Presbyterians have been debating whether its ordained officers should be required to adhere, or subscribe, to a certain set of tenets or beliefs since its earliest days in America.  Initially it was the Westminster Standards in the 18th and 19th centuries and later the famous “five points” in the early 20th century.

Today, once again, there is great concern by those advocating a split from the PC(USA) that the denomination does not specifically name its essential tenets.  David S Kennedy, editor of The Presbyterian published an editorial titled “The Present Conflict”, in which he wrote the battle shaping up between conservatives and liberals is “the renewal of the old primitive conflict between cultured heathenism and historic Christianity.”  He wrote this in 1911.  It’s like deja vu all over again, and again.

In the PC(USA) service for ordination we ask those to be ordained, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?”

ECO’s service for ordination asks those to be ordained, “Will you receive, adopt, and be bound by the Essential Tenets of ECO as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and will you be guided by them in your life and ministry?

Clearly there is a difference between receiving and adopting the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the Book of Confessions and receiving, adopting and being bound by the Essential Tenets of ECO.

Of course the concern is that without the moorings of specifically defined essential tenets the denomination will drift theologically.  But we’ve drifted before, to better places (we’ve drifted past restricting women from leadership and slavery as two examples).  What certainly looked like drift to some at the time, we now see as a push by the Holy Spirit.  Why would we want to tie ourselves down so tightly now?

In the early 20th century when the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy was threatening to tear some denominations apart, Trinity’s own denomination at the time, The United Presbyterian Church of North America, chose not to tie itself to the five points of Fundamentalism.

1. The inerrancy of the Bible
2. The virgin birth of Christ
3. His substitutionary atonement
4. Christ’s bodily resurrection
5. The authenticity of miracles

Our predecessor denomination was in agreement that these five doctrines in question were true and should be believed, but they were unwilling to claim them as essential tenets of the Christian faith upon which salvation depended.

At the time of the controversy Dr. W. E. McCulloch published an editorial in The United Presbyterian titled, “What are the Christian Fundamentals?” His sentiment was typical of the United Presbyterian Church during this period.  Dr. McCulloch maintained everyone should make up his own list of “fundamentals” to see just where their own faith stands.  He submitted his own list as follows:

1. The Fatherhood of God
2. Salvation through Jesus Christ
3. God’s abiding presence in and through the Holy Spirit
4. God’s judgement of rational beings and Christ’s return
5. Eternal life with God

I think it is fair to say a part of Trinity’s DNA includes the resistance of being tied to a specific set of essential tenets.  

Trinity, let’s stay PC(USA) 

The PC(USA)’s view of the authority of scripture is being called into question by our leadership at Trinity.  Their accusation is the PC(USA) gives higher authority to culture than to the written word of God, and as a result the denomination is moving in a direction against God’s will.  

I understand how it can look like this but it’s not true.  One of the hallmarks of Reformed Theology which the leadership at Trinity seems to be overlooking, is theology as wisdom.  Word and Spirit were the basic and essential factors in John Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture and in his theology.  Today the PC(USA) and Reformed Christians still submit to the authority of the written word of God as illumined by the Holy Spirit of God.  We don’t submit to the written word of God as defined by a set of clearly defined essential tenets. 

The Confession of 1967, in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Book of Confessions states,

So why is Trinity’s leadership working to protect their understanding of biblical authority with a set of defined essential tenets?

Peter Enns has written an article titled, “Tim Keller on Homosexuality and Biblical Authority: Different Crisis, Same Problem.”  It has helped me see the road block our leadership faces in a clear light.  I recommend the entire article to you but want to quote one section in particular.

“Keller is right. To change their views on homosexuality will require evangelicals to ‘disassemble the way in which they read the Bible, completely disassemble their whole approach to authority’…Leaving aside the specific issue of homosexuality, Keller’s observation about evangelical notions of biblical authority is correct but also concerning. In my opinion, Keller has, perhaps unwittingly, put his finger on the entire problem evangelicals face when confronted with any issue that runs counter to evangelical theology: ‘You’re asking me to read my Bible differently than my tradition has prescribed, and so I can’t go there. If I do, my faith is kicked out the door.'”  

Walls are essential when your authority of scripture is based on the written word of God as prescribed by your tradition, but not when it is based on the written word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit.

The promise of our baptism is we have been grafted to the body of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit has been poured out on us, that we might have the power to do God’s will, and continue forever in the risen life of Christ.

Trinity, let’s stay PC(USA)

Trinity’s leadership is rushing to build a moat and walls around its theological belief system as fast as possible.  To hear them talk there is a fast approaching attack, reasons to be afraid, and we must defend ourselves, our faith, and the Church.  Dismissal and separation from PC(USA) will dig the moat and a defined list of Essential Tenets will build the wall.  If we can get inside this fortress soon enough everything will be ok.  

But I am not afraid of what is coming, and neither are many others of us at Trinity.  We’ve been told we just don’t “get it”.  But I do “get it” and I think others do too.  We just “get it” differently and because of that we’re not afraid.

Peter Enns, a faculty member in the Christian Studies department at Eastern University, has written a column titled, “The Bible is the center of the Christian faith (and don’t assume you know what I mean by that)“.  In this column he writes about a lecture given recently at Eastern University by John Franke of Yellowstone Theological Institute.  John summed up his vision for a theological movement that is both evangelical and progressive by voicing a distinction between progressive (think center) and traditionalist evangelicalism (think walls).

Progressive evangelical theology is…

1)  marked by holding to a “center” of theology rather than maintaining firm “boundaries”

2) views the theological task as more of a “dialogue” than arriving at firm conclusions defended at all costs

3) and encourages a deliberate engagement of voices outside of evangelicalism in order to learn from them, not simply to correct them

Peter writes, “Firm boundary marking, once and for all time, in our theological quest tends toward insulation and then isolation from any sort of criticism – which I think is not only self-defeating and intellectually hypocritical, but makes baby Jesus cry.”

Peter continues, “A theology that thinks in terms of holding to a center encourages theological exploration, with regular returns to the center for a gut check…It seems to me that one way (not the only way) of thinking about the Bible is as a ‘center’ of the Christian faith rather than a boundary.  It is that to which followers of Jesus return – sort of like a tether – not the thick and high boarders through which we may not blast, under which we may not tunnel, or over which we may not climb.”

Building the walls around Trinity scares me more than living without them.

Peter is not saying, and neither am I, that the Bible is “THE center” of the Christian faith but, he writes, “it helps provide a spacial metaphor for understanding how the Bible can and should function in the Christian life.  The center of the Christian faith has been and always will be – wait for it – Jesus, not the Bible.”

Matthew 28:16
…and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

Trinity, let’s stay PC(USA)