We’ve all had the experience of one or more Jehovah’s Witnesses coming to our front door. They are invariably polite and very pleasant. When I open the door and hear their initial introduction, I hasten to point out that I’m the pastor of the Presbyterian Church next door (without knowing it they’ve come to the church manse). Upon identifying myself, they usually greet me with a broad smile and tell me they believe in Jesus too. Next, I’m offered a (free) copy of one of their publications, Awake or The Watchtower. If you, like me, have ever opened one of these up and begun to read, even out of curiosity, you note a series of references to familiar terms, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, justification and so on. Yet if you continue to read more, you realize that these same words are being used in a very different sense than one finds them in Scripture or in our Confessions. I admit to having the same experience reading the proposed replacement to Book of Order G-6.0106b coming from this June’s General Assembly.
An Unexamined Pledge
Like The Watchtower the words are familiar but what do they really mean? A careful reading shows that this proposal, which presbyteries will soon be voting on, is not just a rewrite of the previous G-6.0106b. It is an altogether different kind of statement. Without going into the extensive history of G-6.0106b it will be sufficient to compare the present text with the proposed replacement and see how they differ. To begin with, the text of the present “6b” is in the form of a goal, “Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life…” (italics mine). The phrase, “are to lead,” invariably suggests a goal or a challenge to be taken up by those “who are called.” On the other hand, the proposed change is simply in descriptive language. It is indicative rather than imperative. The opening phrase of the proposed change is, “Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives…” (italics mine). The essence of the proposed replacement is to say that by assenting to the constitutional questions those “who are called” have pledged to lead certain kinds of lives. Rather than setting up a goal, the new language simply describes an assumed fact that, by assenting to the constitutional questions, those “called to ordained service” pledge themselves to lead a certain kind of life (the details of which will be discussed below). Right here though we have to ask, is this enough? Does the mere fact of assenting to constitutional questions in itself constitute a “pledge?” Can this somehow be taken as a given? Can the church be satisfied that by answering certain questions, no matter how significant, that one called to office has thereby made a pledge? The difference may appear to be subtle but it is significant. The phrase, “are to lead” calls the candidate forward to respond to a challenge. Stating that assenting to certain questions is itself a pledge tends to minimize the nature of the commitment. It actually states as fact what it never examined. The candidate alone decides if he/she is in compliance with the ordination requirements. There is no examination by a governing body. It is a merely a ceremonial certification of a subjective personal judgment by the candidate.
Radical Change in Authority
A more serious question has to do with the commitment itself. According to the proposed replacement the “pledge” in question is “to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.” Again to use the Watchtower analogy these words all sound right. The terms are familiar. For goodness’ sake, who would object to the standard, “to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church?” In reality, though, this new language represents a serious departure from basic Reformed belief. The logic of our Confessions, as well as our entire theological heritage going back to Scripture itself, is clear. The first point of obedience is to Scripture. Obedience to Scripture leads to obedience to Jesus Christ. Indeed apart from the authority of the Scriptures we have no revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The original wording of 6b has this point correctly. By reversing the order of Jesus Christ and Scripture the proposed change departs significantly from the entire approach of our Book of Confessions.
The confessions of both the Reformation and modern era affirm the importance of obeying Scripture. We obey Scripture because it is the word of God in written form (Book of Confessions 3.18, 5.001-5.002, 6.004, 8.04, 9.27). It is only as we obey Scripture that we have any understanding of who Jesus is. This point is affirmed over and over in Scripture itself. Scripture defines who Jesus is (Matt. 21:42; Luke 4:21; 24:27, 45-47; John 5:39; Romans 1:1-2; I Cor. 15:3-4). Jesus’ ministry is repeatedly seen as a fulfillment of Scripture (Matt. 26:54-56; Mark 14:49; Luke 22:37; John 13:18; 17:12; 19:24). Our Confessions follow this essential pattern which goes back to Jesus himself. We begin with Scripture so that we may know who Jesus truly is. Jesus is the subject of many writings, ancient and modern, from The Gospel of Thomas to The DaVinci Code. How is one to know who Jesus really is? The only way is through the authoritative word of God, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
The language of the proposed replacement of 6b distorts all this. It speaks of following Jesus “through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.” But what does this really mean? “The witness of the Scriptures” is an ambiguous term. To show how far off this expression is as it is found in the proposed replacement, one need only look to the Confession of 1967 (Book of Confessions 9.27). Here the witness is the Holy Spirit who speaks “through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written.” The Scriptures then are a witness from the Holy Spirit. As a result they constitute a “witness without parallel.” In Scripture the church “hears the word of God.” Through the Scriptures then the church’s “faith and obedience are nourished and regulated.” Despite some concerns that were raised when the Confession of 1967 first appeared, its view of Scripture combines the joint witness of Word and Spirit which goes back to John Calvin (Institutes I.VII.4) and is found in all our Confessions.
The proposed replacement of G-6.0106b is more than a simple change. It presents a radically different way of understanding Jesus Christ than is found in our Confessions and indeed in classic Reformed Theology as a whole. It not only removes the critical theme of obedience to Scripture but inverts the order of Jesus Christ and Scripture. In referring to “the witness of Scripture” it omits the equally important witness of the Holy Spirit. The goal is not understanding the Scriptures but obeying them. Obviously understanding Scripture is essential to obeying it. Yet in the proposed change the means have replaced the goal.
What is lost in the proposed change is any sense of the historic Reformed understanding of the authority of Scripture. An authority is to be obeyed. A witness is cross examined. The difference is vast. The Reformed view of Scripture is the hallmark of our theological heritage going back to the Reformation. We are not fundamentalists, tied to some literal understanding of the text. Nor do we see in Scripture simply a new law. We recognize the importance of understanding the text. We realize that the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and that in interpreting them appeal must be made to the original languages (Book of Confessions 6.008).
We also acknowledge that the church has the obligation to approach the Scriptures “with literary and historical understanding” (BC 9.29). Within the basic Reformed approach there is a certain range of viewpoints which is also reflected in our Confessions. Nonetheless, the essence of the Reformed approach can be summarized in the words of Emil Brunner:
Christian doctrine is legitimate, is truly based upon revelation, and the faith which is based upon it is the true knowledge of faith, in so far as this doctrine and this faith agree with the teaching of the Bible. (The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 44)
Undefined Jesus
It is this essence which is lost in the proposed revision. Without beginning with Scripture and then going to an understanding of Jesus Christ one loses all theological balance. This point was made dramatically clear at General Assembly after this proposed replacement had been approved. The Assembly engaged in a serious debate about marriage which would have replaced Jesus’ own language of “male and female” with “two persons.” The Assembly ultimately voted this proposal down by a large majority. That however is not the point. If one is serious about living lives “obedient to Jesus Christ,” how can there be any debate regarding Jesus’ explicit teaching? The fact that this could even be debated shows the consequences of abandoning “obedience to Scripture” as the basis for following Christ. The principle of being obedient to Jesus without a clear standard in Scripture leaves one with an undefined Jesus. The General Assembly, therefore, could decide for itself if Scripture in fact gives us the basis for what it means to obey Jesus. In this particular case the Assembly ruled in favor of Scripture’s version of Jesus’ teaching. The next time however may be different.
The proposed replacement of G-6.0106b is theological confusion at best and outright distortion at worst. The General Assembly for all its wisdom and hard work stands under the criteria established in the Barmen Declaration. This in fact applies to all of us in the church, ministers, elders, deacons, teachers or lay persons:
If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and we in faith experience what he himself said: ‘I will never leave you, nor forsake you’ (BOC 8.04).
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Sep/Oct 2008).
.jpg){kind=link}