Continuing the Conversation: An Answer for Peter

I'm sorry about not commenting, I thought we had covered all the bases about last chapter in the main posts...

I don't see too much of a conflict between locality/community and catholicity. In fact, I think locality/community and catholicity may be big parts of the answers to the Big Question under consideration here. And let's face it, if we were absolutely sure that denominations (or rather, our particular denomination) were the answer, we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with...

I don't know whether to call it a "generational" trend or not. What is sure is that hard-core strictly defined denominational churches are getting rarer. Even churches within traditional denominations are becoming more and more "willow-creek-ized" and "CCMified". It's a post-denominationalism of the lowest common denominator. And it doesn't do much for either building local community (as it is geared towards sovereign individual experience and spirituality) or catholicity (as it couldn't give two rips about tradition in either theology, catechesis, or liturgy). I can't recall if I've said this before here, but I'll restate it anyways - the three options I see coming out of the current morass are A) the Morass itself - the CCM/seeker-sensitive/megachurch Borg, B) increasing smaller and more fractious rock-ribbed denominational remnants (esp. among TRs and LCMSers), and C) churches that deliberately cultivate tradition and community, who will be drawn to work together by such affinities despite their "official" denominational backgrounds. I'm in the C) camp, obviously.

Continuing the Conversation: A Question for Doug

OK, for now I give up. I think that as we find things to comment on, we should return to Frame's book, but I want to hop into a side question, for a moment.

Doug: Do you find it odd that we who are doing this blog are both on trajectories away from denominational American evangelicalism?

I'm increasingly focussed on local churches, whose locality is as important as their cooperation, on my view; and on international cooperation, specifically, on Japanese churches working with American churches (there are a number of key, and nation-specific, problems we can address).

You seem to be heading into catholicity, Anglicanism being no more strictly a denomination than Rome or Antioch (albeit Anglicans and especially American Episcopalians often just act like another denomination); and in the missionary wing of that church, no less.

Any observations about that? Do you think this is going to be a generational tendency?

Response to Doug -- Chapter 8

I'm tracking with you 100%, here:

Once again, I will submit that the way forward is not “top-down”, but “bottom-up” – ecumenism will only work between local congregations where the members of all concerned bodies can come together, live and worship together, and develop the trust required for such a reunification to work. And rather than abandon the theological debates from the past 1600 years and re-invent the theological wheels, let us who have access to these resources rather use them for all they are worth.

Absolutely. We may need to think our way carefully forward from the early confessions that help us be sure we're close enough to even talk intelligibly to each other, but we needn't abandon all that we've learned from centuries of debate--sometimes godly and edifying, sometimes carnal and destructive, but always part of God's Providential sharing of Himself with His Body in the churches. Rather, we should seek to incorporate the lessons we learn from the discussion into our living and teaching, while still avoiding the tendency to believe we've arrived--or that we can never arrive.

Which is where I'm differing a little with you, Doug (thinking now of your response to me). I don't think we should kid ourselves that total agreement is a requirement here-and-now, and probably we're nuts if we think anything like "agreement on everything we think is important" is possible over any but very small groups of people (who tend to sprout idiosyncratic senses of significance in a real hurry). What I do think, though, is that, if we are Christians, we will definitely agree in The End, and that reasoning from that principle and the principle that the Spirit's calling in every believer is toward renewing of mind and of life into Christ-likeness, we are going to have more constructive debate than otherwise. I was really re-stating perspectivalism in a less tactical and more, I hope, hopeful way.

However, I think we should be careful about emphasizing the "total agreement is not possible here-and-now" to the detriment of our need to find as much agreement as we possibly can, beginning with those areas which are most crucial to our faith in Christ's Work and the Father He revealed; and probably also beginning, of necessity, among those who have as much agreement as they can manage already. That is, we have to be teaching one another and educating one another's consciences; otherwise, there is no real, constructive meaning to toleration of differing views. Disagreement "until we can see better" may be tolerable, but should definitely be uncomfortable, so long as we believe Christ has revealed truth we should know and teach rightly; disagreement indefinitely or resignedly accepted seems to me a positive evil no better than denominationalism, especially if we turn such acceptance into a positive virtue, rather than the necessary response to an unpleasant and disagreeable, temporary condition (like our mortal sufferings with-but-away-from Christ ought always be known to be).

And now, I have to disagree a bit:

For an example, take the thorny question of who should be baptized. I have (now) been on both sides of the debate regarding the validity of paedobaptism. And I see that each side has emphases that need respecting. Paedos (I now see) recognize that human beings are more than isolated rational minds – we live and learn in community, and faith can be seen and exercised apart from full rational comprehension. Credos, on the other hand, see the need for baptism to not be divorced from a living faith, that the ritual can be elevated outside of its original intent and lead to presumption rather than covenant faithfulness.

I really don't want to disagree, but I can't help it.

I have to see baptism as a "boundary condition" of participation in the Christian discourse, like communion. I can't see how churches which disagree on who can be called Christian, and on who is a member of the church, can still speak intelligibly of uniting our churches.

On the other hand, and giving as much ground as I know how, I can see this: I (and any church I have ever belonged to) find it easy to recognize those of differing views on baptism, but otherwise Biblical faith in the same Lord and Gospel, as true believers; that is, we can all see that a baptized believer in Christ who believes his child is validly baptized before conversion, who I know to be wrong in that belief--or vice versa, for sake of argument--is no less a baptized believer in Christ for having improperly baptized his child (or not). If we can see that, then how can we not see the possibility of having valid church-to-church recognition of the baptized believers, for the sake of discussion and fellowship, where there is uncertainty among members of both sides as to the propriety of their historical practice in this matter?

Moreover, where we can factor out the matters of church membership (through recognition of only baptized believers as members of the church) and false profession (through clear teaching against any notion of baptism as a basis for profession of faith in Christ), then there might be possibilities for further fellowship. I suspect that some of the Presby/Reformed Baptist fellowships have been working from this model.

However, having given that ground, I'm keenly aware of the ambiguity I've stepped into. Here's the thing: the only way to move credo and paedo into closer fellowship that I can see is to either sway one side into essential agreement with the other, or to persuade both sides to be sufficiently uncertain that they arrange an institutional coexistence. However, the first is simply the elimination of one view or the other (which would be desirable, if we could just all be sure we knew which one was right); and the second seems to be a net loss to doctrine, no matter who turns out to be right--is it not?

Unless it becomes possible to remove the ambiguity created by paedo/credo coexistence concerning the relation between "baptized," "church member," and "believer" (I take it as a given that only a baptized believer, who is necessarily a member of a church, is authentically called "Christian"), I find it inconceivable that we could move beyond that.

But let us try to imagine a world where only paedo/credo remained to divide evangelicals. Is it conceivable, that having sorted through all the other debates of the centuries, we could have gotten past the other issues, without having also shed considerable light and narrowed the gap, or even eliminated the question concerning baptism? I find it inconceivable, and so I hope that as we work toward the greatest agreement possible, beginning among those who can agree most and on those things we are most compelled to agree upon, that we will see even the impenetrable walls broken into mere detritus.

Can we achieve it totally? Nope. My post-structuralist tendencies (not to say I'm slipping into something more comfortable, though I am uncomfortable with skirting the issues) tell me that totalities achievable within our [sinful, mortal] discourse are pretty unlikely to be desireable. However, we will be brought to it in The End, and it cannot hurt to try our best to approximate it, here and now, and then toss in an "Even so, Come quickly, Lord Jesus!" as often as possible, for good measure.

Chapter 8: Response to Peter

Peter, your postmoderist slip is showing. :-}

(T)he "pre-empt" language still assumes a framework in which the desired goal is to convince/persuade/compel the other person to believe what I already affirm. I'm going to show that his concepts/concerns are "really" better expressed in my words. This is and remains a form of violence, though: the use of logic as coercive, rather than explanatory and corrective, force.

I could be really nasty with you, and point out that the Bible does not issue any blanket rejection of violence. :-} But perhaps it would be better to point out that the line between “logic as corrective” and “logic as coercive” is… perspectival? :-}

But on to my serious point, in regards to your assertion that…

I suggest that we need to move a step further in this direction, one in keeping with a truly charitable hermeneutic: We need to affirm that, if we are both believers, then we are going to be in agreement, and seek a language in which that is possible.

If I may be so bold, I would assert that there are probably some issues where, even though we are both believers, we will never be in total agreement in this life. The question in my mind is no longer, “How can we achieve total theological agreement?” – I am now convinced that is chasing after a mirage. The question in my mind is now “How can we live together in the local body, seeking to accommodate the strengths and valid concerns of each party, while maintaining unity in the disagreements?” I alluded to the baptism question in my main commentary on chapter 8. I see no reason why credobaptists and paedobaptists cannot fellowship and worship together in the same body, with the baptism and confirmation liturgies covering the concerns of both parties and both parties working to nurture the children as members of the body and disciples of Christ. Yeah, both sides will have to temper their rhetoric and live with some things the other side does that they do not agree with – but as Captain Lonestar said in Spaceballs, “Welcome to REAL LIFE!” Living with other peoples’ flaws is a vital skill – Christ and His apostles even elevated it to a fruit of the Spirit. And given the expectation we have that others overlook our (admittedly minor and almost insignificant) flaws, we ought to extend the same consideration to them. (In fact, I think there’s something about that in the Lord’s Prayer – ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive…’)

Once again, we both noted Frame’s Presby agenda lurking behind all the ecumenical rhetoric. But you do notice he’s getting a bit more open about it as the book unfolds? That may be a partial explanation as to why it really didn’t take off like he would have liked…

As to your four points, 1 & 2 are covered in the Nicene Creed, 3 & 4 in The Gospel An Evangelical Celebration document. I still do love logical symmetry. :-}

Chapter 8: Dealing with Doctrinal Differences

If any serious effort is going to be made by local congregations to practice some form of unity, the question of doctrinal differences will – must – eventually come up. In chapter 8, Frame deals with the question of to what extent doctrinal differences can be tolerated, and how to deal with the differences.

To give Frame due credit, he makes some valid points regarding the necessity for tolerance in theological discussions. The conceits of total logical interconnectivity; of the equal importance of all doctrinal teachings of Scripture; of over-systemazation; and the demand for total conformity in lay and ministerial levels (conceits that I have fallen victim to in the past) are exploded.

But I must also say that I sensed a certain amount of ambiguity in Frame’s arguments in this chapter. Almost as if he didn’t want to make too strong a case for a viable theological discussion, for fear that his beloved Presbyterian distinctives would get shelved…

I really do not want to be part of a church which is unwilling to subscribe to the New Testament doctrines of justification and predestination... We can do much better than that, for God has taught some of us how. I would not want to be in a church where, for even a while, ministers were free to disagree with these teachings.

Even Frame, when push comes to shove, sours on his idea of re-establishing a “one institution fits all” church government in our day and age.

And again, as we have noted in analyses of prior chapters, what Frame gives us with his left hand…

(M)y "back to the future" proposal… would involve uniting all Christians under one church government doctrinally based on the Scriptures and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381. That creed was the last creed that was agreed to by the one, true church and which is acknowledged by virtually all Christians to this day. That would, in effect, take us back before A.D. 451, before the major schisms. Then we could study Scripture together, hopefully without the atmosphere of party spirit, pressure and fear that has surrounded such discussions in the past.

He proceeds to take away with his right.

(V)iews tolerable in the church in the year A.D. 200 are not necessarily tolerable in the year 2000, since God continually teaches his church new things out of the Scriptures.

A hard-core denominationalist would have a field day hoisting Frame with his own petard in regards to these points. “Who are you to say that (my denomination’s pet doctrine) is not a viable and vital ‘new thing’ that God has taught us, and that we must therefore not surrender for a prior, less developed stage of thought?”

So, where do we go from here? Once again, I will submit that the way forward is not “top-down”, but “bottom-up” – ecumenism will only work between local congregations where the members of all concerned bodies can come together, live and worship together, and develop the trust required for such a reunification to work. And rather than abandon the theological debates from the past 1600 years and re-invent the theological wheels, let us who have access to these resources rather use them for all they are worth. Frame’s argument for perspectival debate is well given – and we in the West still (via cheap printing and the Internet) have access to the greater majority of the records of the Church’s theologians. We can, with a due consideration of cultural and historical contexts, weigh the points and emphases of each side in the debate and try to give due deference to each where it is due.

For an example, take the thorny question of who should be baptized. I have (now) been on both sides of the debate regarding the validity of paedobaptism. And I see that each side has emphases that need respecting. Paedos (I now see) recognize that human beings are more than isolated rational minds – we live and learn in community, and faith can be seen and exercised apart from full rational comprehension. Credos, on the other hand, see the need for baptism to not be divorced from a living faith, that the ritual can be elevated outside of its original intent and lead to presumption rather than covenant faithfulness. Human beings, being the finite sinful beings we are, probably cannot fully grasp both sides, depending on our circumstances and personal inclinations. And historically, men who have strongly held to the prime truths (Christ and the Gospel) have disagreed on this issue. Therefore both sides should be accommodated in the life of the local body, in charity and humility. (I have seen this work, in Presbyterian contexts no less! So it is possible, and I would say necessary, in our culture and context.)

Frame recognizes the central importance of a solid ecumenical creed as foundational in theological discussion (and I would add, worship). Frame also expresses his concern that the Nicene Creed would not of itself prove an adequate bulwark for keeping the discussion on “orthodox” ground, and he may have a point. But there is no reason why another layer of defenses could not be raised. I have, in other contexts, noted the existence of an evangelical ecumenical document called The Gospel of Jesus Christ – An Evangelical Celebration. This document was drawn up with the input of as broad a spectrum of evangelical input as was possible – Calvinist, Arminian, Charismatic, etc. Such a document could provide a further “point of meeting” as a basis of discussion towards unity, while keeping a strong orthodox boundary for the nervous nellies like Frame – and me.

Chapter 8: Dealing with Doctrinal Differences

I believe we had planned to skip forward a bit from here on out. Chapter 8, dealing as it does with the question of doctrinal differences, is pretty unavoidable.

I find most of the chapter very helpful, especially (and this is Frame's forte and one of my main reasons for liking him) the section on perspectivalism.

As is my wont, I'm going to grab a few chunks and analyze their tendencies:

Vern Poythress recommends, and I concur, that in situations like this we try to "pre-empt" the other person's fundamental concerns. Rather than going on and on about the sovereignty of God, the Calvinist should seek to show that his view does better justice to human responsibility and freedom. The Arminian should seek to show that his view results in a credible doctrine of divine sovereignty. I do believe that we will be more likely to see our own errors if we make an effort to consider the issues from the perspectives of others. Certainly this is required if we are to show biblical love for one another in the process of theological discussion. And certainly we will maximize our understanding of Scripture if we are able to see the same truth from a maximum number of perspectives.

I am sure Frame and Poythress both wish better than their rhetoric allows, but the "pre-empt" language still assumes a framework in which the desired goal is to convince/persuade/compel the other person to believe what I already affirm. I'm going to show that his concepts/concerns are "really" better expressed in my words. This is and remains a form of violence, though: the use of logic as coercive, rather than explanatory and corrective, force.

I suggest that we need to move a step further in this direction, one in keeping with a truly charitable hermeneutic: We need to affirm that, if we are both believers, then we are going to be in agreement, and seek a language in which that is possible. In order to accomplish that, we will (similar idea with less violent language) attempt to identify the desiderata of each view and affirm only and exactly the language of Scripture relevant to each view and then attempt to identify any teachings which invalidate any language of Scripture.

Thus, in Calvinist/non-Calvinist dialogue (real Arminians are as rare as people Jean would recognize as Calvinian), I urge the Calvinist to affirm a human monergism in sin; and the non-Calvinist to affirm a divine monergism in salvation. When we can pull that off (I think we can, if we get off our positional and confessional high horses and put together language that shows what we affirm in Christ, rather than what we are blessedly inconsistent with in the life of the church), we'll be getting somewhere.

[In the meantime, of course, I'll be over here waving "God does the work of salvation, but you just cain't make God the one who does the work of sin!" like a good not-a-Calvinist.]

In my view, only a very minimal subscription should be required of church members in general. The conditions for church membership should be no narrower than the Scriptures' conditions for belonging to the kingdom of God. Anyone who can make a credible profession of faith in Christ should be welcomed into the church (together, I must add as a paedobaptist, with his/her children). "Credible profession" is not a precise concept. It should normally16 involve the willingness to confess that Jesus is one's own Lord and Savior: that Jesus, who is both God and man, died for the sins of his people to bring them forgiveness, and that he now has full authority over our lives as the resurrected, living Lord (cf. the biblical summaries of the gospel mentioned in an earlier chapter).

It should also include baptism, though I suspect that Frame, being Presbyterian, is thinking of baptism as the act by which induction into the Body occurs, rather than in my more characteristic (Baptist) language of baptism as an immediate prerequisite for active participation in the Body. I'm open to modified language, here.

I just want to point out, though, that Frame's "I must add" represents a major problem for his program. There is pretty much no way you're ever going to convince all the churches to accept unregenerate persons as members of the Body, and that's before one considers whether (as I most assuredly do) God would prevent any such unity in serious error.

This is symptomatic of a larger problem. There can be no unity arrived at by these means that is not a unity of doctrinal compromise, a failure of Christian confession on one or both parts. The question becomes, for me, how can we promote cooperation which begins among those who can cooperate without such failures; and how can we educate our consciences so that our newer, truer positions have the benefit of enabling us to unite with ever more of Christ's People?

We ought to do some more thinking about what doctrines really are non-negotiable. The Evangelical Free Church requires professors at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School to hold a premillenial eschatology; but it permits latitude on the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. In my view that indicates a rather large overestimation of the importance of millennial views and a large underestimation of the importance of the doctrine of predestination. But perhaps I am wrong. The whole question of what is and what isn't tolerable within the church has never been systematically analyzed.

Frame's on to something, here, but he's still campaigning (through his asides, which take up rather sizeable portions of his book, added together) for unity on his own terms, albeit very tactfully.

Now, as it happens, I'm inclined to think that neither one's precise millennial view, nor one's Calvinist/Arminian predilections, are so significant as Frame/TEDS think. At the same time, I think one could successfully articulate some highly useful parameters for an orthodox view:

1. Christians must affirm that Christ has risen in a physical body, and that we will, too;
2. Christians must affirm that Christ will return, judge, and reign on a re-created Earth;
3. Christians must affirm that God is in no way the Author of sin;
4. Christians must affirm that a sinner is in no way able to save himself.

But that's all pretty much minimal pre-Nicene creedal doctrine. We don't need elaborate constuctions of inherited depravity to assert its universality and totality; we don't need elaborate foreknowledge schemes to assert that God never made anyone sin; we don't need charts of the empires from Daniel's dream to affirm with Job that our Redeemer will stand on Earth.

That does rule out some positions affirmed by some current church members, of course; they will either repent or prove themselves false professors. It does not, however, require that we affirm entire systems of multi-layered extrapolations from and interpellations with Scripture, in order to be Biblical.

I think Frame has helpfully grappled with some serious thoughts, here. The problem of establishing what is "essential" has plagued us for some time, and I think some measure of perspectivalism is vital, though it must be very carefully distinguished from any form of pluralism/relativism. However, the role our traditional language and denominational constraints have played in re-defining the language of Scripture away from that which God wrote through His faithful servants should not be underestimated, either.

It's Been a Long Time...

Over a month, by my estimation. It's been a busy one at that, and not all good. Moving, getting sick, moving again, starting at work, starting at church...

Anyways, Peter, I'm sorry I missed your meme. My bad. Anyways, send me an e-mail and let's get RE:Union back on track.

-------- (UPDATE from PGE)

Yeah, let's! [I never noticed we could edit each other's posts, before. Weird.]

Glad you're back. I'll be glad to be back soonishly, too. Just finished a semester, been on "downtime" for a couple weeks. PGE

-------- (UPDATE AGAIN from PGE)

And it's gotten longer. Doug got back just a while before I took a bit of a "blog vacation" and haven't been very active. With any luck, there'll be some change on that front, soon.

-------- (UPDATE from Doug)

Your draft has been sitting in the queue for over two weeks. As Captain Edmund Blackadder would say, "GET ON WITH IT!!!!" ;-}

-------- (UPDATE YET AGAIN from PGE)

We definitely did not eat this plump, juicy pigeon.

Chapter 6: God's Plan for ReunionChapter 7: Denominations in Perspective

In these chapters the argument of the book turns a corner and starts looking at ways unity can actually be worked towards. At least, at some point they'll be looked at. We're still getting there.

Chapter 6 is a recap of Frame's central thesis - that God desires us to work towards greater unity with other believers - and offers encouragements for those who may find that task a bit daunting.

Several points he makes in reply to those who find the concept of working towards unity at odds with their understanding of eschatology are worth repeating here:

(3) The normal scriptural pattern is what scholars call the "already and not-yet:" that is, the blessings promised in the New Heavens and New Earth are already present in seed form. Salvation, for instance, is both future and present (and past) in the New Testament. Therefore, even if complete unity is delayed until the return of Christ, we ought to be able to see the beginnings of that unity in the church today. (4) Scripture presents the New Heavens and New Earth as a guide for our decisions here and now. If we truly look forward to the righteousness of the last days, we should be seeking it now (Matt. 6:33; 2 Pet. 3:13ff.; 1 John 3:2,3). So if we really look forward to the reunification of God's people, we should be seeking it here and now.

Or, as I would phrase it, we're going to be united with all believers in the new creation anyways, so why not get some practice in now? And if that unity really isn't a priority for us, then do we really understand what the New Creation is going to be all about?

Frame then goes on in chapter 7 to list some key circumstances that help promote unity, and the common thread in most of them is worth examining. The circumstances he lists that particularly interest me are the military chaplaincy and missions (foreign and domestic). All these are at the sharp intersection between the church and the world. When the chips are down and you're in the front lines of the battle, does it really matter whether the guy in the foxhole next to you is from your exact regiment? Or does it matter more that you're both fighting in the same army, against the same enemies? In circumstances like that, the commonalities of all believers in Christ count more than the secondary disagreements. And people are often surprised at just how much they do have on common.

I must also note here that while I agree overall with his example of the neighborhood Bible study, *now*, I don't think it has much force of persuasion for those who don't already buy the main thesis. In my TR days, I would have seen such a Bible study as *the place* to air out theological differences and insist that everyone believe the "right" one. But now that I have a view of the Bible that is closer to Frame's than Robbins', I no longer think that that was very wise.

So, if I may draw some practical conclusions from these chapters (which Frame doesn't do so much), it would be these...

1) read the Bible more as a story, a narrative of the history of salvation, than as a bank of prooftexts to back up our tradition's systematic theology. See the Bible as the story of all believers, the story of the chuch, and see what it has to say to all of us in that regard.

2) concentrate more on the things we have in common, rather than the differences. Okay, so we don't fully agree on monergism vs synergism, premillenialism vs postmillenialism, immersion vs sprinkling, elders vs pastors. What does that leave us? Only the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Great Commission, the Parousia, Baptism, the Lord's Supper... need I go on? Many people think that if you don't fight for the particulars, you're against all theology in general. I think that is is more of a symptom of our systems being so tightly constructed that if you don't agree to the whole thing, you're out the door. A little perspective (and a little humility and charity) might go a long way.

3) start getting out more into the trenches. Learn to fight *alongside* other Christians instead of just *against* them.