I spent the last few days at A Conversation on Denominational Renewal, which thankfully met in St. Louis. The conference was well attended, about 300 or more people. The audience was mostly PCA ministers and elders, but because it was held in St. Louis there were a good many Covenant Seminary Students and professors.
I’m not going to summarize the conference. All I will say is that it was quite stimulating and helpful. When they post the mp3s of the lectures on their website, you need to listen to them. I’ll try to alert everyone when they are posted.
I’d like for us to discuss one part of Jeremy Jones’s lecture on Wednesday morning. The title was “On Renewing Theology.” I think it was one of the most challenging lectures of the lot.
Jeremy addressed problems with the way we tend to conceive of and do theology in the Reformed world, especially the PCA. Early on he talked about “The Ecclesial Culture of Reformed Sectarianism.” He lamented the fact that so many Reformed ecclesial cultures end up as little more than “denominational police states.” How does this happen?
First, we imagine a golden age (17th century) in the life of the church and the theological task is to preserve that theology at all costs. Theological error always begins as a mustard seed that, unless it is discovered and rooted out, will flower into full-blown heresy. Now I will quote from Jeremy’s handout:
Methodos of Reformed Sectarian Theological Rationality
There are several methods employed to catch the mustard seed of heresy that we can see being utilized in our midst over nearly every controversy that arises in our denomination (see note#1).
1) Because we presuppose inevitable theological decline, we must police our borders and sniff out the traitors who are surely lurking in out midst.
2) We must evaluate current theological positions primarily in light of past positions (both positive and negative) and must not hesitate to equate current positions with past positions if they are the same (and they usually are): this = that, today = then.
Sonship = antinomian
Parachurch ministries=”new school”
N.T. Wright is neonomian, Baxterian.
Federal Vision = New Haven after Edwards
These equations are often hastily and sloppily made with out a patient, attentive, and charitable listening, reading, and interaction with one’s theological “opponents.”
3) We will use slippery slope thinking as a tool of diagnosis to see “what’s really going on” among those we suspect, to see the troubling trajectory of their thought.
It’s dangerous to take people’s word for what they think/believe. Furthermore, because our knowledge of tragic theological history, we can see where certain views inevitably lead, even if their proponents do not. Consequently, we may impute what we “know” is “the logical conclusion” (or historically inevitable conclusion) of a certain position to our opponents and treat them as if they hold this position. For example:
False principles, like leaven in the meal, always tend to work out their logical consequences, and to lead their votaries to all their results. These may be very unexpected; they may be very unpopular; they may be bitterly repudiated, even by those who are unconsciously tending towards them. But in due time they come, and are at last boldly avowed. Unless the seminal errors are purged out, this must be so; because the human mind must reason connectedly from its postulates (R. L. Dabney, Discussions, vol. 2, p. 444).
4) Because all doctrines are interconnected logically in a system, one error at any point threatens the whole. It is not possible to distinguish between central and peripheral doctrines. Therefore, any and every doctrinal error, once discerned, must be purged from our midst.
. . . the truths of redemption are a connected system. . . its several propositions must have a logical dependence. The reveal system is a regular arch; the removal of the smallest stone loosens another, and that another, until the very keystone is shaken and the whole structure endangered. The surrender of a point of doctrine not fundamental to salvation endangers others more important than itself. . . Thus, the rejection of a truth not fundamental may jeopardize those that are (R.L. Dabney, Discussiions, vol 2, pp. 455-456).
Results: A Denominational Police State
(Note #1: For an example of these moves see Robert L. Dabney, “Uses and Results of Church History” in Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982], 5-25).
Sounds great. Of course, Dabney is only an example, as he says. Plenty of others have the same mindset.
That’s whats so nice about being a Postmillennialist. You know that there is much, much more that is going to come forth from the Word as new cultures are converted and bring new questions and perspectives. The Spirit has only begun His work. We are in a Conversation.
He is quite right. It is Conversation versus Police State.
We are seldom consistently linear in our thinking. We are not rope bridges, where one end leads clearly to the other side and if we cut one end, it all falls. We are more like a spider web with interconnecting points. Cut one union and several strands may fall, but the web is still mostly intact (unless you cut to many). And because of the interlocking nature of our beliefs, we are able to shape the trajectory of one line of thinking to line up with the others, even if at first it seems all to clear that it must lead in another direction. The language of trajectory has a utilitarian helpfulness but carries with it the latent problems of utilitarianism. It takes a good deal of time to see how it all fits together. New thoughts may expand the web in a helpful way or maybe not, but jumping to quickly to the trajectory theory doesn’t allow the time necessary for someone to bring it together. Humility and patience go a long way, especially when we remember that we are speaking of ordained bothers in the same denomination.
[…] I tumbled this post from Jeff, as you can see in my recently improved sidebar, but I have to blog about the Dabney quotes. They remind me of the insanity that results from trying to argue with one’s child about various fashion/music/culture choices by a form of alleged presuppositionalism. If it means that much to you, just forbid it. Don’t torment a growing mind by talking about how that hairstyle is really based on pagan creation-from-ultimat-chaos myths. If you need to interfere (and there is often wisdom in not doing so) then just use authority. Don’t torture logic. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Wow. This is challenging, indeed. Especially considering the problem with whatever “golden age” happend to be selected. To defend a golden age, one must assume that there was ever such a thing as theological perfection at any point in time in human history.
Were any remedies offered to avoid such a “police state?”
I guess the typical reformed attempt at bucking the “police state” is a passing nod at the concept of small-c catholisism.
And the more-charismatic method, to toss up sing-song chants like “major on the majors and minor on the minors.”
Interesting stuff. I have stated for years that one of the problems that we have suffered under as a denomination is that we have not learned to trust one another. Ever since we left what is now the PCUSA we still walk around with the presupposition that there are immense errors to get rid of in our midst. Now having said that we need to constantly be evaluating the pulse of the church…I think that is called shepherding one another…so that we remain true to the Scriptures and to our other standards. But we do this as we get to know one another better within our presbyteries and as we trust first and then if something comes up there is a relationship built with them so now we can go and talk about what we see as a possible problem in their thinking or lifestyle or maybe in our own. We do this rather effectively in the South Texas Presbytery. Are there disagreements…sure… do we jump to the conclusion first that there is something wrong with that persons thinking..no..at least not yet. We seek out our own misunderstanding since we see one another as brothers rather than adversaries or competitors. True oneness demands this kind of an approach rather than think guilty first and try to move back. Personal pride prevents us really ever from moving back to try to understand someone else’s opinion or understanding. Dr. Don MacNair used to talk about the fact that we spend to much time on business at presbytery and not enough time developing relationships with fellow elders. He even went so far as to start talking about doing business electronically before it became fashionable and then at presbytery we would report only and if action needed to be taken that was dealt with as well. So instead of hours of meeting ahead on the day of presbytery or the day before, all of the “work” of presbytery would be accomplished by the time everyone got there and then we can spend more time developing relationships with one another. It would take an effort but…if we don’t get this point we will simply continue to eat each other up.
Also, one question. I am a graduate of what used to be called Reformed Bible College (Kuyper College now) and I study under some great theologians that stressed Biblical Theology as well as systemmatics. We studied Vos as much or more than Berkhof and I learn to really appreciate Cornelius Van Til. Now i know this puts me in a more European camp-Dutch to be exact since I never really have cared for the way systemmatics likes to see everything in dissected groups where as Biblical Theology looks at the whole…anyway to my question…What is the problem with Cornelius Van Til in today’s discussion of the FV stuff? Is this the old Shepherd controversy all over again. If this will take too long to place in a post that is okay…i ws just wondering.
Lloyd, that analogy is excellent. Thank you. I remember once getting paranoid about using Milton to support a point because I had heard his Christology was wrong and having to be talked through the fact that, even if true, that doesn’t contaminate every observation that Milton articulates.
And to add to Jim Jordan’s point, postmillennialism means all past ages are tainted. Some slice of the past may have been better than the one we’re in now in some aspect, so it is still OK to advocate “recovery” in specific ways. But in general, everything in the past is meant to be surpassed. Everything we know will one day seem uncivilized and tainted with error by future generations that know better.
This also means we always have to live by faith as God moves us out of what is familiar into what is strange and unfamiliar. Being move forward in time isn’t too different than being kidnapped from Israel and taken to Babylon. How we handle this transition is a real test of faith.
Dear Jeff:
Thus, tribalism. Rosenstock-Huessy would see (better, hear!) this as tribalism, for the tribes carried the graves of their heroes around with them in the form of totem poles, with faces that watched the tribe members along the path they trod, to see (!) that they did not deviate.
But for a full-bodied church, oriented in all directions, one needs not only the past, but the present (empires), the future (Israel), and ‘as if for the first time’ (Greece).
To put it into the world fo the 4 Gospels, ‘they’ have stayed in Matthew.
They need to move along into Mark, Luke/Acts, John–and more.
2–And remember that the neat thing, per Fruit of Lips, is that John’s end circles around to ntersect Matthew’s beginning.
3–And regarding ‘seeds,’ ERH said taht the idea that the past and the present create the future caused the two World Wars. It is causing the war you speak of also.
Where is peace, then? Peace would be recongnizing the Multiformity of Man, oriented in the above 4 directions, and especially it would be acting on the fact that the present is caused by the past and the future.
4–Thus, JBJ’s pont (bridge) about postmillenniallsm.
Pax Christi,
Chuck