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.