Over the past several days, some discussions have come up here, here, and here that seem to involve common definitions for religious and philosophical terms. At least two of these guys are Presbyterians so I'd like to point out an excellent reference. The Presbytery of San Diego has put out a publication called, Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives that gives an overview of the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. There's probably nothing here that's new or advanced, but the information is presented in a format that makes it perfect for a quick reference. The document itself says that, "It distills the Book of Confessions to a helpful summary - six essentials and sevent distinctives." If you're so inclined, check it out.
I have read the document, Jim. I don't find anything there that I would disagree with doctrinally. That isn't what bothers me about it, though. I don't think there is a minister in the PCUSA, right, left or middle that subscribes to every jot and tittle of our Book of Confessions. The reason why the language of ordination is deliberately vague concerning the specifics of the "essential tenets of the Reformed faith" is because when we view the historical development of Reformed theology, it covers a wide spectrum of belief on certain matters but not on others.
We are rightly cautious about "absolutizing" these confessions of faith. Regardless of what we think about the nature of revelation in scripture, we are unequivocal in our belief that the Confessions are historically conditioned. For this reason, I am always leery of any approach that tries to objectify the process of discernment of call to ministry in this manner. On the surface, it seems reasonable, but in the hands of the wrong people, it is a dangerous weapon.
The purpose of inquiry and candidacy for ordination to the office of Minister of the Word and Sacraments in the PCUSA is to provide persons seeking ordination an opportunity to develop their knowledge regarding our beliefs and the history of their development. For this reason, we do not examine candidates on the floor of presbytery with regard to specific beliefs when they seek candidacy. If they already knew it all, what would be the point of sending them to seminary?
If this document is used as a tool to guide these individuals through a process of discernment, great. If it's just one more club in the bag for beating people up the way we usually do in this process, I am disturbed by it.
Posted by: Rev. Mike at January 21, 2004 10:58 AMPersonally, it's a relief that you don't find anything disagreeable doctrinally. There are way too many people in the denomination right now that seem to find our most core beliefs to be optional.
I agree with you too that something like this can be misused. The introduction makes it pretty clear how it should be used.
We can agree on the fact that the confessions are historically conditioned, but we have to be careful because we're standing on the edge of a precipice. It's a very short hop to start saying that the Bible is itself historically conditioned to the point where it's irrelevant in much of what it says.
At this point in history I think there's a much greater tendency to disregard the Confessions than there is to use them to beat someone up doctrinally. (both are wrong but the former seems to be a pressing danger.)
--I have a feeling we're going to have a lot of these types of discussions. This should be fun and I'm looking forward to it. :)