Evangelicals RE:Union

Continuing the Conversation: An Answer for Peter

2006-06-10T05:18:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-08T12:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-12T03:13:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-16T08:57:00.000-07:00

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:

Christians must affirm that Christ has risen in a physical body, and that we will, too;
Christians must affirm that Christ will return, judge, and reign on a re-created Earth;
Christians must affirm that God is in no way the Author of sin;
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...

2006-02-05T05:46:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-13T12:27:00.000-08:00

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.

Chapter 5 - response to Peter

2005-11-10T09:34:00.000-08:00

Now it's my turn to play catch-up.

Despite my increasingly hectic schedule as my grad program comes to an (hopefully not tragic) end, I think the two-chapter a week pace from here on out will work. I'll start with 6 & 7 on Sunday evening, PST.

The real problem about Frame's answer (the UCG and it's 'courts') is, as I think we've both hit upon, it's a circular argument. Frame thinks that such an institution would resolve the basic theological and praxical (is that a word? it is now) differences that separate the denominations. But you're never going to get denominations to voluntarily surrender themselves to such an organization with those issues unresolved. It's like a temporal paradox loop.

I was impressed with Peter's analysis tying this thing back to the present communions of Rome/Orthodoxy and the Protestant denominations. (Although, as a member of an Anglican church, I may be forced to take some small issue with his allergy to hierarchies in general... :-} ) I think it amply demonstrates the folly of trying to work this sort of unity out from a "top-down" standpoint. The question is, how can it be done locally, congregationally, from a "bottom-up" perspective? I'm *hoping* that Frame's book will have some more to say on this than it has up to this point. We'll start to see this Sunday.

Chapter 5 -- Response to Doug

2005-11-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

Long time no see! I'm, er, back. . . .

I think our paths are more-or-less exactly together on this point:

[Regarding Frame's assertion that issues such as paedo/credobaptism must be solved by "the courts of the one true church"--Doug, did you note the weird plural, there?] Uh, I think not. You aren't going to get a "court of the one true church" until you solve this issue. If this issue is going to be resolved, it will have to be done on a *local, congregational, and ecumenical* level, and by the time Frame's "courts" came into being, this question would have already been dealt with.

Exactly. I can't get from multi-denominational hierarchy to mono-denominational hierarchy (at which point the meaning of "denomination" would finally collapse into "catholic" again) without first either solving or overruling all the denominational problems. Surely, there should be some areas in which we could cooperate this way, and I guess those for whom the existence of denominations is non-negotiable will have to keep on trying that.

What I don't understand is the need to do the back-and-forth of "destroy denominations" while embracing a strategy which requires strengthening them. It seems grossly unlikely that, say, a Presby-Lutheran mondo-denomination would feel the need to cooperate with, say, the Methodists that a small-town Baptist church feels to cooperate with the Methodist church across the way. Since when has strengthening a hierarchy ever improved total cooperation?

Seems to me that churches, absent the denominational ties that bind them, would be much more inclined to cooperate with other churches--some based on proximity (and leading to the combination of churches which, while their denominations own their leadership and their facilities, will never happen) and some based on similarity of emphasis, goals, or vision (which will help strengthen and preserve the various gifts in which various groups excel).

Chapter 5 -- Reiteration (gougatsu ato)

2005-11-08T07:57:00.000-08:00

Five months (that would be finals, a trip to Australia, surgery, three weeks hospitalized, and starting a new college teaching job) ago, we had just reached Chapter 5. We agreed to start doing two chapters at a time, to speed things up (posting speed, not reading speed, being the chief difficulty, here). I suggest that, since Chapter 5's already under weigh (or "underway"), and since Chapter 6 starts a new Part of the book, we do 6 & 7 together, and so forth. . . .

So, Chapter 5. I'm also a bit underwhelmed here, but so far that's been my reaction to a lot of the argumentation in the book. I keep hoping for more, because Frame has better stuff than this; perhaps the really meaty stuff is going to come later. I can't help thinking, though, that the prolegomena is more than half the argument, in a case like this, and I think he's failed to make his premises clear and unobjectionable; for me, the same objections keep repeating in each chapter, until he addresses them.

Let me grab two chunks as focii for discussion:

But as we've seen, God did not establish a zoo, but a church. His plan for dealing with estrangements is not amicable divorce, but mutual discipline within the church (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5) (which can, to be sure, sometimes lead to excommunication when a really serious problem cannot otherwise be overcome).

When the denominations are most true to their traditions, they are most ecumenical.

Here is my problem with Frame's analysis, as someone from an Independent Baptist background, who, like other independents and congregationalists of all stripes (including Free Presbyterians), is more sharply critical of denominations than Frame, but from an entirely different angle: Frame's critique of denominationalism is really just another turn of the denominational wheel. Acting on his analysis, it seems to me we will necessarily just re-create the conditions which led to the denominationalism of the present.

Frame is right that "God did not establish a zoo [where "harmony" is the product of barriers between natural enemies/competitors], but a church." He is right that "amicable divorce" is not an option in church discipline: there is reconciliation, and there is excommunication, and in between is a state of sin for any party not actively seeking reconciliation. This demands our attention and our repentance.

However, Frame seems to me to be mistaken when he believes that a hierarchical One True Church (or, as Doug's been calling it, Unified Church Government--I really want a GUT acronym, but can't get there) with "courts" (what is it with Presbyterians and the judicial metaphor?) is the answer. He seems to be self-defeating when he teaches that the denominations themselves are a middle ground between isolated churches and the One True Church; if that is the case, then it is the unification of denominations, which requires their strengthening and enlarging until some absorb/merge with others, until finally only one remains, with only the excommunicated outside. . . .

But wait, from the standpoint of Rome or Antioch, that's exactly what there is today.

And further, from the standpoint that produces the Lutheran and Reformed and Episcopal denominations, Frame's midway strategy--let denominations grow and dialogue, and eventually they'll work out their differences and merge--is exactly what's underway. Granted, in some cases, it's been a more fissiparous process than they'd hoped, but that's still the calculated goal: we'll be true to our confessional tradition, and sooner or later they'll get it right and join us.

This won't help to "destroy denominations," unless we really believe that (a) all such historical differences can be worked out through some heretofore unexampled dialogic phenomenon or (b) one denomination really is in possession of such worldly power as would enable it to enforce a "join or be excommunicated" decree meaningfully. Case (a) is the hope of ecumenists in the less positive sense; case (b) is the hope of, well, medieval Roman Catholics and, if the stories are true, the 20th-C Russian Orthodox.

More to the point, this puts hope where there's no basis for hope: in the legitimacy of denominational hierarchies above the local churches. Frame clearly (as a committed Presbyterian must, I suppose) believes that supra-church hierarchies are manifestations of the church. I remain, Baptistically and Biblically, quite archly skeptical on the point.

That a local church may organize its affairs in any number of ways, I have no doubt. That it might choose to cooperate with other churches in any number of ways, I have no doubt. That the churches are under obligation to cooperate and to communicate with each other, I have so little doubt that I'm happy to join Frame in his desire to lead our churches in repentance on the point. That any offices exist outside the local church, which have authority over the local church, I have grave doubts.

Christ did not establish any denominational hierarchies. Not only did He not establish many (as Frame argues), He did not even establish one. He sent out His own Apostles, who on the basis of that special sending formed churches, who communicated and cooperated by sending messengers from one to another (including, as even the Twelve acknowledged, sending the Apostles out from particular churches to particular churches--though Christ's special commission to certain Apostles was still a unique grace to the church). Those churches are His Church, their members are His members, and there is no need nor call nor promise for anything else.

When the churches disagreed, they did not consult "courts" or denominational higher-ups. They sought, simultaneously, two forms of guidance: Apostolic authority (available today only in Scripture form) and the conscience of the whole church. They formed their conscience by, in addition to seeking right authority, sending elders from each church to a council, where the matter was given due deliberation.

Now, if Frame wants to suggest that a council of the churches (which are The Church) equals a denominational hierarchy, that's his prerogative. What seems clear to me, though, is that the existence of modern denominational structures--with offices, finances, bylaws, parachurch organizations, schools, seminaries, and often even political entanglements--is the chief barrier to the cooperation of the churches as The Church. That should be Frame's point, given the force of some of the stronger arguments up to now.

He seems too unwilling to cross his own denomination, though, and so tries to argue that we can defeat denominationalism by . . . being better denominationalists.

When the denominations are most true to their traditions, they are most ecumenical.

Call me a skeptic on that one.

Chapter 5 - Denominations:Why We Love Them

2005-07-24T21:10:00.000-07:00

I was slightly - well, a little more than slightly - disappointed by this chapter.

Given the history and pervasiveness of denominations, Frame really should have given them a better deal in this chapter. Instead, it was a string of "Everything they can do, a United Church Government could do better." Maybe so. But I doubt that a deeply convicted Baptist/Presbyterian/Episcopalian/Lutheran will buy this - or feel that their loyalties or their strengths as denominations have been given their proper due.

Denominations *do* provide a doctrinal and governmental center for their congregations. They can provide a pool of support and resources that can help a single congregation do things they could not on their own. Could a UCG do the logistics on a greater scale? Well, yeah. No brainer there. But you have to *get there* first. And Frame's arguments in this chapter are, to put it charitably, rather circular.

Take, for instance, his discussions over what would be a major stumbling block to any such enterprise - the question of who gets baptized and when. (I'm not even going to touch the subject of *mode* - I don't care where the water is applied or in what quantity.) To quote Frame:

Personally, I think uncertainty in this area is tolerable. I will say more about that in a later chapter.(BURTTD - I agree, and I too will have more to say on this at the proper time.) But what I think is rather unimportant. The important question is, how does God want us to resolve such questions? And the only answer can be, through the courts of the one true church. Only such courts are fully qualified to judge which side is right, and only such courts are fully qualified to determine the limits within which the church may tolerate error.

Uh, I think not. You aren't going to get a "court of the one true church" until you solve this issue. If this issue is going to be resolved, it will have to be done on a *local, congregational, and ecumenical* level, and by the time Frame's "courts" came into being, this question would have already been dealt with.

Also, many convicted denominationalists will find his "dual loyalty" system to be contradictory. I am to be loyal to my denomination (pg. 61), and work for its eventual abolition (pg. 62), and yet this means I will be a better whatever-denomination-I-am (pg. 63). The problem is, if these groups are going to come together, EVERYBODY is going to have to give on some points of doctrine and practice. And that means we are going to have to put unity over our denominational loyalites. Frame's outlook, IMHO, just does not give the impetus that will be required to overcome these differences.

On the good side, now the book will turn a corner and look at more practical theological and liturgical matters. I am hopefull (still) that there will be some good starting points to be found in the coming chapters.

Interminable delays

2005-07-24T13:33:00.000-07:00

Well, they will have an end, so that was hyperbole. Nonetheless, I am likely to be away from my 'Net connection for the next three days or so. Will post on Chapter 5 as soon as I'm able--it's a meaty one.

Cheers,
PGE

UPDATE: Delays continue. Will try to post on Chapters 5 & 6 ASAP, but will be in Australia beginning tomorrow. I'm sorry to say my schedule is likely to be massively disrupted for the next month or so, between a trip to Australia and some pending surgery. PGE

Response to Doug--Chapter 4

2005-07-20T14:35:00.000-07:00

You note, in response to Frame's list:

1. Denominationalism has greatly weakened church discipline. The hypothetical example he gives could be all too real. Without a sense of mutual belonging to a greater Body, or a shared vision of responsibility to that Body, such a situation could easily happen – and does. One could argue that sociological factors (such as our individualism, drive for growth uber alles, etc), also feed into this problem.

This is my personal vote for "number one problem of denominations." It is the same problem as comparison-shopping, really, as all of these amount to a replacement of submission with selection in our relationship to the church. (I'll get to your number one in a moment.)

In a previous post, I used a similar example, that of a church which remarries divorcees who were refused marriage by a neighboring church. I am still looking for the suggestion which improves on this situation; in any scenario I can foresee, the church with the popular view will simply assimilate the less popular, but more biblical, church--effectively annihilating the witness to that particular truth in that culture. We have to have more than "abolish denominations" in play, if we wish to avoid that; yet it is clear that the status quo, in which the adulterer can simply "shop around" until he finds a "tolerant" and "inclusive" church that "accepts" him and shows him "unconditional love," is unacceptable.

Now, as to your number-one problem with denominations, regarding the maldistribution of gifts in the Body (among the denominations):

The problem is that we’ve essentially divided the Body up by its functions, as Paul explicitly warned us in I Corinthians 12 NOT to do.

I basically agree, with a caveat insofar as I still think that God will give the local church what it needs. The question is, though, are we using everything He's given us? Or are we hiding and distorting certain things to fit our frameworks and distinguish ourselves from others?

I think there's something in that side of the critique, though, especially where the old "It takes evangelistic unction to make orthodoxy function" sort of problem crops up. I know that, as a non-Calvinist intellectual, it's frustrating to me to find myself compelled to consult Reformed, Catholic, or Orthodox sources for well-reasoned historical judgments about doctrine, while at the same time having to systematically disagree with key elements of their arguments. Where are the great dogmatists on "my side"? The sad answer is, virtually nonexistent. The temptation to "join the club" doctrinally in order to get in on the discourse is strong; the temptation to reject the discourse altogether so I "don't rock the boat" is, on the other hand, also strong. It's no wonder I've seen Christians from non-liturgical traditions running off to Rome or Antioch to replace that tension with "ours is the one, true church" pride.

Is the answer to create a "one, true church"--as Frame seems to think it is--though? You and I seem to agree it isn't. So how can we insure that our local churches are not suppressing the Lord's work in their members?

Chapter 4 - Response to Peter

2005-07-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

Seeing as we are just wrapping up Part I of the book, I think it is just a little too soon to tell whether Frame doesn't have a post-demolition solution in mind.

The question is, what will that solution be, and how 'practical' it is (for non-Presbyterians, that is... ;-} )

Chapter 4 -- Comparative Damages

2005-07-20T09:42:00.000-07:00

[sorry for the delay. Uh, blame the heat. Or the busy weekend. Or Harry Potter. Or Trogdor the Burninator. Gotta blame it on somethin' . . .]

I am happy that Doug got the jump on me. His way of responding to a chapter makes a better lead-in than mine, and I hope he'll take advantage of my sloth to get in the last word, too. I'll use my response to Doug to get into the particulars, more.

I tend to, having read the text, choose some one piece to gnaw on (Doug digests, I ruminate). In this case, it's surprisingly tiny; I'm interested in the form of the argument encapsulated in his concluding remark for this chapter, and with what it may reveal about Frame's approach--and what we may have to deal with as we engage the topic further:

There may be other problems of denominationalism which I have not mentioned. But after this survey, can anyone seriously say that denominationalism does not cause practical problems for the church? Can anyone deny that there would be considerable benefits in abolishing denominations?

Let us assume that we answer Frame's first question with a resounding "No!" Does it follow that we must answer with the expected "No!" to the second?

I'd like to reframe (no pun intended, professor) the argument just a bit. In order to build a new multibillion dollar stadium, the city of Los Angeles has just bulldozed hundreds of old apartment buildings. Those apartment buildings included one that was an amazingly important architectural treasure (unlikely, but this is my hypothetical, OK?); they also included a number that had been "condemned" by way of suspicious fires set by shady fellows in zoot suits. Now, a mediocre sports team (let us say that Los Angeles just acquired, oh, the Astros) is holding forth in a very expensive stadium that barely pays the rent, while exacerbating the housing shortage.

Now, can anyone seriously say that this urban renewal project does not cause practical problems for the city? I should hope we would answer, "No!" And can anyone deny that there would be considerable benefits to demolishing the stadium?

Well, of course, we certainly could deny that. And we might be right. Especially if the stadium were demolished, say, by shady fellows in zoot suits dynamiting it in the night, leaving smoking rubble all over the place. Or terrorists nuking it during a game. Or even the city fathers deciding to raze the place in favor of a housing project (housing projects run by city governments being generally describable in terms of Dante's famous poem--and no, not the Paradiso).

In other words, we can admit that we arrived at the status quo in a bad way, for bad reasons, with bad results, and we may still be rightly convinced that merely abolishing the status quo conveys no benefits. The question is, "How can we do better?" and not merely, "When will we do something?"

And that is what Frame has yet to answer, and until he does so his belaboring the "bad, bad, bad" denominations is much like telling humans that aging is bad.

Sure it is. But what else can we do?

Chapter 4 - What's Really so Bad About Denominationalism?

2005-07-17T08:12:00.000-07:00

Here we get to the heart of Frame’s beef with denominationalism. He presents us with a laundry list of the practical/ecclesiastical results of the dark side of having divided and mutually competitive denominations. That underlining is important, as will be seen in my comments. I’ll hit them one by one, in the order Frame sets them out.

1. Denominationalism has greatly weakened church discipline. The hypothetical example he gives could be all too real. Without a sense of mutual belonging to a greater Body, or a shared vision of responsibility to that Body, such a situation could easily happen – and does. One could argue that sociological factors (such as our individualism, drive for growth uber alles, etc), also feed into this problem.

2. Church membership means very little today. Here I would give more weight to the social and economic factors than the denominational differences. The cultural expectations of the “sovereign individual” and the breakdown of community make meaningful church membership a hard struggle, no matter what denomination. Of course, some denominations make it harder than others…

3. Imbalance of Spiritual gifts. This is the real rub for me. I’ve often wondered, “Why are the Charismatics so crazy, the Methodists so wishy-washy, the Reformed such uptight snots?” The problem is that we’ve essentially divided the Body up by its functions, as Paul explicitly warned us in I Corinthians 12 NOT to do. If you’re smart, you go to a Reformed church. If you care about the poor, you go to a Methodist church. If you like expressing your emotions, you go to a Charismatic church. And without the other emphases around to drag you back to the center, you start to carry your strengths to their extreme conclusions – Charismatics abandon tradition, Methodists abandon doctrine, and the Reformed abandon (or anathematize) everyone and seal themselves off from the church and the world in a tight doctrinal cocoon. There’s no real impetus for people with disparate gifts to stay in one congregation and do the hard work of living together and tempering their gifts with the gifts of others – it’s SO much easier to go to a church in a denomination where everybody already thinks like you do. If we actually had to live and work together, we’d probably find that we’re not so far apart as we believed – and that denominations aren’t as important after all.

4. The church lacks common courts to resolve disputes. Yeah, in a perfect world it might be nice if there were a central, God-ordained authority to “lay down the law”, as it were – to give final answers to all these questions. Then again, it might not. Given that we’re sinful beings, after all, such authority structures tend towards corruption. Even Catholics admit that the Church before the Reformation was in a royal mess. What they won’t admit is that such messes are par for the course in human affairs, and that no structure or denomination will ever get a “get out of total depravity free” card dropped down to them from heaven. I sometimes wonder if Frame would admit that, too… In any event, this is way too far from where we are now or can reasonably expect to be.

5. Denominationalism hardens existing divisions. Again, in this point Frame seems to think that having a central authoritative court would mollify the effects of sin and political conflict, and yet somehow not be affected by those same ills. Or the subject of infant vs. believers’ baptism. Yes, a united church may have come up with a solution by now – then again, it may not have. If we’re going to deal with the problems of the division of the Body here and now, bemoaning what could have been won’t help. The question is, can we come up with a Biblical understanding of Baptism here and now that can express the concerns of both paedobaptist and credobaptist, and allow both to worship and work together in one congregation in good conscience? That’s the question we need to be asking, and answering…

6. Denominational division makes reconciliation more difficult. Well, yeah. If you emotionally invest in an institution based on a “stand on principle” or “defending the Gospel”, that is going to make reconsideration of the basic issues that caused the division much more difficult. That’s just basic psychology.

7. Denominationalism creates unholy alliances. This is more the fault of the persons involved than the denomination itself. If I insist on being an Episcopalian in spite of their slide to apostasy, simply because I was born an Episcopalian and I deeply need that sense of identity, then I have made the Episcopal church an idol. And who is more at fault – the idol, or the idolator?

8. Denominationalism compromises the church's witness to the world. Reformed types *hate* this line of argument (“it smells of Romanism!”), but if we’re honest, we have to admit it’s true. What does it say about our concern for Christ’s admonition for unity when we have all these denominations? And when we spend so much time either fighting - or what may be worse, ignoring – each other?

9. Denominationalism leads to creedal stagnation. This will probably be the biggest obstacle towards working for local unity- especially among strong evangelical Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Reformed types. The crucial differences in practice – baptism, communion, church government, etc – are carved in stone for these people, and while they will loudly proclaim their submission to sola scriptura “in principle” (as Frame would say), in practice their creeds set the agenda. Unless we are willing to submit our creeds to Scripture – and not just the way *we* read it, but the way *all* our brothers and sisters read it – the divisions will remain.

10. Denominationalism leads to distorted priorities. This is just a kind way of saying that for some people, “the Church” = “our denomination”. Again, this is something that is often expressed more in practice than in principle, but the charge stands.

11. Denominationalism leads to superficiality. This is closely related to the point above, and I would have expressed it more as “Denominationalism leads to narrow-minded theological parochialism”. While I am more familiar with the Reformed expressions of this sin (there are some TR’s who would probably rather cut their own throats than read Yoder or Hauerwas), I’m sure such parochialism can be found elsewhere as well. And again, this is just an expression and reinforcement of the “groupthink” I deplored in point 3.

12-13. Parochialism. To distinguish these points from point 11 above, I would call it “regional/cultural parochialism”. And we in America are *especially* guilty of this. It took my reading of Philip Jenkins’ *The Next Christendom* - and my joining an Anglican church sponsored by the See of Rwanda – for it to really sink in that the fate of the Church universal is by no means centered on the fate of American evangelicalism. Or that the way we do things in America today can have little to do with how the Church has done things for the past 2000 years or so. The question is, do we really believe that those who do not exactly believe as we do, or worship in the same manner we do, are just as much a part of the Body as we? Do we, really?

14. Denominationalism provokes unhealthy competition. I already alluded to this in my response to the initial points. Again, it’s a “church chicken/cultural egg” argument in my book, but there’s no question they feed off of each other.

15. Ungodly pride and snobbery. We’re all guilty of this. “We are the pure – we are the theologically correct.” “We are the holy – we are the ones anointed by the Holy Spirit.” “We are the obedient – we care for the poor and downtrodden.” “We are the faithful – we stand against liberalism.” This is a problem that will always be with us. And this is a problem that only Christ can cure.

Response to Doug--Chapter 3

2005-07-10T21:08:00.000-07:00

I guess it just *seemed* longer. Maybe if I expand my bullet points . . .

I think you tag the problem we're all stuck wrestling with at the tail end of your post this week:

Of course, from the ECUSA's perspective (and that of its mainline allies) it is "schismatic" - but when apostates call you schismatic, it ought to be seen as a badge of honor. And there are ten times as many Anglicans outside the white Western nations as there are Episcopalians left within them. Who, pray tell, are the real schismatics here?

"Will the real schismatics please stand up?"

"The real schismatic has left the building."

When the Apostle John wrote, "They went out from among us, that it may be seen that they were not of us," he was writing as an Apostle to a particular church or group of churches. When we come to decide among churches, without any apostles handy to do the judging, what can we hope for?

Of course I support the idea of the ECUSA being disfellowshipped. They are not only tolerating but promoting impenitent sin in their leadership--corruption is rarely so easy to identify. By "disfellowshipped," though, what do I mean? Should we reject any member of an ECUSA church as a communicant in our churches?

I think that we'll have to get a lot better at handling church discipline in our local churches before we'll be ready to do more than case-by-case judgment in these matters.

I'm very interested in what's going on with your AMiA church, Doug. Do keep bringing that in. From time to time, I may draw on my church here in Japan for examples, too.

"Schism? Who needs another -ism?"

Chapter 3 - Response to Peter

2005-07-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

Your post had 870 words - Chapter 3 had about 1500. Not quite as long as the chapter, but not bad for a reply, either. ;-}

I think you hit the nail on the head re: Frame's Presbyterian background coloring his arguments. That's one reason why I kept bringing up the Anglicans in my post - any discussion of hierarchical unity (which Frame wants so much) is going to hit the shoals of this conflict really early. Not to mention the instinctual aversion to "one church government" that is bred in the bones of many protestants. Among many of this sort, ANY talk of doctrinal charity or ecumenical outreach is merely "the first step back to Rome". Frame talks about the church still attempting a pre-451 ecclesiology, but I suspect many of the more strident protestants (the "TR's" in particular) have an ecclesiology that has never dealt with anything post-1517...

If nothing else, after this book is done we ought to more closely look at your points 1-8, and try to nuance some sort of answer to problems 9 & 10. This is the information age, is it not? How hard would it be for the congregations in a single town to set up a sharing network, to communicate on such cases and coordinate their actions? It's a step in the right direction, even if everybody doesn't sign on to it at once. I know some communities have similar measures in dealing with marital counseling, so it's not totally unprecedented...

Chapter 3 - Toward a Post-Denominational View of the Church

2005-07-10T10:19:00.000-07:00

This week's chapter is short and somewhat eclectic. I'll just hit the highlights of what came to my mind as I read it.

Authority - church vs. denomination. Frame says that "the church has through its officers a real authority over believers. Has God granted such authority to denominations? I would say that denominations have authority insofar as they do reperesent the authority of the church (that is difficult to ascertain) and insofar as we voluntarily grant this authority to them in our membership and officers' vows. But this is very different from the authority of the church as such..."

Frame really needs to develop or nuance this if he's going to really convince people. At the local levels this is hardly a point for contention at all, as there is ample agreement that there are local leaders for local congregations (however the names of the officers and the division of labor between them may change). There may be more room for maneuver as you go "higher-up" in the denominational structure, but then again... I for one can't think of any major denomination that does not believe that it's organizational structure is non-biblical, let alone anti-biblical. You may be able to make a case for this being true for Baptist churches, but I can't imagine the Anglican church saying, "Yeah, there's no biblical basis for a hierarchical structure of ruling bishops, but we just organize ourselves this way because it works for us." It will be interesting to see what Frame makes of this in his chapter on church government later on.

Lack of diversity of spiritual gifts within and among denominations. This is a salient point for me, and as Frame will return to it in the next chapter, I will hold my comments until then.

Schisms and moving between denominations. I think that he is correct in theory, but the root problems we face today are of a different sort - the lack of covenant and community bonds that make such switches so easy. I've seen that problem first-hand, and I've also seen attempted solutions that go to far in the opposite direction (making a "church covenant" that is even more binding in practice than a denominational confession!). The church I belong to now is trying to walk a tightrope between these two extremes.

As this church is also an Anglican Mission in America church, this has also afforded me an interesting perspective on the issue of "schism" and "fellowship". Is the AMiA a new denomination? Yes and no. It's "new" in the sense that it did not exist 5 years ago - it's not in the sense that it does not have it's own independent government but places itself under the existing (orthodox) Anglican sees from other parts of the world. Of course, from the ECUSA's perspective (and that of its mainline allies) it is "schismatic" - but when apostates call you schismatic, it ought to be seen as a badge of honor. And there are ten times as many Anglicans outside the white Western nations as there are Episcopalians left within them. Who, pray tell, are the real schismatics here?

What to say? Chapter 3 (and a post that may be longer than it)

2005-07-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

I'm having a hard time deciding what to say about chapter 3. I can only assume Frame conceived of this as a transition between sections, because it's rather light on substance. Nonetheless, I'll try to chew on what I can. Here's the broad statement that would best summarize the chapter, I think:

We need an ecclesiology that makes some careful distinctions between the attributes, powers and gifts of the church, on the one hand, and those of particular denominations, on the other. We should no longer develop doctrines of the church which are written as if the schisms had never taken place, or as if we were still living before A.D. 451.

I guess it must be my Independent Baptist background, but I'm initially inclined to react to this by saying, "Of course. Who does that? Oh, wait, you're *Presbyterian*. Got it."

That is, it's true. It's dead obvious, in fact. Which is why it's so stunning that the church as a whole hasn't quite glommed on to it yet.

At the same time, independent or "free church" ecclesiology has been grappling with this for centuries, now, sometimes more successfully than others. Taking Frame at his word that (a) denominations should be de-privileged and (b) ecclesiology should not pretend that the church functions now in the manner it might have functioned in some alternate, schism-free reality, I would arrive at the following basic teachings:

1) there are churches, and there is the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."
2) in Christ, all of the local bodies *are* one Body.
3) in the world, the Body *exists as* many local bodies. (that is, there *is no* magisterium)
4) the test of membership in the Body of Christ is confessed faith in Christ, baptism, and submission to the discipline of some local church.
5) the local body should only have as members those who are members of the Body.

Among the implications of these teachings would be:

6) members in good standing of any local body are also in communion with any other local body.
7) members who reject the discipline of one local body should not be received by another.
8) impenitence in the face of church discipline for sinful behavior would be one sort of rejection of discipline; impenitence in the face of church discipline for false teaching would be another.

However, there arises the complicating factor which seems to give rise to Frame's difficulty in analyzing the various Protestant splits in Chapter 2:

9) local bodies which pervert the Gospel, baptize unbelievers, or discipline falsely compel those they excommunicate to sin in remaining outside the church or to join other local bodies.
10) local bodies which pervert the Gospel, baptize unbelievers, or discipline falsely compel other local bodies to evaluate whether the prospective members or the church they left are schismatic.

Now, given these "givens" it may seem that we must either throw up our hands in despair and embrace both members of our church (before one can leave), or erect a hierarchy which can, by some measure of worldly force (whether financial, social, or political) settle all cases which arrive at stage (9&10). I think, however, that this is premature. If we accept that unity is a positive good in the church, albeit (as I still think) a secondary one, a fruit of first-order goods such as love for the brethren and devotion to the Gospel's spread, then the above could be viewed as a *negative test* for necessary division. That is, when we look at the believers and the churches around us--when it comes to cases--do we, in fact, see that the divisions which exist are based on points 9 & 10? Are they *currently* so, even if they may have been *historically* so at some time?

Many times, I think our answer will be "no." And where that is the case, it is not "compromise" in any shameful sense to encourage one body to reach out to another. This is the great failure of the sort of Independent Baptist churches I grew up in, methinks: they fail to treat the above as *negative tests*, and instead require that churches affirmatively demonstrate that they are "of like faith and practice" before they will interact fruitfully with them or receive their members. This is a defensive reaction typical of separatists, who are always a hair's breadth away from being properly schismatic (I disagree that independent churches are schismatic for leaving a denomination, on grounds Frame should approve: that denominations have no spiritual authority) and have often, and egregiously, crossed right over it. That Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and other denominationalists have done no better in no way excuses those who have done bad enough.

I suggest that the way out is not, as Frame's Presbyterian commitments lead him to expect, through a unity-building hierarchy; rather, it is through a revival of love for the brethren and zeal for the Gospel in our local churches, coupled with a thorough de-privileging of denominations. Can that be? On a grand scale, probably not.

In your church? Well, have you tried? Have I? What would it look like if we did?

Response to Peter -- Chapter 2

2005-06-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

Sounds like Novatian was one of my "theological engineers" - make your general principle (*anyone* who apostasizes is excommunicate), apply it universally regardless of the circumstances, and insist everyone agree with it (since it is self-obviously correct)...

And once you get into disagreement with people like that, it's all too easy to go to extreme measures yourself in dealing with them - since brotherly reasoning and exhortation don't seem to work, excommunicate the sonuvagun yourself and see how he likes it!

The problems facing those who would work for greater unity are pretty obvious. The solutions, however...

Chapter 2 -- Well, what about Novatian?

2005-06-26T20:51:00.000-07:00

As Doug has pointed out, Frame's giving his readers the Cliff's Notes to church history, and that involves trade-offs. Readers could do much worse than to use Frame's overview as a sort of topical index to the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. The Novationist and Donatist controversies provide a lot of insight into the ways that thinking about churches, bishops, baptism, and repentance were changing through this period, and the other disputes he mentions have reams of historical writings concerning them.

I'd like to think, for a moment, about the Novationist controversy. It is, as Frame says, the first point in church history where we see someone excommunicated but not declared a heretic.

I think this is an interesting study because, as best I can tell, there is error on both sides. On the side of the Latin Fathers (the forerunners of Roman Catholicism, who won this argument), there seems to have been grounds for a legitimate criticism that they were treating apostasy as no different from those sins a Christian may commit while still legitimately claiming the name of Christ. Scripture is replete with warnings about those who turn away from Christ, and while it would surely be correct to acknowledge that a moment of weakness under duress is a sin to be repented of, the Novationists were seeing folks who had lived comfortably during persecution as pagans, only to return to the church as if they had been Christians all along and needed merely to confess some particular sin. Surely there is reason to treat someone who has denied Christ and left the church in favor of the world as one treats an unbeliever in need of salvation, and not as a Christian caught in some fault.

Regardless of the merits of this criticism, though, Novation clearly went too far in teaching that such could *never* be restored. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of apostasy--the true apostate will never *seek* restoration, will never repent; the true believer or the false believer who, having withered under persecution, is becoming a true believer--these will *always* seek restoration.

So Novation was in doctrinal error concerning the offer of salvation, and was insistently teaching such and dividing the communion of the church.

Here is where the great failure arises: to have excommunicated Novation while being unwilling to treat him as a heretic was, itself, an error. There is an either/or to church discipline that was ignored here: in a valid excommunication, the church finds that there is a heretical teaching, a teaching (whether it concerns the language or the practice of the faith) against the dogmatic matters of the faith which leaves only two alternatives: *either* the teacher will, if he is a true believer, repent under discipline; *or* the teacher will, by impenitence, manifest that he is not a true believer.

This either/or is the ultimate sanction of church discipline. To use it for anything *less* than such matters as lead the church to believe that impenitence marks an unbelieving heart, is to misuse the authority of the church. To fail to use it when such occasions arise is likewise wrong.

By short-circuiting church discipline in this case--by putting Novation out for concerns which did *not* merit the non-recognition of Novation baptism, as the churches later found--those involved set the precedent for the sort of politicizing of confessional disputes that has plagued the church ever since.

Indeed, on both sides we find a certain sort of hyperzealous "doctrinal purity" masking fundamental errors of doctrine about baptism, about church discipline, and about the offer of salvation.

One thing necessary for unity is an agreement from all sides that confessing truth is a non-negotiable necessity (though it is one of several such, not the only/ultimate one). Another is a proper understanding of church discipline, one which seeks not pragmatic solutions to "problem children" but the restoration of those under discipline, and which recognizes that excommunication, while necessary to "protect the sheep" from false teachers (that is, teachers whose claim to Christianity is belied by their impenitence), is not primarily a way to protect the sheep from teaching with which the church disagrees: it is primarily a way to seek restoration of the impenitent by putting them, ultimately, to the either/or of repentance or condemnation.

I suspect that, if we were to consider the bad example of the Novationist controversy, we might find some insight into the many bad examples of church discipline that have come along since then. And then, we would do well to return to the Scriptures to see what Christ and the Apostles told us it means to deny Christ's name--or to deny the claims of those who call themselves "Christian."

Response to Doug--Chapter 2

2005-06-26T20:49:00.000-07:00

What he said. Really, at the moment I see nothing to add to his comments. Perhaps I'll update if something comes to mind later.

UPDATE: not *exactly* a response to Doug, but since he engaged the history survey a bit more than I did, I'll include it here. I think Frame's calling Jeroboam "the first denominationalist" is a bit misguided--in fact, it sounds like a cheap shot.

Jeroboam set up a false temple with a false worship while claiming it was part of the real Temple worship, and did so in order to secure a following to himself. There are few clearer cases of what "heretic" means than his actions. Denominationalism is a failure to draw the right lines which results in drawing the wrong ones; but frank heresy is not the same problem, and does not have the same solutions.

Chapter Two - Where did Denominations come from?

2005-06-26T12:48:00.000-07:00

Again, the real problem I see here in Frame's book is that it attempts to answer a 2000-year problem in less than 10 pages. ;-}

To really answer this question requires a Church History course to do it justice. I think Frame is much better in dealing with the general categories of denominational origins, and I want to look closer at those origins here.

Heresy - This, of course, requires a further examination into what "heresy" really is, but for purposes of this discussion I will use the definition that Robert Bowman used in his book Orthodoxy & Heresy:

(A) teaching which directly opposes the essentials of the Christian faith, so that true Christians must divide themeselves from those who hold it.

There are good examples of this both in Frame's book (the Marcionites, Gnostics, etc), and in more modern history (the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, "modernist/liberal" Christianity of the Spong/Pike variety, etc). Divisions from such people are a necessity, tragic as may be in personal and structural terms. If the Triune God as known in the Incarnate Son of Man who died for our sins is not believed in or worshiped, there *is* no unity or fellowship, even if the deniers use our language and our organizational structures. The ultimate fault here lies not with the orthodox, but the heretics.

Purity - Setting aside the question of heresy, where it is given that both sides believe in the same God, the drive for a "pure church" can lead to divisions. The Novatians and Donatists whom Frame names in this category were hardly the last of them. Much of fundamentalism and Anabaptism is marked with this same spirit. The questions raised are not just moral or cultural - questions of doctrinal purity above and beyond heresy have also led to splits (the Presbyterian right wing - OPC/BPC/RPC - is (in)famous for this). The main problems here can't be blamed on heretics - the forces of pride and unforgiveness within our own ranks are to blame. Rather than bear with each others' burdens and accept our differences, we divide and form factions of like-minded folk. And the union and diversity of the Body is denied.

Cultural/Political issues - at least the second category has the "dignity" of being able to dress their actions in half-way decent prooftexting. This category is even less defensible. Here churches are split for "worldly" political and cultural concerns. The denominational subdivisions within the same theological group by nation, for instance. Or the split between Episcopal and Anglican following the American Revolution. Or the North/South splits among almost every American church in consequence of the Civil War. Or the dozens of brances of Orthodox churches all along cultural and linguistic lines. I'm frankly surprised Frame did not discuss this issue in greater detail, because it bears quite heavily on our current situation.

-----------------

In his final paragraphs, Frame returns to the question of overarching church government. While the local (congregational) level of government is more or less intact, and the ultimate government in Christ always stands, the "middle levels" in Frame's viewpoint is in dissarray. Frame hints that he will return to this in later chapters, but I think we're in agreement here that our discussion (and the best hopes for results) lie on the local level. And a good start in that will be a sharp and critical examination of the roots of our divisions.