National Alliance of Covenating Congregations within the United Church of Canada

June 09, 2003

Faith Talk -- An Informed Commentary

Dear Members of the Theology and Faith Committee,

            I have had the opportunity to read Faith Talk and have sent the following response. Having served on the Theology and Faith Committee for eight years, I have some appreciation for the task that lies ahead of you and how important your work will be.

            Initial Response to Faith Talk: Toward a New Statement of Faith

Faith as Process:

            I think that the methodology of the document is problematic. In our anxiety to be inclusive, we have conveyed the belief that all opinions are equally valid theologically. In doing so, we come perilously close to Douglas Hall's observation, "Everyone has a right to be a Christian and everybody who says he or she is a Christian must be believed. Your Christianity may not be mine but I must never doubt that yours is as every bit as valid as mine. So successful has this ethos been in the liberal churches that the doctrinal traditions of the Christian movement are now, I think, as foreign to the average church goer as the legends of the ancient Chinese." ¹This may be putting the matter a bit strongly but our method of coming at a Statement of Faith reflects a process, which seeks to construct a Statement governed by people's responses rather than a Statement which is faithful to our foundations in Scripture and Christian tradition. The impression given is that Christianity is a kind of smorgasbord from which to assemble a religion to our taste.

            Given that the feedback may be faithful to our foundations, there is no guarantee that the responses will be heard. My experience on the Theology and Faith Committee leads me to think that the Statement of Faith will be taken in the direction of those within the church who have particular assumptions and frames of reference. This is already reflected in the Assumptions of the Committee on Theology and Faith. Let me highlight one of the assumptions, "This Statement of Faith will endeavor to be respectful of the authenticity and integrity of other faiths." To say that other faiths have authenticity is a blurring of boundaries which not only Christians but other faith traditions do not hold. To be sure, we should be respectful of persons who hold other faith traditions. We hold, however, different centres of faith and loyalty, which we believe are ultimate and make a claim upon our respective communities of faith as being the only authentic claim. In the interest of dialogue with other faith traditions, we have slipped into the thought pattern that all opinions or faith stances are to be held of equal value. This reflects a pluralistic stance which says God has given us many roads to salvation and Jesus Christ is the Saviour only for Christians. This is a far cry from the scriptural claim that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;" that the salvation of humanity has taken place by the sovereign action and grace of God and is not to be found apart from the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

            My hunch is that the process used in this project will lead to a plethora of responses, which will result in a struggle between the pluralists and the orthodox. The likely result will be a compromise in which orthodoxy is made out to be optional. When orthodoxy is made optional it is soon proscribed.

What Determines the Necessity for a Statement of Faith?

            Let me try to state where the fundamental flaw of Faith Talk may lie. The document gives a commendable outline as to the forces that were at work in the world resulting in the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Barmen Declaration and other Confessions and Statements. The three I have mentioned came about as a result of a direct challenge to the faith. In other words, there were historical forces that were undercutting the foundations of the Christian faith and thus necessitated a clear affirmation of those foundations. They were "timely and contextual" statements that saved the soul of the Church and which have remained as touchstones for orthodoxy ever since. The Theology and Faith Committee, has seen these statements of faith not as statements that saved the church from heresy but as responses "written during periods of upheaval and uncertainty".Therein lies a fundamental difference.

            We are still living in periods of upheaval and uncertainty, but this does not recognize, as did those earlier statements, the direct attack on the foundations of the Church and the need to root ourselves even more firmly in the fundamentals of the faith.A secular and consumerist spirit pervades public life. We live in a culture which gives no allegiance whatsoever to Jesus Christ and thus devalues the freedom and dignity of persons.

            If the Theology and Faith Committee is desirous that we be "timely and contextual"then there must be the recognition that Christianity is under attack and the times require a Statement of Faith which points unmistakably to the rock from which we are hewn. The defining moment in the life of the United Church is whether in our context we have the nerve to be fully and distinctly Christian.

Yours sincerely,

Vernon R. Wishart

Posted at June 9, 2003 12:17 PM

Comments