| No Finger-Crossing, Please
[8-26-02]
A frequent visitor to this site, who has asked not to
be identified, sent these thoughts after observing the the
deliberations of the GA committee that recommended approval of the
document, "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ."
While still in Divinity School some 30 years ago I got
to know a number of Presbyterians who, in contemplation of their
ordination vows, spoke of their intention to cross their fingers. I have
since discovered that this was a widespread practice--indeed, an
accepted ritual--during the time that Westminster represented the sole
confessional standard of Presbyterians. I have no idea to what extent
such finger-crossing continues to be practiced among Presbyterians
today, now that we have the Book of Confessions. For my own part, I was
raised in another denomination where such subtleties of private
theological equivocation were hardly recognized and certainly not
sanctioned. Consequently, I found the finger-crossing ritual scandalous
enough that I could not seriously contemplate becoming a Presbyterian
until after 1983.
I have the feeling that we are entering a period in
Presbyterian history in the United States when we may see a revival of
the finger-crossing ritual. Granted, all significant theological
statement are susceptible to multiple interpretations. They may rightly
be understood on more than one level, with more than one meaning. I
would hardly insist that the private meanings of my theological
affirmations, or those of anyone else, must always conform to their
presumed public meanings. I would insist, however, that one ought not
make public theological affirmations in terms that one privately
rejects. One ought not even make public theological affirmations that
one privately construes in such manner as one knowingly understands to
be substantially incongruent with their generally accepted meanings
among one's audience. In other words, one ought not to deceive. It is
wrong to be duplicitous in making public theological affirmations. The
finger-crossing ritual is to be eschewed.
This year's General Assembly approved, with only 11
negative votes, a major statement on the Lordship of Jesus Christ called
"Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ." This document asserts, among
other things, that "Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord"
and that "no one is saved apart from God's gracious redemption in
Jesus Christ." These affirmations, drafted by the Office of
Theology and Worship, clearly counter some of the views expressed by
Presbyterian minister Dirk Ficca at a Presbyterian Peacemaking
Conference at Montreat a couple years ago. Despite some of the
qualifying language of the document, e.g., "Grace, love, and
communion belong to God and are not ours to determine," this
document assumes an exclusive and singular role for Jesus Christ in
God's redemption of the world. Doubtless such a view of Jesus Christ is
held by many if not most Presbyterians. But surely not by all but 11 of
this year's commissioners!
I am disturbed by the overwhelming acceptance of
"Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" for at least three reasons.
First, it seems unlikely that the statement could have garnered such
widespread support if its full implications regarding the possibilities
for salvation of persons belonging to other major religious traditions
were clearly recognized. The statement leaves open the possibility of a
multiplicity of ways by which God may effect salvation. However, by its
insistence on only one Savior the statement makes clear that adherents
of other major religious traditions can be saved only in spite of or
apart from--but not because or on the terms of--their own particular
faith convictions.
Second, the overwhelming adoption of "Hope in the
Lord Jesus Christ" is disturbing because it seems unlikely that
only a handful of commissioners would have recognized and disagreed with
its implications of exclusivity. Therefore, there must have been those
who supported this statement "with fingers crossed." That is
to say, they do not really believe it, but they did not want to be
counted among the dissenters. Their motives are not, therefore,
necessarily bad. They may want to avoid contention. They may think that
it is more important to show theological solidarity on this statement as
a way of trying to preserve the "peace, unity, and purity" of
the church--especially the unity with those who are most concerned about
purity--than it is to engage in potentially divisive critical
theological thinking. They may have other "good" reasons for
going along with this statement despite their reservations or
disagreements. Nonetheless, it strikes me that their endorsement of this
statement required a form of finger-crossing ritual.
A third reason why I am disturbed by the overwhelming
endorsement of "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" is that it
represents a further shift to the right in the theological posture of
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It moves the theological center of
gravity in the direction of the so-called "Confessing Church
Movement." To be sure, the document lacks the status of any of
those in our Book of Confessions. However, it is a statement that will
help set the agenda and establish the parameters for theological debate
and discussion in the denomination for years to come. It will possess
authority, to some extent formal, perhaps to an even greater extent
informal. That authority will possess currency and it will have
significant practical consequences.
At General Assembly I tend to hang out with folks who
think of themselves as theological progressives. I think of myself in
that way. All of us were relieved that the Committee on Confessions and
Christology, and later the whole Assembly, rejected two overtures (02-31
and 02-50) that sought to mandate particular theological interpretations
of the first ordination vow in chapter 14 of the Book of Order. I
detected much less concern about the passage of "Hope in the Lord
Jesus Christ." Yes, we dodged two bullets, but I happen to think we
still got hit with a sledge hammer.
Those on the theological right do not need to succeed
in reviving subscriptionism (e.g., 02-31 and 02-50) in order to succeed
in making the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) an inhospitable place for
those they seek to marginalize and exclude. If "Hope"
represents the current theological center of the denomination, then what
place is there for those who do not share its high Christology and its
implicit rejection of the theological integrity of other major faith
traditions? (Where is Dirk now?) The current formal confessional posture
of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), particularly as embodied in the
ordination vows and the Book of Confessions, does not require ordained
Presbyterians to be in accord with the Christological exclusivism of the
"Hope" document, but you can be sure there will continue to be
efforts to make it so. I seriously propose that this is no time for
theological progressives to revive the finger-crossing ritual.
|
