Have you ever pondered why different denominations in the Reformed stream of Christianity don’t always have identical interpretations of the creeds and confessions? I think it is because Reformed denominations haven’t found their unity in doctrinal conformity but by standing together in the stream. Our identity is in a few core beliefs and also in our commitment to always seek understanding and always be open to the Spirit’s work in reshaping our thinking and our faith.
I’m not afraid of the tension in not always knowing and not always completely agreeing on every jot and tittle in the Reformed confessions. In fact dissonance can be constructive and prompt our sanctification. We can hold on to more than one way of understanding things at the same time. Our thinking can be nonbinary. Our unity is not in absolute consensus on every formulation of belief. After all the confessions are not final statements – a new scripture with the same authority as God’s Word. They were written as a place to stand, but the Reformed tradition is dynamic. Our unity is found in holding each other close despite nuanced doctrinal differences, just as God holds us close even while we are fallible in our formulations, even while we are yet sinners.
In my view the new CRC has a hardening of the arteries of faith. Difference is treated as heresy. Unity depends on orthodoxy. That breaks apart the Body of Christ, including rivulets in the Reformed stream. How sad when presumably we all want oneness with Christ. Unity builds bridges – one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Narrow confessional conformity burns bridges down.
Abide may think that Synodical authority is absolute, but in fact its pronouncements don’t stop conscientious questions. Do you think all members, or even all office bearers think the same way about TULIP? Hardly. The Reformed tradition makes room for principled dissenters. We live by faith, not by sight. Confessions aren’t a kind of law. We don’t obey them; we sign on to them. They are a place to stand, until we don’t (do you still detest Anabaptists?).
Rob, Thanks for your article. I recall younger days when I thought God intended doubt. I doubted whether I had believed enough or done enough to be saved. I thought assurance would be arrogance. My college friend even came out of a tradition which said that anyone who had assurance of salvation was part of a cult. Then God's word at I John 5:13 confronted me. It called for my assurance in Christ and his finished work. It called for me to look outside of myself for revealed truth and assurance. Our Heidelberg Catechism likewise calls us to Biblical doctrine for our comfort. I'm learning to doubt myself while trusting God's word and our historically solid summaries of it. Now I see that true arrogance is listening to myself instead of God's revealed word and generations of its faithful confessions. I'm thankful for God's banner of covenant love and faithfulness presented in Scripture and our statements of faith. It is revealed for us and our children. Let's wave the banner in our denominational publication so that all God's doubting children may rally to Him for security.
This is a straw man argument. The problem with doctrinal certainty is not insecurity but intellectual arrogance. Theologians, ministers, and laypersons see through a glass darkly. Doctrines are human creations to help us try to understand. As God continues to reveal Himself through two books of revelation, our eyes are opened to see that what was thought to be clear at one time is no longer so clear. That’s not sin nor is it capitulating to culture. It’s God saying you’re still only at the beginning of understanding who I am and what I want for you. The sin of certainty pushes away those whom God embraces.
Thomas, I agree, of course, that your scenario of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy exists. I wonder if you would also agree that stand-for-nothing-fall-for-anything ecumenicism also exists? That is, allowing so many questions that we lose the answers. Do you see a ditch on both sides of the road? If not, we're not driving in the same direction. If you do, how do you propose we avoid allowing the virtue of uncertainty (if certainty is sinful uncertainty must be a virtue) to replace what we believe with a long list of never-ending questions?
You are correct, Tom, in that we see through a glass darkly. There are many things we do not fully understand. And there are things that have been sufficiently revealed so that we may know. The deity of Christ is a definite. Also, at least two synods ruled 3:1 that same-sex acts are not acceptable to God. On topics like that our Banner needs to speak clearly so that the members of our denomination and other readers understand clearly. That is why synod this year changed the Banner's mandate.
You bet, Herb; there are things not in dispute. But having the votes at Synod was a power move, cleverly engineered. When excellent minds see things differently - equally devout, Reformed thinkers, seeking the Spirit’s guidance - it would be gracious for each of us to acknowledge that maybe we have it wrong. What if those in power in the CRC have it wrong? Such havoc will have been done in the Lord’s name. If our human decisions inflict harm such as dismemberment of the body, our confessional certainty must yield. Otherwise it’s leading the flock into spiritual abuse.
Thomas, when Reformed minds have disagreed since the Reformation, they gave one another the respect of open debate which led to a decision being made. Have you ever wondered how it is that all the Reformed catechisms are so remarkably close doctrinally? It wasn't an accident but it was the result of dialogue which led to doctrinal unity (the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper being one of the very, very few exceptions). Failure to follow that pattern in the interest of establishing doctrinal unity, rather than diffusion, is not only not Reformed, it is not healthy for the Body.
Rob,
Have you ever pondered why different denominations in the Reformed stream of Christianity don’t always have identical interpretations of the creeds and confessions? I think it is because Reformed denominations haven’t found their unity in doctrinal conformity but by standing together in the stream. Our identity is in a few core beliefs and also in our commitment to always seek understanding and always be open to the Spirit’s work in reshaping our thinking and our faith.
I’m not afraid of the tension in not always knowing and not always completely agreeing on every jot and tittle in the Reformed confessions. In fact dissonance can be constructive and prompt our sanctification. We can hold on to more than one way of understanding things at the same time. Our thinking can be nonbinary. Our unity is not in absolute consensus on every formulation of belief. After all the confessions are not final statements – a new scripture with the same authority as God’s Word. They were written as a place to stand, but the Reformed tradition is dynamic. Our unity is found in holding each other close despite nuanced doctrinal differences, just as God holds us close even while we are fallible in our formulations, even while we are yet sinners.
In my view the new CRC has a hardening of the arteries of faith. Difference is treated as heresy. Unity depends on orthodoxy. That breaks apart the Body of Christ, including rivulets in the Reformed stream. How sad when presumably we all want oneness with Christ. Unity builds bridges – one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Narrow confessional conformity burns bridges down.
Abide may think that Synodical authority is absolute, but in fact its pronouncements don’t stop conscientious questions. Do you think all members, or even all office bearers think the same way about TULIP? Hardly. The Reformed tradition makes room for principled dissenters. We live by faith, not by sight. Confessions aren’t a kind of law. We don’t obey them; we sign on to them. They are a place to stand, until we don’t (do you still detest Anabaptists?).
Rob, Thanks for your article. I recall younger days when I thought God intended doubt. I doubted whether I had believed enough or done enough to be saved. I thought assurance would be arrogance. My college friend even came out of a tradition which said that anyone who had assurance of salvation was part of a cult. Then God's word at I John 5:13 confronted me. It called for my assurance in Christ and his finished work. It called for me to look outside of myself for revealed truth and assurance. Our Heidelberg Catechism likewise calls us to Biblical doctrine for our comfort. I'm learning to doubt myself while trusting God's word and our historically solid summaries of it. Now I see that true arrogance is listening to myself instead of God's revealed word and generations of its faithful confessions. I'm thankful for God's banner of covenant love and faithfulness presented in Scripture and our statements of faith. It is revealed for us and our children. Let's wave the banner in our denominational publication so that all God's doubting children may rally to Him for security.
This is a straw man argument. The problem with doctrinal certainty is not insecurity but intellectual arrogance. Theologians, ministers, and laypersons see through a glass darkly. Doctrines are human creations to help us try to understand. As God continues to reveal Himself through two books of revelation, our eyes are opened to see that what was thought to be clear at one time is no longer so clear. That’s not sin nor is it capitulating to culture. It’s God saying you’re still only at the beginning of understanding who I am and what I want for you. The sin of certainty pushes away those whom God embraces.
Thomas, I agree, of course, that your scenario of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy exists. I wonder if you would also agree that stand-for-nothing-fall-for-anything ecumenicism also exists? That is, allowing so many questions that we lose the answers. Do you see a ditch on both sides of the road? If not, we're not driving in the same direction. If you do, how do you propose we avoid allowing the virtue of uncertainty (if certainty is sinful uncertainty must be a virtue) to replace what we believe with a long list of never-ending questions?
You are correct, Tom, in that we see through a glass darkly. There are many things we do not fully understand. And there are things that have been sufficiently revealed so that we may know. The deity of Christ is a definite. Also, at least two synods ruled 3:1 that same-sex acts are not acceptable to God. On topics like that our Banner needs to speak clearly so that the members of our denomination and other readers understand clearly. That is why synod this year changed the Banner's mandate.
You bet, Herb; there are things not in dispute. But having the votes at Synod was a power move, cleverly engineered. When excellent minds see things differently - equally devout, Reformed thinkers, seeking the Spirit’s guidance - it would be gracious for each of us to acknowledge that maybe we have it wrong. What if those in power in the CRC have it wrong? Such havoc will have been done in the Lord’s name. If our human decisions inflict harm such as dismemberment of the body, our confessional certainty must yield. Otherwise it’s leading the flock into spiritual abuse.
Thomas, when Reformed minds have disagreed since the Reformation, they gave one another the respect of open debate which led to a decision being made. Have you ever wondered how it is that all the Reformed catechisms are so remarkably close doctrinally? It wasn't an accident but it was the result of dialogue which led to doctrinal unity (the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper being one of the very, very few exceptions). Failure to follow that pattern in the interest of establishing doctrinal unity, rather than diffusion, is not only not Reformed, it is not healthy for the Body.