Thanks for this synopsis and review, Stephen. Very helpful. I support everything you state here, especially in terms of how the Standards of Unity should be held in at least as high a regard as the BCO and how we very much need “guardrails” on biblical interpretation-the Confessions historically serve as those guardrails! I wonder if the author would say your disagreements with him are disagreements more between how things are (what the author is trying to describe) and how things ought to be (what you are trying to describe)? Peace to you.
Hi! I hope you will indulge me in a bit of engagement here as well. I engaged with Stephen a bit on Twitter about this, because what he says is important, and I do not think I disagree with him. I think much of the critique is about what I might be saying, or what it might lead to. I tried to walk a fine (but very important) line in the book, and perhaps I didn't succeed as being as clear as I thought I may have been. I completely agree with everything that is in the book, but I think that the options to us are more varied than important/not important, or authoritative/not authoritative. I certainly don't think, and do not state, that the confessions are only advisory. They most definitely need to be held in very high regard, it's just that their function is different. Different function does not inherently imply less authority. And, does holding them in such a high regard require us to affirm Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or Pauline authorship of Hebrews? And I certainly do not think that there's some kind of individual sovereignty over biblical interpretation. The question always is: who is charged to maintain good order and discipline in the church? I am convinced that the local location of this is not a bug, but a feature. Therefore the Board of Elders have the responsibility for church members, and the classis for ministers and consistories. So these are the bodies to maintain the "guardrails". The emphasis, in my mind, is on the responsibility rather than liberty in this. That is, I do not argue for libertarianism but rather responsibility of faithfulness to duty. A top-down kind of structure which is focused on power could certainly do it, but the question is not whether it is most efficient, or even most effective, but whether it is theologically better. That is, is this what Christ calls us to? In our brief discussion on twitter, Stephen wondered if discussion of virtue would be better, I think that's exactly right. The point is not to figure out how far we can go, and then push the boundaries because we have the liberty to do so. Nor is the point to figure out how we can exercise power over others to bring them to heel. Rather, the point is to determine how best to live faithfully into the responsibilities that are given to us.
@@matthewvanmaastricht5146 Thanks for your thoughtful response. You have thought these issues through with care. I especially appreciate your emphasis on leaning on responsibility and virtue as opposed to law. That is helpful for how we (I) might think about judicial disagreements of theology and polity. I recognize that what exists in the Reformed Church in America is a precedent that leaves enforcement of orthodoxy at the local congregation and Classis levels. To describe it as such is a faithful description. At the risk of rehashing arguments over polity that have been made ad nauseum over these past several years, I agree with Stephen that this precedent seems unfaithful and troubling, however. Many argue that the “beauty” of RCA polity is that the power structure is dispersed to the localities in an egalitarian system. But the present modus operandi doesn’t seem to me to avoid a top-down system of enforcing theological norms. Nor should it in my opinion. The congregation has Elders that sit over (on top) and rule on theological disputes among their congregation. Top down. The Classis has minister and Elder delegates that sit over and rule on theological disputes among differing congregations. Top down. The movement now seems to be to leave it there, but this seems odd. Why shouldn’t it be carried higher in disputes over The Standards of Unity? The structure is in place for Regional Synods to discipline Classes and for General Synod to discipline Regional Synods, but some now say this too top down authoritarian. If there is a member of a congregation promoting ideas contrary to the Standards of Unity (RCA confessions) and they are not being disciplined properly by their Elder board or Classis, the Regional Synod should ensure discipline. If the Regional Synod does not discipline, then the General Synod should. When the Standards of Unity are violated, there is no Unity. When we forgo discipline in favor of Unity we become undisciplined. Right now the RCA is marked as an undisciplined family with little Unity. This polity confusion contributes to this imo. Perhaps this will change (I pray it will) but Biblical discipleship indicates that the RCA will not achieve more Unity without more discipline. I agree with Stephen that the guardrails of RCA theological conviction have been violated and need stronger mechanisms put in place to re-establish them. The appeal to virtue and responsibility is helpful to all judiciaries-Elders, Classes, Regional Synods, and General Synods.
Thanks for this synopsis and review, Stephen. Very helpful. I support everything you state here, especially in terms of how the Standards of Unity should be held in at least as high a regard as the BCO and how we very much need “guardrails” on biblical interpretation-the Confessions historically serve as those guardrails!
I wonder if the author would say your disagreements with him are disagreements more between how things are (what the author is trying to describe) and how things ought to be (what you are trying to describe)?
Peace to you.
Hi! I hope you will indulge me in a bit of engagement here as well. I engaged with Stephen a bit on Twitter about this, because what he says is important, and I do not think I disagree with him. I think much of the critique is about what I might be saying, or what it might lead to. I tried to walk a fine (but very important) line in the book, and perhaps I didn't succeed as being as clear as I thought I may have been. I completely agree with everything that is in the book, but I think that the options to us are more varied than important/not important, or authoritative/not authoritative. I certainly don't think, and do not state, that the confessions are only advisory. They most definitely need to be held in very high regard, it's just that their function is different. Different function does not inherently imply less authority. And, does holding them in such a high regard require us to affirm Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or Pauline authorship of Hebrews? And I certainly do not think that there's some kind of individual sovereignty over biblical interpretation.
The question always is: who is charged to maintain good order and discipline in the church? I am convinced that the local location of this is not a bug, but a feature. Therefore the Board of Elders have the responsibility for church members, and the classis for ministers and consistories. So these are the bodies to maintain the "guardrails". The emphasis, in my mind, is on the responsibility rather than liberty in this. That is, I do not argue for libertarianism but rather responsibility of faithfulness to duty. A top-down kind of structure which is focused on power could certainly do it, but the question is not whether it is most efficient, or even most effective, but whether it is theologically better. That is, is this what Christ calls us to?
In our brief discussion on twitter, Stephen wondered if discussion of virtue would be better, I think that's exactly right. The point is not to figure out how far we can go, and then push the boundaries because we have the liberty to do so. Nor is the point to figure out how we can exercise power over others to bring them to heel. Rather, the point is to determine how best to live faithfully into the responsibilities that are given to us.
@@matthewvanmaastricht5146 Thanks for your thoughtful response. You have thought these issues through with care. I especially appreciate your emphasis on leaning on responsibility and virtue as opposed to law. That is helpful for how we (I) might think about judicial disagreements of theology and polity.
I recognize that what exists in the Reformed Church in America is a precedent that leaves enforcement of orthodoxy at the local congregation and Classis levels. To describe it as such is a faithful description. At the risk of rehashing arguments over polity that have been made ad nauseum over these past several years, I agree with Stephen that this precedent seems unfaithful and troubling, however. Many argue that the “beauty” of RCA polity is that the power structure is dispersed to the localities in an egalitarian system. But the present modus operandi doesn’t seem to me to avoid a top-down system of enforcing theological norms. Nor should it in my opinion. The congregation has Elders that sit over (on top) and rule on theological disputes among their congregation. Top down. The Classis has minister and Elder delegates that sit over and rule on theological disputes among differing congregations. Top down. The movement now seems to be to leave it there, but this seems odd. Why shouldn’t it be carried higher in disputes over The Standards of Unity? The structure is in place for Regional Synods to discipline Classes and for General Synod to discipline Regional Synods, but some now say this too top down authoritarian. If there is a member of a congregation promoting ideas contrary to the Standards of Unity (RCA confessions) and they are not being disciplined properly by their Elder board or Classis, the Regional Synod should ensure discipline. If the Regional Synod does not discipline, then the General Synod should. When the Standards of Unity are violated, there is no Unity. When we forgo discipline in favor of Unity we become undisciplined. Right now the RCA is marked as an undisciplined family with little Unity. This polity confusion contributes to this imo. Perhaps this will change (I pray it will) but Biblical discipleship indicates that the RCA will not achieve more Unity without more discipline.
I agree with Stephen that the guardrails of RCA theological conviction have been violated and need stronger mechanisms put in place to re-establish them. The appeal to virtue and responsibility is helpful to all judiciaries-Elders, Classes, Regional Synods, and General Synods.