|
On Essential Tenets, Part 3 of 3: A Counter Proposal
An attorney of the law who is also a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ once told me, "Whoever frames the question wins the argument." That is extraordinarily important here. We who are concerned about the historic faith of the Christian church cannot win this argument the way the question is currently framed. There is no way. It is a losing battle. There is no use in pursuing it. Instead, we must reframe the question.
It is not enough to say that the project of listing and specifying "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith" is impossible (part 1). It is not enough to say that such a product would have no appropriate status (part 2). We have also to ask why we have been put into this impossible position and how we can get ourselves out of it (part 3). That is to say, we need to change the game.
Let it be said with blinding clarity that the very use of the words "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith" in our ordination questions allows and actually encourages our officers and therefore the church itself to get by with as little Christian faith as possible. It is a minimalist approach. This is not good. This is not helpful. This is not faithful. This is, indeed, an abomination.
The very wording of the question allows those who would be ordained to set aside indeterminately large portions of the faith and of the confessions. Indeed, the wording of the question allows the church to encourage those who would be ordained to set aside indeterminately large portions of the faith and of the confessions. In fact, since "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith" cannot be determined and specified, this wording has effectively allowed the church and those whom it would ordain to set aside the entire faith and all the confessions. This is awful.
This is a game we cannot win. The game is rigged for and toward a minimalist expression of the faith. No matter how well we were to articulate "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith," even if we could, we still would not and could not win that game.
Instead, we must change the game. Instead of specifying only "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith," we must uphold and promote all the tenets. Instead of seeking as little faith as possible, we must seek as much faith as possible. Instead of being minimalist, we need to be maximalist.
So, here is my counter proposal. Let us consider rewording the third ordination and installation question as follows:
Do you acknowledge the documents in The Book of Confessions to be the true and official articulation of the faith of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and do you wholeheartedly concur with them as the articulation of your own faith? Do you agree to abide by them as you exercise your office in the church?
Instead of allowing people to get by with as little as possible and not even specifying that, this question would demand from us all as much as possible and would specify the whole thing. Several implications are immediately obvious. For starters, this would require every deacon, elder, and minister of the church to have a working knowledge of The Book of Confessions. To answer such a question with intelligence, responsibility, and integrity, it would be necessary to know what every line of the book says and to understand what it means. This would be good.
Moreover, this would require every ordaining body, every session and presbytery, to have a working knowledge of The Book of Confessions. Ordaining bodies would have to know what they are asking of ordinands. Surely this would be good, too.
It might even be possible to entertain scruples. The question begins by assuming consent with the whole. If someone were to pick out a few lines about which he or she had some reservations, surely each session or presbytery could determine whether such would disqualify that person from ordination. Again, candidates and ordaining bodies would have to know the whole book. But, if a candidate were to identify whole swaths of the Reformed faith about which he or she had reservations, the session or presbytery would have good reason to say that he or she was not suitable for holding office in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
This would change the game. This would encourages and strives for maximum faith instead of settling for minimum faith. This would encourage and strive for integrity instead of settling for disingenuousness. Let's quit trying to do the impossible by specifying "the essential tenets of the Reformed faith." Let's jettison that language altogether. Let's reframe the question and so win the day.
| 
Grace and Peace,