I've had several interesting conversations over the past couple of days; one taking place yesterday morning, rather unexpectedly. My friend Rose asked me a complicated question and even though I tried to answer concisely, thus keeping the controversy to a minimum, it blew up in my face and I ended up explaining a lot more than I wanted.* Also, I got Credenda/Agenda's special issue on 'That Wonderful Cup', which is entirely about paedocommunion, so controversy has been on my mind lately.
Something I've noticed, re:controversy, is that the Book of Church Order (cue impressive music) has nearly replaced the Bible as the standard for presbyterian doctrine. For instance, what was all that mess in Virginia about? The BCO. And what do I hear when I ask questions of people at my church? Whatever the BCO says. It's automatic--there isn't any question of whether or not it complies with Scripture. I think this is tied in with my previous questions; if we have a church that doesn't understand Biblical government and authority, and they aren't teaching people wisdom and discernment, but only to blindly trust, then the logical result is rote recital of the only standard that is known and Bereanism is thrown to the wayside. This is also why we have 'troublemakers'-- we're those people that ask uncomfortable questions. 'Yes, but...what does the Bible say?'
The misunderstanding of these things contributes to the problem with the church today: paedocommunion, eldership, the BCO, authority, membership, and baptism. I'm not entirely sure how exactly they fit together, but I think I'm well on my way to figuring it out.
Here's an excerpt from a post by Mr. Colvin (Dr.?) that explains a bit of the puzzle:
'Pastors must come to realize that they do not have the right, let alone the duty, of examining the infants of believers to admit them to the Supper, anymore than they have the right to refuse to baptize the infants of believers. If we only confront such pastors with lots of cute communing babies -- like so many Hallmark cards or advertisements for Pampers -- then we are not challenging them at the crux of the issue: it is about their wrongful usurpation of power and unbiblical judgment of others, not about the precociousness of any toddlers.'
____________
*NB- I try not to discuss these sorts of things until I feel like I can adequately explain and defend my opinions. I didn't think I could, but it turned out pretty well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think some of this ties in with the bureaucratic form of church government. The last GA that the PCA had just before we moved to Texas in the summer of 2001, was over the issue of creation, specifically, what "version" of the creation account was acceptable to the PCA, not requiring pastors and elders to state an exception if they disagree.
The whole discussion revolved around, not what Scripture teaches or theological arguments, but what the WCF says and what the writers of the WCF believed.
Now, this is not very different from the "original intent" way of interepreting the Constitution of these United States (although you know I believe that states should ultimately be held to the standard of God's law), and it seems fine in that context, but when a church is deciding on a matter of the faith, what the Scripture teaches ought to play at least SOME part in the decision.
Reformed people tend to look down on Catholics, Roman and Aglo, for excessive reliance on Tradition, but this is precisely what the PCA is doing.
So there are several issues driving all this, but I think you're right on in seeing it as relating to authority.
Yes! Thank you! The WCF is another big problem. It would be great if only we didn't rely on it instead of the Bible.
It's like Rev. Schlissel said,'The solas of the Reformation! The solas of the Reformation!'
Post a Comment