Drafts of Theology & Polity Now Available
Drafts of the documents that the Theology and the Polity work groups have written are now available here. We ask you to read these materials carefully and we invite your helpful comments and suggestions through January 6, 2012. (The two different email addresses where you should send feedback are available on the cover page of each document.)
We are grateful for the significant hours of prayer and research the theology and polity work groups put into these documents. We thank them for their careful, faithful work. We look forward to your thoughtful feedback before January 6. At the Orlando Covenanting Conference, we will distribute a revised version of these theology and polity documents.
38 Responses
As I looked at the educational requirements for pastor under 2.04 “The Ministry of Pastors” I was disappointed to read that the academic requirements are more stringent and specific than the New Form of Government in the current Book of Order. By stating that “ordinarily a Masters of Divinity at degree at an accredited theolgoical seminary” you have become more specific than the New Form of Government. In G-2.0607 of the Book Of Order all that is required is “a transcript from a theological institution accredited by the Association of Theological Schools acceptable to the presbytery….” Under the New Form of Government it could technically be an MBS (Masters in Biblical Studies) which is a two year degree rather than a three year MDiv. Do we want to be missiononal planting churches every year, or do we want to wait until every pastor has at least three years of graduate work before they can be ordained as a minister. Isn’t two years enough? Don’t we really do most of our learning on the job? Isn’t it the Holy Spirit who is equipping us? Why do we need to suggest a three year Masters of Divinity is necessary when the New Form of Government is less restrictive and more creative by not suggesting a three year MDiv but simply “a transcript from a theological institution… showing a course of study including Hebrew and Greek, exegesis of Old and New Testaments using Hebrew and Greek, satisfactory grades in all areas of study, and graduation or proximity to graduation.” I believe we slow down church planting when we require every pastor to have a three year degree. Two years should be plenty if we want to get serious about planting churches. Thanks for all of your hard work. God bless and Merry Christmas.
Howard, I was stunned when I read the nFOG at that point. Then I looked into it and found that I didn’t know what the old FOG required as well as I thought I did; the language in the nFOG is just carried over from the old FOG. It isn’t a change. Nevertheless, the M.Div. is the de facto requirement of every presbytery. This polity document just makes explicit what we’re already doing anyway, whatever the constitution has required. I would be very disappointed if the presbyterians compromised any more than we already have on the education of ministers.
Henry, I love the motivation behind your comments to get the church engaged in church planting and missions. My thinking is that we absolutely do need to get serious about being missional. But this should not happen just at the pastoral level alone. Having even a shorter two year formal theological requirement is really not needed to do church planting, if you take in the document in as a whole. As the fellowship shared in their introduction they are offering guidance not constriction to the education requirement by using the word ‘ordinarily’. They aren’t giving a checklist, just guidance and trust that the local session and Presbytery will know what to do when special circumstances or individuals fully equipped (educationally and spiritually) to do ministry come forward. I would hope Presbyteries in the Fellowship would not look down at someone with an MBS, but look at their spiritual gifts alongside their education. It would be up to the Session and Presbytery’s discretion and their own examination standards to see if they are equipped or not.
The truth though is that we need to get the local church including all of its leadership actively participating in growing God’s kingdom! Getting pastors equipped and out into the field, just isn’t enough. The fellowship seems to envision this also when they state in 2,0501:
“In order to better facilitate the mission and ministry of a presbytery and its congregation, as well as to maximize the gifts of the totality of the body of Christ, it is often advantageous to commission elders and deacons to more extensive levels of service than ordinarily afforded these offices…an elder or deacon may be commissioned to serve in the role of pastor/head of staff for a congregation or a new church development. It is appropriate to refer to individuals serving in either capacity as “lay pastor.”
So this allows for presbyteries and sessions to select amongst its leaders those whom are equipped by the Holy Spirit to do evangelism, discipleship and church planting. I would love to see Presbyteries and sessions within the fellowship working on educating their members and leaders to be more active in church planting and evangelism. We’ve neglected the gifts of our membership for so long and have depended upon our Pastors to fix and do everything in the ‘spiritual’ side of ministry. I like how the Fellowship is giving guidance but not constrictions and allowing a bottom up approach to ministry.
I really believe Howard’s point is important – we have to get outside the box on how we do ministry if we are going to aggressively plant new churches. The MDiv degree (in it’s traditional form) can be a major roadblock. Even though it is mentioned as “ordinarily,” I’m worried that the idea will quickly become “required” in practice. Along those same lines – “lay pastor” almost always translates to “not paid pastor” which has all kinds of implications for a priority on church planting as well. I wonder if we couldn’t go back to an old Presbyterian language (still used in some denominations) of “licensed minister.” Maybe it’s too much to add a layer of complexity, but on the other hand it might give us a place for called, professional clergy that do not have an MDiv. It’s not a perfect fix, but a lot could be be done with this to open new doors.
Thanks for all the hard work!
Thank you for this work. I am especially pleased with the intention to retain the wisdom of the pre-Puritan Reformed tradition in the Book of Confessions. The last thing the world needs is one more Westminster-only presbyterian body.
While I think every part of the Book of Confessions is worthy of study and reflection, I am not at all convinced that every document should have the same weight as a doctrinal standard. It seems to me that Westminster-only Presbyterian bodies have done rather well in becoming cohesive and expanding churches. Perhaps we can learn from their example?
I’m not so sure. I can’t think of a cohesive presbyterian body in this country just now. I could live with a single confession if it was the Second Helvetic. But everyone is going to have their favorite candidate. Better to hear the Reformed tradition as a whole rather than hold up the result of 150 years of Puritan frustration and political compromise as the one way of stating the Reformed faith.
Michael, I couldn’t agree more (except that my “only if it’s this one” single document would be the Heidelberg). Retaining the broader witness to the Reformed tradition that is afforded by multiple confessions is faithful to our heritage and offers flexibility for meeting future challenges.
Michael,
While I may agree with you and others that multiple confessional statements have value, I’m not certain that all of the current Book of Confessions fits with the theological heart of many of the anticipated NRB adherents. Some have mentioned dumping C’67; my candidate for elimination would be the misnamed Brief Statement – either could be debated at length. More of concern, however, should be what position the NRB would need to take if the PC(USA) finally adopts Belhar, or heaven forbid, Accra down the road. Just saying we’ll adopt the current Book of Confessions wholesale may be courting trouble a fledgling body doesn’t need.
TerryeMac
After one reading, with several more to undertake, I can say a big “thank you.” It looks wise, confident, and unapologetic. It’s the kind of theological work that excites me and makes me eager to go to Orlando. This work can be helpful not only for the Fellowship and the New Reformed Body, but also for the PCUSA.
I read in the Polity Draft: Three things NOT to look for: “We do not continue synod….” Then I read under NOD 3.02 about the Purposes and Duties of a synod. Otherwise, a lot of good reading, and I appreciate the hard work.
The preface actually says, “We do not continue synods as we have known them…” The role of a “synod’ proposed in the new polity functions very differently within the whole than the regional judicatories we have known.
I like the document, but encourage more consideration of the sovereignty of God (a Presbyterian belief since Geneva) and at least some mention of predestination. Presbyterians are generally known for these two and need to fess up. I’m a Sunday school teacher who just finished leading our class in eight weeks on the Reformation and Reformed theology.
I’m quite pleased that the word “predestination” is not mentioned, because it will only muddy the waters as to what is meant by predestination. It’s well addressed in the Book of Confessions, and I feel it’s too complicated to make an “essential.”
I’m happy to see a couple of statements that on the surface appear to support the classical idea of unconditional election, but I’m not altogether certain that’s the intent. I can guarantee that our pastor does not teach or believe in unconditional election (at least as traditionally defined), and he is on the steering committee of the Fellowship, so presumably, he had to sign-off on these essential tenets before they were released. So I’m awaiting some clarification before drawing a final conclusion–either I’m interpreting it differently than intended, or the tenents aren’t as essential as they appear.
Thank you. The three theological documents reflect great energy, intelligence, imagination and love given on behalf and for the sake of the whole church. They are faithful and even joyful, soaring at times but always well-grounded. There are sentences, paragraphs and whole sections that I would put on a “please do not change” list. Improvements will come only to make a great draft and even better document to bind us together.
How are presbyteries going to be formed in the NRB? The document talks about presbytery function, but not formation. Are presbyteries geographic? Free to form along other values, such as shared ministry context or missional experience? Are they formed by the NRB Synod?
Also, how would Union Presbyteries relate financially to the PC(USA) and the NRB? I can’t quite see how per capita works in such a relationship (or perhaps the question is more about how a re-direct of funds to the NRB Synod will be allowed by the PC(USA)?)
Kind Regards,
Duncan
This seems to be as good a place as any to raise the question about what to call this “New Reformed Body.” What are some of the ideas being floated? NRB is a bit clunky and would quickly become outdated. How about “Covenant Fellowship,” “Covenant Presbyterian,” or “Missional Presbyterian?” I’m not particularly attached to any of them, just trying to get the ball rolling.
I have placed a posting about the theology paper on my blog. I hope that it is okay to link here. http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-thoughts-on-fellowship-of.html
I am right there with John H. Adams in yearning for a foundational expression of God’s sovereignty and its inexorable link to God’s truth. If God is truly sovereign, a thoughtful conclusion must be reached that Creator God is the author of Truth. God’s Truth is not the relative truth in which we so lazily wallow around today. Yes, there is absolute Truth and God is that Truth. And He shares that Truth with us through His incarnate self in Jesus Christ. In John 18:37, Jesus tells Pilate “…. I was born and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” What a wonderful Christmas thought: the Son of God and second Person of the Godhead, God Himself, came to us to bear witness to God’s Truth.
What a breath of fresh air and a cause for hope. Of course the documents aren’t perfect but they will be amended over time. What is important is a future hope and destination for many who are discouraged. Thanks for the hard work!
I find it interesting that conspicuously absent from the draft is the long-standing requirement that congregations approve changes in the pastors terms of call. Large churches have always hated this requirement, preferring to keep under wraps the embarrassingly large salaries they pay senior pastors (but usually not the rest of the staff!). This movement ISN’T about money, is it??
I love the content of the essentials document, but am wanting us to reconsider the decision to not do something simpler (and shorter). To me ‘the essentials’ reads like one more confession – albeit a good and fresh one. I think that it may be more useful to have a shorter document that employs bullet points. I’m trying to picture how our elders are going to use this and my initial thought is that like a good resume, if its longer than one page, people may tend to ignore it. If our elders aren’t comfortable using this document, then it will be up to the pastors to make sure it is used. There seems to be some merit in a ‘cheat sheet’ containing a list of brief statements that represent complex ideas in a distilled form. When I teach essentials to our new members class I like to use a short phrase that they can grasp and then expand upon it in my teaching. Maybe I’m the only one that feels this way and its certainly not a deal breaker for me. But I thought that I would raise it before we officially adopt it.
I only have a couple of comments that come from a first read over. My first one is on page 7 pertaining to salvation. I think I would like to see a bit more empasis on the work of the whole Trinity in the process of a person coming into a restored relationship with God. The second comment would be to consider using the phrase ‘effective call/grace’ instead of ‘enticing call’ when we talk about the work of the Jesus/Holy Spirit in the process of conversion. To me ‘enticing’ sounds like God is holding out a ‘raw cookie dough with Reese’s peanut butter cup ice cream cone’ (my favorite) in front of me and hoping I’ll come over and see how I can get a bite.
My second comment is more a question. We talk about one of the core issues being ‘marriage between one man and one woman’ which I am totally for but is there anything in the document about the issue of abortion and/or the sanctity of life. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the ‘marriage’ issue but with somewhere around 1,000,000 abortions still taking place in the U.S. alone shoudn’t we be at least tryng saying something about it. If this isue is addressed somewhere else and I missed it, I apologize.
We need to work on the nuts and bolts. We need to provide language which PCUSA Presbyteries can use as an Overture to the 2012 General Assembly. For instance, if Union Member Congregation relationships between the PCUSA and the NRB are the avenue pursued, an Overture which permits Union Memberships between the PCUSA and the NRB must be prepared, including provisions that each Presbytery must allow their congregations to elect to be Union Members with the NRB, based upon a 60 percent vote of the congregation members and a 60 percent vote of the congregation’s session. As with current Union Memberships, which are set forth in the Book of Order and the new FOG, with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the PCUSA would retain their equity interest in the congregations’ property, the congregation remains a full member of and full voting member of their PCUSA Presbytery, subject to Per Capita, etc.. But the congregation would also be a full member of, and full voting member of, their NRB’s Presbytery. The name of the congregation can be changed to reflect their membership in the NRB. By virtue of being a Union Member Congregation, the congregation can, not only continue to influence their PCUSA Presbytery, but also PCUSA seminaries and colleges. This is ideal for congregations that find it difficult to leave for a variety of reasons. The Lord Jesus Christ be with us all to help us, to follow His leading in all of these matters, to His Ultimate Glory.
>This movement ISN’T about money, is it??
OK, I should know better than to pick a fight with a guy named Jim Bowie, but this is kind of a snarky comment. To even suggest that the Fellowship movement was simply created to help some pastors hide their salaries is ludicrous.
You will notice that there are hundreds of small details that used to be in the PC(USA) Book of Order that are not in the Polity draft. I read that as an intentional move away from a bureaucracy that micromanages details of church life. I know the temptation will be to want to add our own favored rule and, if we do, we’ll wind up with the old Book of Order – not what this is all about.
Essential Tenets: Rather lengthy to be just the “essentials” isn’t it?
As others have commented here, I believe it is more of a confessional statement.
I read an excellent suggestion by someone elsewhere: Why not expand the headings in the essentials piece so they are a declarative statement. Then a collection of those declarative statements could be collected together as a much briefer essential tenets statement and the current document would be a fuller confessional statement that expounds upon those tenets.
Confessions: I believe this is the weakest part to come out of the FOP to date. I hope we are allowed to vote on items being presented. If so, I believe there should be a motion to consider adopting something very different for the FOP/NRB confession. I would like to see us have some ecumenical confessions (Nicene and Apostles) and either or both the Heidelberg Catechism and/or Westminster Confession, maybe updated and in modern language such as the EPC has done.
Matt Ferguson
Hillsboro, IL
Seven Essential Practices of the Faith – Thoughts for the Fellowship
To build the Church we must first walk the talk before anyone will be interested in our talking the talk. Teaching the faith is best done by showing it is practice. While we are serving others we can teach the doctrine that motivates our conduct. Faith without practice is dead.
So in addition to asking what the essential doctrinal tenants are, might we not also ask what the essential practical tenants of the faith are? In this regard I suggest the Fellowship would do well to organize around 7 historical practices of the Church. These are: two sacraments, Baptism and the Table, and five spiritual practices (not listed in any order of importance).
1. confirmation (or another word but a public confession of faith) ,
2. confession of sin,
3. ordination,
4. diaconate ministry and
5. Bible study.
By having these seven cornerstones of Christian practice constantly emphasized and clarified with different teaching tools, the Fellowship will have a solid core of practice. I will explain each briefly.
The fact that so many Presbyterians, including pastors and elders, do not have a basic grasp of the two sacraments is a recipe for disaster even without any other complicated social issue coming into the life of the church. It is impossible for the Church to live and prosper unless the members understand who they are within the covenantal reality of a holy, chosen people. The Fellowship needs to produce or identify already recorded DVDs for children; parents of children to baptized, etc. and the sacraments should constantly referred to in explanation of everything a Christian does in life.
In addition to the two sacraments there are then 5 things that the Church must do on a regular basis to prosper in living out the sacramental life we have been called into.
Those who are baptized as infants or who have for a time fallen away from the Church, need a way to publically affirm or reconnect with their roots. This is confirmation (or reaffirmation of Baptism vows, the name is not so important to me). We need to take this practical step much more seriously and create classes for preparation of both children and adults and a liturgy for the celebration of confirmation.
Pastorally we have not done well in encouraging members to confess their sins to one another. This is a necessary part of the healing ministry of the Church. To be negligent in this is without excuse. Therefore it is right that the Fellowship begin immediately to think how to do this, perhaps creating a rite like the Lutherans did for confession of sin for those who wish to avail themselves of it. Confession is a spiritual discipline for healing and we urgently need people trained in how to hear a confession of sin.
Ordination is a special calling or vocation for Baptized and practicing members of the church. What ordination signifies the responsibilities it requires and how those responsibilities are to be carried out need to be well understood by the whole Church. Too many people are on sessions simply because someone has to do it. This ignorance robs every one, ordained and not ordained alike, of the sense of awe and privilege that believers should have in being a part of the Holy Church. Needless to say that many years of controversy in the PCUSA is due in some part to a lack of good teaching about what exactly ordination and by extension the Church itself, is. The liturgy for ordinations, like that of confirmation, needs to be improved.
The diaconate ministry was perhaps the most unique gift of the Reformed Church to the modern world. It is strange that so many Presbyterians have totally lost sight of how this is an integral part of the Church and a necessary part of spiritual formation. Why are there hundreds of Christian organizations working outside of a covenant relationship with a local Church or Churches? It is because we have totally failed to understand how the diaconate ministry is a result of the sacraments and preaching the Word. The Fellowship will do well to restore from our Reformed and Apostolic roots the diaconate ministry as a part of local, regional, national and international ministries of mercy.
Bible study is left last but not as least important. The members of the Church prosper or wane by their being fed by the Word. The loss of Biblical preaching has long been lamented. But not only the preaching, even much of the Sunday school materials today is more interested in social topics than learning the Biblical world view and the histories that God has given to teach us how to deal with all the issues of life. Therefore the Fellowship would do well to have many kinds of basic to advanced courses to help everyone in the Church learn how to present in winsome ways the lessons of the Holy Scriptures.
Seven specific tasks to do! It is a lot but having them clearly listed allows everyone to steadily check how complete the ministry they are participating in is. For the Fellowship to prosper it cannot neglect any one of these seven essential practices of the faith.
His will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
Rev. Donald Wehmeyer
While I am all for the search for an identity for those of us who find the increasing radicalization of the PCUSA disturbing, having read the two draft statements, I am somewhat abashed by what appears to me to be just another lateral move rather than a complete break with an increasing tendency toward error. I have been associated with the formation of several professional associations which had as their purpose a break from increasing bureaucratic dominance in the larger associations and which involved an increasing fear of the influences of political correctness rather than effective change for cause. They, over time, simply adopted the original precepts they has opposed. Such is the nature of sinful man under the influence of political expediency and the desire to “just get along”.
On the Reformed front, I was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for 20 years. While I can’t expect the same level of commitment to Calvinism from the new Reformed body, nevertheless my association with the OPC has left me quite sensitive to encroaching liberalism and the lessening sensitivity to Biblical and historic Reformed standards. As an example, I find the Confession of 1967 a travesty, the adoption of which caused my first flight from the PCUS shortly after its adoption. I hope that the new body will prayerfully consider all the ramifications of allowing watered down, politically based creeds automatic adoption as standards of the church.
My congratulations on some outstanding work! You have captured what church should be, and I believe that the NRB will be focused on what He intended- going and making disciples of all nations. It is refreshing to see a concept for a new Presbyterian denomination in which the focus on mission is clear and where the denomination is not entangled in a morass of social justice issues as is the case with the PCUSA. Kudos to all who have worked so hard to breathe life into the NRAB. Jay DUll
Thank you for your diligent and thoughtful work to lay the foundation for the NRB. This is not a criticism but a suggestion of an important fundamental principle which I believe will set the NRB on a different, more biblical trajectory than the PCUSA and other mainline denominations.
The concept of “membership” and “member” has created an unhealthy and unbiblical culture for the church.
The way we use the term instantly creates a club mentality – you are either in the club or out of the club. You sign the membership document, show up occasionally and pay your dues. 20% of the club members usually do 80% of the work. The club leadership must periodically determine if you are an active member or if you should be put on the inactive roll of the club. In the PCUSA dues are paid on the basis of how many club members you have. A comparison of the club membership to average worship attendance in most churches is usually 30%
The word “member” only appears 22 times in the New Testament. 10 of these do refer to members of the Body of Christ and 1 to members of God’s household. Imagine if only 30% of your vital organs were actively working. We refer to that as sickness and death.
Interestingly six times the word refers to members of groups opposed to Jesus and the apostles (such as the Sanhedrin).
If the NRB wants to really return to our Biblical roots it will choose a far more frequent term in the New Testament: “disciple.” The word appears 291 times in the New Testament. One of the passages (Matthew 28:18-20) is the opening to the entire polity document and chapter 1 on “covenant partnerships (members)”
Choosing disciple is not simply choosing another word for membership. Disciples are on a journey with Jesus similar to the Christ-follower term used in the document. It is a process which involves not just one membership covenant but a series of covenants and actions which indicate the growth of the disciple. A congregation can then be restructured to encourage disciples to take steps of deeper commitment to Jesus. Disciples determine if they want to follow or not. Jesus did not chase after people to see if they wanted to be active or not. He simply said, “Follow me.” The concept of disciple does not create a hard in or out line or a club. It’s more open and fluid and allows people to journey with us and to take steps of greater commitment when they are ready. Obviously those who indicate the willingness to grow as disciples through their actions are the ones to be called to leadership. Choosing the far more biblical term of disciple will create a whole new culture for the NRB.
By the way, I could not find the term “covenant partnerships” anywhere in Scripture.
Thank you for leading us to a closer walk with Jesus.
I agree with Doug that semantics is important if we want to have horizontally related councils that serve congregations. Even the Session is to serve everyone who has vowed to be a participant in the congregation. The newest person who has recognized that Jesus Christ has paid his or her debt of inherent disobedience and active opposition to God’s will, and has requested the faith to follow His will for their life, is the most important person to the Church. Once that Grace of God has been given, the recipient is instructed to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all you need He will make available to you. The focus of every organizing council should be to assist that individual in finding the Kingdom and God’s righteousness. Councils committed to this end will produce true disciples. True disciples will reveal God to the world, and will seek and save the lost. The gifts of the Holy Spirit will be distributed throughout the structural councils of the church and will benefit each follower of Jesus Christ to become like Him.
I like Ferguson’s comments regarding fewer confessional documents, but would settle at the start with just getting rid of the 1967 Confession. The document talks about recognizing and correcting our mistakes, but then takes the position that all of our confessional statements were good ones. We know better.
I would hope we would at least have a chance to vote on the inclusion of the 1967 confession at Orlando.
Thanks for your fine work.
The inerrancy of scripture
The virgin birth of Jesus
The substitutionary theory of the atonement
The bodily or physical resurrection of Christ
The performance of miracles by Christ.
http://www.westminsterauburn.org/ChurchHistory/TheAuburnAffirmationof1924/tabid/53020/Default.aspx
Doesn’t it seem like history is repeating itself?
I pray that the NRB clearly and emphatically (with great force or definiteness) articulates its foundational tenants.
I too am interested in seeing the term “disciple” given a place of prominence in this document. To not name in our tenets what the church has called “great commission,” is to continue the neglect of our proper response to God’s gracious gift of salvation: to be actively engaged in our own transformation into the image of Christ, well as helping others in this pursuit.
Thank you to everyone who worked so hard on these documents. I believe you were led by the Holy Spirit. My spirit soared to read statements like “The Spirit will never prompt our conscience to conclusions that are at odds with the Scriptures that he has inspired. The revelation of the incarnate Word does not minimize , qualify, or set aside the authority of the written Word.” I was encouraged that you talked about the transforming power of the Gospel and that we are called to holy living, “Be holy because I am holy (Lev. 11:45; 1 Pet. 1:16). I was thrilled that you included prayer and not just individual prayer, but corporate prayer as well. I thought the modern rendition of the Ten Commandments was inspired.
Not because of what you have said or done, but because of the nature of fallen humanity and the current propensity of the PC(USA) and our culture to interpret freely isolated statements apart from the whole, I wonder if it would be good to clarify a few statements. For example on page seven you talk about being “in union with Christ” and “in union with him.” Later in that column you say, “Each of us is chosen in Christ.” My concern is that these statements leave open a possible interpretation of universalism — Christ came for all therefore all are saved. I am concerned that while “we who receive him and believe in his name” may mean one thing to us, it could mean something very different to many in the PC(USA) and in our culture whom we would hope to reach. Similarly, on page eight where it says, “…and accept that sould and body alike must be cleansed and purified in order to love God properly,” it could be clarified by saying how we are “cleansed and purified.” Perhaps it could read “cleansed and purified by committing our lives to Jesus, the Christ, and accepting his sacrifice on the cross in our place” or something to that effect. Similarly, at the top of the second column of page eight it reads, “…and accept that unless we believe we cannot properly understand either God or the world around us.” Some might question, “Believe in what?” You and I may know and agree, but I wonder if this leaves too much generality. Those who would argue against us claim such belief also — or at least it seems so to me.
Is this a confessional statement or a theological work? Perhaps the answer is “yes” to both. Let us remember that theology must be done in context. This document does a great job of succinctly describing both the depravity of mankind and what that looks like in our age and culture. In that sense it would sound like a confession, but I feel it is necessary in this theological statement in order to explain to all why we feel as we do. Many just do not “get it.”
We live in a climate where trust does not come easily. Many of us have been wounded deeply, and try as we might, anger still slips in. I applaud the efforts of the steering committee and those who worked on these documents to minimize the anger, bitterness and mistrust. May God continue to guide you in this area. My hope and prayer is that as we approach this Covenanting Conference that we would pray as we have perhaps never prayed before for the wisdom and guidance that comes from the true Head of the Church and that we would set aside our personal fears, agendas and demands to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church. Come Lord Jesus; speak, and may your children be listening.
I assume the MRB will come up with a more appropriate name than NRB. You might wish to consider calling t he New Denomination the Joshua Presbyterian Church in America. “But for me and my family…” That certainly captures the philosophy of the New reformed Body. May sound a bit unusual, but then it is time to think outside the box.
Comments are closed.