.
"You say that there must be one denomination with an uncontestable claim. What if there isn't?"
One piece of practical advice I think we all need to keep in mind: We need to be specific. So let's think of a specific (or at least somewhat more concrete) example: Let's say that there are two denominations that have absolutely equal claims to de jure legitimacy--their doctrines are identical in all areas of biblical requirement, neither one has a stronger historical claim. What do we do then? I think that in this case, both of these denominations ought to cease to proclaim themselves to have a better claim and both ought to be willing to unite with each other in full communion on a relatively short time scale.
I don't in fact currently think that this scenario is actual, as I currently think that the FPCS has the best claim. But I am open to correction and further information. I have no personal stake in any of this, in the sense that whether, for example, the RPCS or the FPCS turn out to have a better claim has no bearing on me personally. In that sense, I don't really care whose claim is greater. But I think we need to ask that question, because we need to take seriously the implications of denominational division. If the RPCS, for example, has a better historical claim to de jure legitimacy, and no doctrinal issues that would require any sin from members or officers, I would say we all have an immediate obligation to begin seeking to enter into formal communion with the RPCS, and we ought to begin now to dismantle the other denominational bodies and merge them into the RPCS. Likewise if the FPCS has the greater claim. If a certain church does have the greater claim, they too must still compromise where they can to help the cause of unity, but it is the other denominations that have a duty to renounce their claim to a right to separate existence, disband, and merge with the correct denomination.
This is not a matter of being proud, keeping up an ego, etc. These are important objective matters that need to be properly addressed.
Talk to you later!
Mark
Hi Mark,
I would say it is a matter of de jure legitimacy and not who actually has the best historical claim. There is either objective de jure legitimacy and unbroken constitutional continuity or there is not. I am not so much concerned about whether or not each church recognises the other's claim. To my mind that increasingly depends on which stream you are in: Revolution Settlement or Covenanter. I have not read very much that can have any claim to objectivity as it always seems to tend towards the vindication of the writers' own existing ecclesiastical positions. I view both FP and RP writings equally in this category. There is selectivity and self-vindication on both sides. A British Tory will not place much store in a Labour party members vindication of the party's history nor vice-versa. There is partiality that we cannot overlook. But I do wonder how many FPs today would join the Revolution Settlement Church of 1690 on the basis if its then constitution and the position regarding the Acts Rescissory. I know I wouldn't. Yet the whole edifice is built upon that Settlement. A settlement that had fragmentation in its DNA. Or to put it another way, would the FP Church unite with the Revolution Settlement Church today?
What I meant by churches 'going rogue' related to your observation that that if people left these churches they would eventually become liberal. Would it not be better to strive to have whole denominations unite together rather than a piecemeal drifting. That would tend towards destabilisation and make the situation worse in some respects.
"I would say it is a matter of de jure legitimacy and not who actually has the best historical claim."
I think the historical issues, so far as we have access to them, are important in deciding de jure authority. They are certainly not the only factor, though, or even the most important. Doctrinal differences are more important. But we can't ignore the historical issues.
"I am not so much concerned about whether or not each church recognises the other's claim."
I think we need to be greatly concerned about that. When two Presbyterian denominations are not in full communion with each other, there is a rejection of each others' de jure legitimacy and authority as churches. If denomination A is refusing to recognize denomination B unjustly, that is sinful schism. If denomination A is refusing to recognize denomination B for just reasons, then we should consider this decision authoritative for all of us. For when church courts make just and biblical decisions, their decisions have the authority of God behind them.
So, for example, the RPCS and the FPCS currently do not recobnize each others' authority because they are not in full communion. In maintaining this attitude, they are both claiming to be the true de jure church and to be, by divine authority, rejecting the other side's claim. It is crucial that we examine which decisions are right and which are wrong in these kinds of things. There are great theoretical and practical consequences at stake.
"I have not read very much that can have any claim to objectivity as it always seems to tend towards the vindication of the writers' own existing ecclesiastical positions. I view both FP and RP writings equally in this category. There is selectivity and self-vindication on both sides. A British Tory will not place much store in a Labour party members vindication of the party's history nor vice-versa. There is partiality that we cannot overlook."
Well, the question is: Can we ascertain the actual facts of the situation or not, in order to make an objective decision? If the reports--all of them--are so garbled so that we can really know nothing about what objectively happened in the past, then we'll have to give up worrying about the historical issues. That means that all sides ought to stop making arguments and claims based on that history, and the only thing left will be doctrinal evaluation.
However, if we CAN get access to real facts in order to make an objective determination, we should do so. It may be hard and contrary to our prejudicial natures, but it remains our duty nonetheless.
To be continued . . .
"But I do wonder how many FPs today would join the Revolution Settlement Church of 1690 on the basis if its then constitution and the position regarding the Acts Rescissory. I know I wouldn't. Yet the whole edifice is built upon that Settlement. A settlement that had fragmentation in its DNA. Or to put it another way, would the FP Church unite with the Revolution Settlement Church today?"
Definitely a crucial question. Your answer to it shows that you do believe it is possible to understand the history objectively, for it is obviously your claim that it was wrong to join the Revolution Settlement. If you are right about that, it is important in determining the proper de jure line of authority. Likewise if you are wrong.
Along with deciding whether or not it would require sin to have joined in the Revolution Settlement, we also must consider whether it would have required sin to join with the alternative--the Reformed Presbyterians. I think it would have, because they had adopted Cameronianism--denying the legitimacy of states that are not in proper covenant with God, contrary to what I see to be the biblical and the Confessional view on the topic. So even if it would have been sin to join the Revolution Settlement, it would also have been sin to join the RPs. If both sides required sin, I would trace the de jure line through the established church for lack of a viable alternative, putting me in the Revolution Settlement line anyway (but only because no third option was available at the time).
I don't think it required sin to join the Revolution Settlement church, for a number of reasons, which we can go into more deeply if we want to.
"Would it not be better to strive to have whole denominations unite together rather than a piecemeal drifting. That would tend towards destabilisation and make the situation worse in some respects."
I don't see how it would make things worse than they currently are. I think it would be helpful, because it would concentrate orthodox people more in the same denomination(s), leaving the other denominations to get closer to disappearing, which I think would be a good thing.
But beyond the pragmatics of it, I think we have a duty, when we can, all other things being equal, to leave schismatic denominations and join the proper de jure denomination, whether we can get our whole denomination to come with us or not.
My point regarding the not being concerned abouT denominations attitudes to each other's claims must be understood in relation to the previous statement of de jure legitimacy. That is the critical point not the attitudes of denominations to each others' claims. these are too often coloured as they by self-vindication. It is ultimately the issue of objective de jure legitimacy that establishes or validates the legitimacy of any denominations claim.
As for the sin of Cameronianism was that really more egregious than the sin of repudiating the Covenants? Could a Church of Scotland that purported to claim the lineage of the Covenanted Second Reformation CoS credibly do so while reneging on the perpetual obligation to renew and perform the Covenants it's purported forebear had irrevocably committed herself to? Cameronianism to me seems rather the gnat strained out to the Revolution Settlement's camel swallowed. Figuratively speaking. Anyways, we won't resolve these issues here. I just want to raise these issues to illustrate the point about it really depending on which stream you are in where you place your emphasis in terms of who was the sinner and who is schismatic.
Of course it is possible to understand the history objectively. It is also possible to answer the question would FP office-bearers join the Revolution Settlement CoS as she was originally constituted? If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no then one would have to ask how that Church can in any sense be viewed as a foundation to build or to claim lineage to the Reformation Church through. I have taken this as far as I can on your blog. Thanks for your contribution. You are more interested in the principles of Scottish Presbyterianism than most Scottish Presbyterians ;-)
"It is ultimately the issue of objective de jure legitimacy that establishes or validates the legitimacy of any denominations claim."
Of course.
"As for the sin of Cameronianism was that really more egregious than the sin of repudiating the Covenants? Could a Church of Scotland that purported to claim the lineage of the Covenanted Second Reformation CoS credibly do so while reneging on the perpetual obligation to renew and perform the Covenants it's purported forebear had irrevocably committed herself to?"
From what I have seen, the Revolution Settlement church did not repudiate the covenants. As for not renewing them, presumably you mean in a formal ceremony, I don't think that doing so at some particular time is necessary to avoid splitting with a church. My research thus far suggests that the Revolution church affirmed the acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the Second Reformation Period and lamented the move of the nations away from the attainments of those times.
We have to be very specific in examining these things. If you have any evidence you would like me to look at, I would be more than happy to do so.
"Anyways, we won't resolve these issues here."
Who knows? Why do we always have to say things like that? Beware the self-defeating attitude that I spoke of in the post. I am willing to learn and change with new information. If you are too, why couldn't we make much progress in a venue like this?
"I just want to raise these issues to illustrate the point about it really depending on which stream you are in where you place your emphasis in terms of who was the sinner and who is schismatic."
No, I don't think this whole thing need be decided by each individual based on what stream he is current in. It doesn't need to be that way if we are willing to change streams if the evidence requires it. Again, if there is an objective way of determining these things, we should do it. If there is not, then we should be agnostic on these matters. It is never right to favor a claim simply because we like it.
"Of course it is possible to understand the history objectively."
Agreed.
"It is also possible to answer the question would FP office-bearers join the Revolution Settlement CoS as she was originally constituted?"
I suspect some of them would and some of them wouldn't. The more important question is, SHOULD FP office-bearers have joined the Revolution Settlement church had they lived in those days? My answer to that, at this point, is yes.
"I have taken this as far as I can on your blog. Thanks for your contribution."
Feel free to talk further at any time! I think these dialogues are always valuable!
"You are more interested in the principles of Scottish Presbyterianism than most Scottish Presbyterians ;-)"
I hope not! But the way I think of it, this is not merely about Scottish Presbyterianism. It is about the questions of fundamental truth and about the unity of the one catholic church. I do happen to be one of those Americans who is fascinated by Scotland, but that is not what drives my interest in these matters. What I would like to see is one church in Scotland accepted by all as the true church of Scotland, and one church in the US accepted as the true church here, and those churches be united in full formal communion.
Talk to you later!
Post a Comment