Rev. Smith Young's questions and suggestions

March 07, 2000 Volume 00-02 Issue 74 Revised Mar 12th

From time to time in United Forum there are discussions regarding "The Twenty Articles of Faith". These discussions are quite varied in nature. In part they are a reaction to Project 2000, a review of the Articles initiated by Peter VanderKam of Westminster United in Cambrian Presbytery; and in part they arise from the normal concern within the United Church (and indeed within all Churches) about determining just what "the church" believes in at an official level. In short - what is our doctrine and should our doctrine continue to be, well, our doctrine? 

Greg Smith-Young, the ordained minister at Grace United Church in Cochrane Presbytery, has taken part in these debates upon occasion. The following is a "Front Page" that Greg wrote in reaction to one of the more recent notes in United Forum. I believe that the piece is entirely self-explanatory.

Recently (March 1st), the following comments were posted on the United Online Forum:

"This is for all who want to change the churches doctrinal statement. Instead of changing the doctrinal statement why do you not leave the church?"

Some of us (including myself) responded to these comments by sternly waving our finger at the writer. I wonder whether it might be worthwhile to engage some of the deeper issues which, at least by my perception, seem to be implicit in what was written. 

At the very least, comments have pushed me to think deeper about what is at stake in this discussion about our doctrinal identity as a church. I have written some of my musings. Admittedly some are half-baked. Hopefully the heat provided by other participants in this forum will cause them to rise and cook. Or, perhaps the ingredients I have thrown in are wrong or poorly measured, in which case the loaf will fall flat. (Sorry about the metaphor, but I am still trying to figure out our new bread maker, so the analogy just sprang to mind.) 

According to mainstream Christian tradition, one of the marks of the Church is that it is "apostolic." Protestants have regarded this as referring, not to an Episcopal model of apostolic succession, but to the claim that the teachings of the present-day Church are founded upon and in continuity with the teachings of the early Church. If we accept this, then limits are imposed on what the Church can teach. Certainly this does not preclude innovation and adaptation, but it does provide boundaries within which the change would take place. 

I don't know the person who posted the comments which many regarded as inflammatory and cannot read his mind. However, am I going too far out on a limb to suggest his fear is that those who are proposing to "open up" the UCC's 20 Articles of Faith (the only UCC doctrinal statement which has any legal force) are attempting to redefine the beliefs of our church in such a radical way so as to render it outside the boundaries (in a word, "unapostolic")? If this is his fear, then I believe it to be well-founded, although articulated in a rather uncharitable way. 

We have heard the maxim expressed that "every generation needs to articulate the faith in a manner that is appropriate to its context and needs," or something to that effect. Certainly this is true. A good example of this need was the experience of the "Confessing Church" in Nazi Germany. In the face of the increasingly powerful, brutal and clearly unchristian ideology that had seized their culture, and in the context of an established church that had not the theological resources nor the courage to resist, some believed it necessary to articulate a strong Christian response and produced the Barman Declaration. Yet, if I recall correctly, the Barman Declaration consisted of a reaffirmation of the central witness of the apostolic church, namely the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the relativization of all worldly powers in the light of that Lordship. The writers of the Barman Declaration did not leave the apostolic faith behind, but rather plunged back into it and there found the wellspring of resources they so desperately needed. 

Are those who are proposing that we examine and perhaps change the 20 Articles proposing that we produce a statement similar in intent to the Barman Declaration? Are we being challenged to speak clearly and freshly to the people of this age the Good News of Jesus the Christ, with our feet firmly planted in the apostolic and catholic traditions of the Christian faith? If so, then sign me up! 

(I would also say, "sign me up" if the proposal is simply that we update the wording. For example, I would be all for an effort to change the references to "man," "men," etc., where they carry a generic intent, to terminology that is recognized today as more inclusive. However, this is a slippery slope, because "changing words" quickly becomes "changing concepts" and "changing meanings," as the UCC's experience of inclusive language clearly demonstrates. "Inclusivization" provides cover under which other agendas are ushered in.) 

But, from what I read in the various discussions of the 20 Articles that have taken place of the past while, I don't think a re-engagement with the apostolic traditions of the Church is at all what is being talked about (although I would love to be proven wrong). Rather, the proposals to change the 20 Articles seem to envision a reworking of our theology that leaves these traditions far behind as distant (and slightly embarrassing) memories. 

These proposals seem to be predicated on at least a couple of dubious assumptions:   
1. That the beliefs and doctrines expressed in the 20 Articles, while perhaps acceptable to a previous generation, don't make sense to the world view(s) of contemporary people, and that this is a bad thing. 

2. That the experiences of our current age are so different from those of past generations as to render unhelpful the beliefs and insights of our forebears. 

Standing on these two assumptions, the proposals as I have understood them seek to newly define and articulate the beliefs of the United Church in a manner that do not plunge us back into the deep pools that are the apostolic traditions of the Church. Instead, these proposals appear to want to "towel off" whatever water from those pools still remains on us and lead us away from the waters from which we have come. 

My response to this is to first challenge the two assumptions I noted above. 

Regarding the first assumption (that the beliefs and doctrines expressed in the 20 Articles, while perhaps acceptable to a previous generation, don't make sense to the world view(s) of contemporary people, and that this is a bad thing), I start by arguing that churches (not just the United Church, and not just the liberal/mainline churches) have neglected the teaching ministry of the church, and that this is something to which we need to recommit. To say, "people don't understand them, so therefore we should discard them," makes about as much sense as a medical school throwing up its hands at the complete lack of knowledge incoming students have about pharmacology, etc. and deciding that obviously the subject is not worthwhile. How can we say that people won't understand the apostolic faith if we haven't really tried to teach it? (I would not insist that the 20 Articles necessarily be the content of our teaching, but certainly that the faith to which they bear witness should be.) 

Second, I would hope that the world view espoused by the Church, one that shaped by the historical experience of God's People and faithful to God's self-revelation in Jesus, would not "sit comfortably" with contemporary people (or those of any age, for that matter). The Gospel that has been entrusted to the Church presents a sharp challenge to our taken-for-granted world views. Hence the need for repentance and conversion, both of the heart and the mind. 

Third, I would expect that even given the best teaching possible, there will still be some (or perhaps many), who will decide that it makes little sense, that the faith of the Christian community is misplaced, and will go off in their own direction. This reaction would be similar to the reactions Jesus faced. And some, by God's grace, while not understanding will nonetheless find themselves so seized by the person of Jesus that they will stay within the community of his disciples despite their doubts and misgivings. (If find the story of Jesus found in John 6:60 ff to be particularly instructive on this point.) 

In summary, the first assumption is dubious because we have not even tried (with notable exceptions) to teach the apostolic faith, and more important, it fails to recognize the radical and necessary discontinuity between the Good News and the news of our age. 

Shifting from the first to the second assumption (that the experiences of our current age are so different from those of past generations as to render unhelpful the beliefs and insights of our forebears), I make the following arguments. 

The modern "story," born out of the presumptuously self-designated European "Enlightenment," spins a tale which places us at the pinnacle. It tells us that we are at the apex of history and that our wisdom is necessarily superior to that of those of earlier times. (The tragically mixed history of the 20th century gives lie to this belief, but it persistently hangs on.) 

This "arrogance of the present" is coupled with another trait of contemporary culture – historical amnesia. This union produces the belief that the challenges and experiences faced by contemporaries are of a quality and character previously unseen. To be sure, there are things we encounter today that are genuinely new (mass communications, the prospect of self-destruction on a mass scale, for example). But we take these clearly new factors and extrapolate their meaning far out of proportion. We have reversed the wisdom of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes. Instead of saying "there is nothing new under the sun," our culture insists that everything is new. At the very least this is an unproven assumption. 

Of course, if we reject these two assumptions it does not necessarily follow that what I have described (admittedly imprecisely) as the "apostolic faith" is automatically our only other option. But once these assumptions are pushed aside, I can see only one reason for rejecting or fundamentally altering the 20 Articles, namely, that they are at their core wrong! And not just wrong for today, but also wrong for yesterday (and tomorrow too). We would reject them because they bear false witness to God, because they fail to accurately and adequately describe the "human condition," and because the news they herald is neither good nor true (in other words, it is not a "gospel"). 

If we are to reject the 20 Articles, it should not be because they "are out of step with modern times," but because they are false! And if so, then they should be rejected. 
 
But this leads me to a question that lies closer to the sharp comments quoted at the beginning of this essay. I would posit that, agree with them or not, the 20 Articles is a fairly decent articulation of the apostolic faith which the Christian Church has attempted to follow (with admittedly mixed results) for many, many generations. It seems apparent to me that the Church's distinctive "language",  symbols, core narratives, and most important activities all presume the truthfulness of the apostolic faith. My question is therefore this, * Why do those who honestly find in the 20 Articles a great deal of untruth wish to be associated with a Community whose existence and world view is so closely identified with and shaped by the very faith which they so clearly question? * 

I ask this question not with an eye to excluding people, but as part of an honest attempt to understand. If the traditional core teachings of the Church are so troubling, then why bother? Why not articulate a new collection of teachings and form a new community gathered around those teachings, rather than go through the effort of convincing the rest of us (a hard task, for us "conservatives" are if nothing else a stubborn lot)? 

Well, the dough is in the oven. Let's bake!

Yours in Christ, Greg
smithyng@hornepayne.lakeheadu.ca

As usual you can respond directly to the writer of the above article, or you can enter
"United Forum" and let your views be known there. If you are really bold you can also
think about writing one of "Front Page" pieces!