The catalyst for the break-up of
Protestant, mainline denominations in the past fifty years in the West has been
the acceptance of non-Christian views on sexuality, particularly homosexuality
and now transgenderism. The United
Methodist Church is drawing out their break-up as long as possible, apparently
to allow time to reshuffle ministers so that the orthodox are removed from the
prize churches. The Church of England,
it appears, will finally get off the fence on the issue of same-sex marriage,
although it will certainly fall to the wrong side.
So, we are nearly through with
the demise of the old mainline denominations, and, with that, there will be a
division between orthodox Christianity and revisionist ‘Christianity.’ As this dust settles on the sexuality issues, four
issues facing the church will come into focus: the doctrine of sex and
marriage, the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture, the doctrine of the
Church, and the doctrines of justification and sanctification.
Doctrine of Sex and Marriage
Little needs to be pointed out
for this matter, since this has been the presenting issue during the sexuality
wars. Clear statements on sexuality,
gender, and marriage, the education of children, ministry to children,
counselling, celibacy, chastity, ordination, and so forth need to be adopted
and practiced. Also, teaching and
practice about divorce and remarriage needs to be revisited in many cases,
since slippage on the New Testament teaching on divorce has contributed to the
revisionists’ heresies.
Doctrine of Scripture
As to the doctrine of Scripture,
several challenges have emerged in the past fifty years. We need to affirm the following:
1. The Bible is the Word of
God. It does not merely contain God’s
Word or become God’s Word in preaching.
2. The Bible is the authority for
theology and ethics in the Church.
Church tradition may function as a secondary authority, but it derives
its authority from Scripture, and therefore Scripture can and needs to reform Church
traditions that emerge over time. Reason
is not an authority, despite what is sometimes stated. We have learned in the battles of Modernity
and Postmodernity that reason is a process applied to something else—to scientific
study of things, to propositions in logic, and so forth. Reasoning operates within a system, not
outside of it, and it, too, is subject to outside authority. In theology, reasoning is a process applied
in the study of authoritative Scripture.
In the sexuality wars, experience became a dominant authority. Doctrine was decided on the testimonial
experience of individuals, and theologising was controlled by dialogue about
experience rather than interpretation of Scripture. The churches that have emerged from these
wars need to reaffirm the authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and
ethics. This is particularly important
as some who think of themselves as ‘Evangelical’ are beholden to the false
teaching about Biblical authority in which they lived for too long. Some entertain the idea that different
interpretations mean that there is no resolution and that they are all
legitimate. Others, tired of the wars,
simply want to move from debates about doctrine and ethics to focus on activism. Relatedly, many adopt the culture’s new
values of diversity, inclusion, and equity as the content of social justice and
fold their faith into the expressions of such activism.
Ecclesiology
As to ecclesiology, some serious
questions are looming.
1. Once the divisions are
settled, how will orthodox denominations and churches relate to the revisionist
ones? Will they accept the baptism of
someone coming out of the revisionist Church of England, for example? This is not the issue settled by the Church
during the Donatist Controversy. After
the faithfulness of some ministers within the Church due to pressure under
persecution was questioned, the Church determined that those baptised by these
ministers was valid. For a baptism to be
authentic, the person needed to be baptised by the right person (ordained) who said
the right words with the right intention.
The assumption here, though, was that this was done in the Church. After the sexuality wars, the question is
whether the orthodox will regard the revisionists as part of the Church of
Jesus Christ, even if they continue to say, ‘Lord, Lord’ (cf. Matthew 7.21). Will someone ordained in the future Church of
England be accepted as ordained in an orthodox Anglican Church, such as the
Anglican Mission in England? Will
visitors from the Church of England be allowed access to the Eucharist in an
orthodox church? Since marriage is
considered a creation ordinance, it can carry over from outside the Church, but
this may be the only exception.
2. Another ecclesiastical issue
to resolve after the sexuality wars has to do with one’s understanding of the Church
itself. The Church of England, for
example, has attempted to be a broad Church for all in England, even though
there have always been dissenters. This
was necessary if it was to be tied to nationalism—to citizenship in
England. The orthodox will not be able
to continue with this relationship to the state, and this also relates to their
self-understanding. The issue was the
same in Jesus’ day as Jesus’ disciples were faced in the 1st century
with the realisation that they were distinct from Judaism. Jews enjoyed the dual identity of Israelites
and religious persons associated with the Temple. Jesus’ followers were thrown out of
synagogues and proclaimed that Jesus had replaced the Temple. The orthodox who have attempted for hundreds
of years to live in a sort of ‘1st Century Judaism’ version of the Church
in England will need to rethink their ecclesiology.
3. Relatedly, the orthodox will
need to rethink their understanding of the Church’s purity. One of the most misinterpreted parables of
Jesus is the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13.24-30). Often, people have applied Jesus’ statement
about the wheat and the tares growing in the same field to the Church, but this
is not at all what the parable is about.
The field is explicitly said to be the world. The parable has to do with why, if the
Kingdom of God has come, both wheat and tares continue to grow side-by-side. The parable states that the Kingdom of God,
while present, is also ‘not yet’—there is a later, future judgement to
come. The wheat are God’s people in a
world that still grows tares. The point
to consider beyond the interpretation of this particular parable is whether the
orthodox will rediscover Paul’s ecclesiology in 1 Corinthians 5.7: ‘Cleanse
out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed’ (ESV).
4.
Another issue for the orthodox to sort out is the pastoral care of sinners,
including the practices of pursuing the sinner and of ‘the ban’—exclusion from
fellowship of those hardened and unrepentant in their sin (cf. Matthew 18.10-20).
Doctrine of Salvation
In
regard to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, the orthodox will
need to decide if justification is limited to forgiving grace or also includes
transforming grace of the sinner. This
vexing issue has been dealt with in various ways in different theological
traditions stemming from the Reformation.
It is possible to articulate the theology of justification and the
theology of sanctification differently, as long as one identifies the necessary
relationship between the two. However,
churches that have remained in the mainline denominations too long are tarnished
in their understanding of the transforming grace of God. They have, in some instances, settled on the
notions that we are all sinners after all, or that we have disturbing
orientations that we must not indulge but cannot overcome, or that too much of
a focus on sanctification is unloving towards others.
Comments