National Alliance of Covenating Congregations within the United Church of Canada

May 19, 2007

Remit Required for "A Song of Faith"?

A REQUEST THAT “A SONG OF FAITH”, APPROVED BY THE 39^TH GENERAL COUNCIL, BE SET ASIDE PENDING A REMIT

INTRODUCTION

It is important to emphasize that, in requesting a remit under the provisions of Basis 8.6.2(1), the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations is motivated by a loving concern for the United Church of Canada. We see this new faith statement as constituting a very considerable danger to the health of the denomination and the integrity of its corporate faith. Such a faith requires, at the very least, agreement on a substantive set of beliefs at the core of the denomination’s faith. Without such agreement there is no denomination, in any real sense of the word.

The title of the statement – A Song of Faith – is not inappropriate, its choice of the indefinite article being congruent with the authors’ understanding that this is the latest in a sequence of United Church faith statements, each tailored to its time. Nonetheless, we note that, in speaking of A Song of Faith, the church itself has very quickly moved to refer to it as “the statement of faith”. . While A Song’s Appendix A states that “This statement does not seek to replace the Twenty Articles of Faith included in the United Church’s 1925 Basis of Union”, we believe that by many it has already been assigned that totemic status. This is supported by Appendix A itself, which moves on to say, “The Twenty Articles have historical significance for the church” (emphasis added). The change from the indefinite to the definite article is of great importance, suggesting that, at best, the theological/doctrinal significance of the original Articles is thereby significantly diminished, that is of no immediate relevance to our time.

Given the various dangers which find support in A Song, the National Alliance will argue that as a faith statement it represents something very different from what many had been led to hope for – that is, a restatement of the historic faith in more contemporaneous language. In fact, A Song goes a country mile further, introducing extra-Biblical concepts and understandings of the Christian faith, while simultaneously making little or no mention of other important concepts and understandings which are Biblical. To a significant degree, A Song states a different “Christianity”, indeed a significantly altered if not a new faith.

What follows here deliberately contrasts A Song with the Articles of the doctrinal section of The Basis of Union. There are two reasons for referencing the Articles: (1) They are consciously and transparently Scripture-referenced to an extent not true of A Song; (2) They are clearly the doctrinal standard to which Basis 8.6.2(1) refers.

Perhaps criticism of A Song on Biblical grounds was anticipated by the writers, who caution that “The Spirit judges us critically when we abuse scripture by interpreting it narrow-mindedly.” However, one might well respond that the Holy Spirit also judges us critically when we abuse Scripture by interpreting it loose-mindedly. Indeed, Christ himself famously speaks of His Way as a narrow one (Matt 7:13, echoed in Luke 13:24).

Finally, A Song’s Appendix A speaks of A Song’s intended audiences, saying “first and foremost it is a document for the church itself. It is intended as a means by which the church can express its beliefs to itself and to the world, and a tool to help the church’s members reflect on their individual and collective faith.” Given that, it is puzzling that the General Council did not ensure wide discussion by mandating a remit, specifying that local congregations be included. Interestingly enough, the earlier Faith Talk II draft was submitted to the whole church for reaction (although access was not made easy). For some reason, access to the final version (A Song) was by no means as easy.

COMMENTARY

The Preamble to A Song of Faith acknowledges the United Church’s earlier statements of faith, those of 1925, 1940, and 1960. The earliest, the doctrinal section of The Basis of Union (the denomination’s foundational faith statement), points back to “the ancient creeds” - the Nicene, the Apostles’, and the Athanasian. Our frame of reference therefore extends back through at least sixteen centuries of theological thought and hard won consensus. A Song of Faith seeks to stand in impressive company, and this longitudinal view confirms that the faith described by A Song must rightly be compared with the United Church of Canada’s faith statement of 1925 for at least three reasons:

(a) That statement is congruent with the ancient creeds just mentioned, and the latter are firmly rooted in the Scriptural record, serving as touchstones in the faith for today’s Church universal. Those Articles are thus our strongest link to Christians everywhere, and to the “cloud of witnesses” in whose footsteps we walk.

(b) It is contemporaneous with section 8.6.2(1) of The Basis of Union, NACC’s prime reference in this matter.

(c) As part of The United Church of Canada Act (1924), The Basis of Union cannot be amended or set aside without the permission of the Parliament of Canada. Thus the Articles - and Basis 8.6.2(1) – cannot be set aside or contravened, even by the denomination’s highest court.

It is sometimes asserted that the United Church is not a “doctrinal” or “creedal” church, even though the statement of 1960 terms itself a “creed”. The NACC argues that the “Doctrine” section of The Basis of Union, our governing “constitution”, is sufficient evidence that the church is – and cannot escape being - both doctrinal and creedal, unless it is prepared to reject its own foundational document, as well as its roots in the Reformation and the early church. (Tellingly, while giving formal testimony on behalf of the United Church in a recent civil court hearing (an examination for discovery), a former Conference Executive Secretary conceded, after consultation, that the denomination is indeed doctrinal.)

The United Church’s roots in Methodism are deep and strong, and it is hard to see how John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, would have approved the amalgam of disparate faith elements found in A Song. Despite his emphasis on the desirability of unity in the church, he warned, “a catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism”, and “This unsettledness of thought, this being ‘driven to and fro, and tossed about by every wind of doctrine’, is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.” (Sermon 34, Forty-Four Sermons, 1793) He was, of course, using “catholic” to mean all-embracing, comprehensive, universal.)

Below are four illustrative points at which the NACC believes A Song of Faith is in significant doctrinal conflict with the faith enshrined in the Basis of Union. Others could be adduced – for example salvation in Christ, baptism, and evangelism – but these four may be sufficient to demonstrate that A Song of Faith introduces changes of doctrine worthy of challenge under the provisions of Basis 8.6.2(1).

SELECTED ISSUES

1. The Name of God

The Basis of Union, Doctrine: Article I (“Of God”), names God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (2.1), the name used in the universal church for many centuries in the act of baptism.

A Song of Faith: Preserving the tripartism of the Trinitarian formula, A Song offers such alternative names as “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer”; “God, Christ, Spirit”; “Mother, Friend, Comforter”; “Source of Life, Living Word, Bond of Love”.

Comment: (a) In Appendix B (“On the Language and Form of the Statement of Faith”), A Song declares all these various formulae (including “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”!) to be “images”, rather than “names”. (This, notwithstanding the worldwide church’s agreement that this is God’s name, see above – Matt 28:19). Indeed, the United Church itself still uses it as such in the current service book (Celebrate God’s Presence, “The Covenant of Baptism”, p. 346). Whatever the niceties of the images-name distinction, they will almost certainly be lost on most people, and this spectrum of alternatives will also come to be seen as names.

(b) In Scripture, it is God who reveals His names to us - “Yahweh” (OT) and “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (NT). We do not name him, he names himself. However, four of the five formulae offered by A Song are human constructs. Unlike the classic formula, they do not speak directly of the mysterious three-in-one God-community., the inter-relatedness of the Trinity.

(c) While A Song’s alternatives may already be in current use in some parts of the United Church, they have no Biblical basis as names for God.

(d) It is perhaps worthwhile commenting briefly on two of the alternatives offered:

• To be generous, “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” comes perilously close to the ancient heresy of modalism. Instead of pointing to the three persons of the Trinity, it introduces us to a Unitarian, single-person God, who first acts as Creator, then as Redeemer, and finally as Sustainer. (A God who wears three hats, so to speak.)

• The most egregious departure from the witness of the Bible is “Mother, Friend, and Comforter”. Indeed, to name God “Mother” is not merely un-Scriptural, it is anti-Scriptural, violating the unambiguous biblical account, which, in both testaments, presents mother goddesses as in opposition to the Father (2 Kings 23; Acts 19). Tellingly, while Jesus instructs us to address God as “Father”, he never speaks of his (or our) God as “Mother”.

(e) Finally, A Song speaks a number of times of God as “Holy Mystery”. The capitalization suggests this again is intended as a name. Here we have another non-Scriptural construct, one suggesting the closet elitism of Gnosticism and/or of the ancient Mystery cults. (Interestingly, while “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” appears only once in A Song, “Holy Mystery” appears four times.)

2. The Lordship of Christ

The Basis of Union: The ancient confession “Jesus Christ is Lord” is unmistakably affirmed in the Articles of Faith – e.g. Article VII (2.7) is entitled “Of the Lord Jesus Christ”. That particular Article closes with, “above us and over us all He rules; wherefore, unto Him we render love, obedience, and adoration as our Prophet, Priest, and King.”

A Song of Faith: When A Song speaks of Jesus there is no hint of that sort of language. His Lordship is confessed nowhere. Indeed, the new statement hews overwhelmingly to a “low” Christology, unduly focusing on his purely human nature.

Comment: On the matter of Lordship, the doctrinal difference between our two reference documents seems to be unbridgeable, with A Song distancing itself not only from the statement of 1925 but also that of 1940, the latter speaking of Jesus as “our Saviour and our Lord” (Article II) and as “the Living Lord” (Article X).

For their part, the Articles of The Basis of Union embrace the historic convention by which “Lord” (especially when capitalized throughout) stands for the Hebrew YAHWEH, the timeless, transcendent Old Testament God, the God in whose limitless power lay Israel’s hope of salvation. In its turn, the New Testament unambiguously assigns that name “Lord” to Jesus, emphasizing that our situation is hopeless if he is not Lord. Without his Lordship we have no hope of salvation.

A Song, however, seems to be moving in a different direction, one already charted by the denomination’s hymnbooks. To illustrate: An examination of their indices of first lines yields the following ratios for “Lord” vs. the generic “God”:

The Hymnary (1930) – 102 (Lord)/ 96 (God), or 106.37%

The Hymn Book (1971) – 72/ 81, or 88, 0%

Voices United (1996) – 34/ 251, or 13.5%.

The progression is unmistakable, and A Song is clearly part of the trend.

3. Scripture

The Basis of Union: (a) The introductory section of the Articles (2.0) states, “We affirm our belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New testaments as the primary source and ultimate standard of Christian faith and life.”

(b) That stance is re-emphasized in Article II (“Of Revelation”), which states, “We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by the inspiration of God, as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God’s gracious revelations, and as a sure witness of Christ.”

A Song of Faith: When the new statement turns its attention to Scripture, it concedes its revelatory nature, and notes the “unique and normative place” it should hold for Christians. However, it also sees the “holy revelation” as something “we must wrestle” from the text, since Scripture’s actual meaning is obscured for us by “the human experiences and cultural assumptions of another era.”

Comment: (a) A Song’s approach to Scripture is self-consciously “free”, casting a very wide net. (Although not as wide a net as the earlier Faith Talk II draft.) Its position accords well with what was argued in “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture”, adopted by the 34^th General Council (1992). In approving “Authority”, the denomination declared the Bible an authority rather than the authority, apparently even for Christians. Under “Justice, Inclusivity, and Scripture” in Appendix D, A Song echoes that view, taking Scripture to be a source of revelation, a “faithful witness”, and (poetically) “our song for the journey”’. That is a far cry from the view articulated by the Basis of Union above.

(b) As noted earlier, while accepting the revelatory nature of Scripture, A Song also asserts that from it we are to “wrestle a holy revelation for our time and place from the human experiences and cultural assumptions of another era.” That is, we are to question Scripture, to “wrestle” meaning from it.

A Song appears to take as given that the human race possesses the capacity to ask the right questions of Scripture (that is, of God). However, Scripture, consistently rules such interrogation out of order. It sees it as presumptuous – see, for instance, the closing chapters of the Old Testament Book of Job. In its turn, the New records how Jesus consistently refuses to submit to interrogation, deflecting his questioners with questions of his own, or refusing to answer.

(c) As noted earlier, A Song cautions against “interpreting [Scripture] narrow-mindedly” and “literally” (Appendix D, “Justice, Inclusivity, and Scripture”), and adds that “The United Church of Canada seeks to take the Bible seriously but not literally”. In response, the NACC in its turn wishes to caution that a “loose” mindset has its own drawbacks, including the dangers of believing everything in Scripture is up for “interpretation”, that nothing is to be taken at face value.

(d) The Basis of Union sees things very differently. After speaking of God’s revelation of “Himself in nature, in history, and in the heart of man”, it continues, “He has been graciously pleased to make clearer revelation of Himself to men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; and that in the fullness of time He has perfectly revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh” (Article II, “Of Revelation”).

(e) In conclusion, a small telling point: in the Christian Church the holiness of Scripture has customarily been emphasized by its capitalization. So, the Articles give us “Scripture” and “Word”, while in contrast A Song employs “scripture” and “word”. The difference would appear to derive from different views of The Word of God – in one it is God’s gift; in the other it is, at least primarily, a human artifact. In one case the Word interrogates us; in the other, we presume to interrogate it. Two very different understandings.

4. Truth

Basis of Union: When the Articles of Faith speak of “truth” – which they do a number of times – they are consistently referring to God’s truth; that is, the truth implicit and explicit in the life and teachings of Jesus, who unambiguously asserted, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”(John 14:6).
A Song of Faith: Appendix C (“On the Context of the Statement of Faith”) addresses this matter under the heading “The Question of “Truth”. The nub of the argument appears to be that belief in absolute religious truth has caused much harm, harm on a world-wide scale. Hence it apparently follows that any attempt to discern and formulate universal truth(s) is to be avoided, since friction and division are the inescapable consequences. Thus, “While believing that its faith is grounded in truth, the church strives to understand that its truth need not deny the truths of others.” Further, “it is often difficult to know what ‘truth’ means”. Nonetheless, “We are in a position to wrestle deeply with the theological conviction that in Christ we have been made one.” (It is not clear who is meant by that second “we”.

Comment: The section of A Song’s Appendix C just cited contains the following telling passage: “The statement of faith [A Song] begins by acknowledging God as ‘Mystery,’ which throws into question any human claims to absolute truth.” In light of the low Christology mentioned earlier, it is not clear whether the phrase “human claims” is intended to include Jesus. The acceptability of A Song’s assertion rests, of course, (1) on one’s Christology, and (2) on whether Scripture (and its truths) is regarded as a God-given gift, or whether it is merely the product of millennia of (admittedly) earnest human thought about God. In the latter case, it is an inevitably flawed artifact from which fallible humans must “wrestle” meaning and truth.

In this, our two reference statements could not be further apart. The Basis of Union speaks from the richness of the received faith of the Reformation, whose roots rest very consciously in the early church. A Song, striving to speak in contemporary terms, takes many of its core assumptions from today’s conventional wisdoms, most significantly that which holds all truth to be relative, situational.

To illustrate: A Song makes the easy assumption – indeed seems to accept it as a truth - that the causes of much world strife are rooted in the clash of religious absolutes. That position is highly arguable, to say the least, and very good rationales can be advanced for the prime causes lying elsewhere. In those scenarios, differences over religious convictions are no more than convenient (and effective) excuses for violence whose prime roots lie in other places – in economics, hunger for power, xenophobia, etc.

But even if A Song’s assertion is accepted at face value, there is the uncomfortable fact that Jesus himself is recorded as warning that the truth of his Word would inevitably lead to division and strife (Matt 10:34-35). A “hard” saying from the Prince of Peace. Something to “wrestle” with. Perhaps the framers of A Song of Faith (and the General Council which approved it) might have kept at it a little longer.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. The United Church Manual itself applies the word “Doctrine” to the Articles of Faith in the Basis of Union. The United Church has always been a “doctrinal” denomination.

2. The Basis of Union 8.6.2(1) declares, in part: “The General Council shall have full power to legislate on matters respecting the doctrine, worship, membership, and government of the Church, subject to the following conditions: First, that before any rule or law relative to these matters can become permanent law, it must receive the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries, and, if advisable, Pastoral Charges also, the votes of which are received by the designated date, provided that at least two-thirds of the eligible courts have responded by that date.”

3. Therefore, neither A Song of Faith, nor any statement of faith adopted subsequent to the Basis of Union, can enjoy formal status in the United Church unless the process described in Basis 8.6.2(1) has been followed.

4. Quite apart from its force in church law, the Basis of Union is part of The United Church of Canada Act, and actions taken by courts of the church which do not conform to its provisions are therefore ultra vires on two levels – that of (a) the Laws of the United Church itself, and (b) the Laws of Canada.

5. It may be that some will argue that church courts are free to approve statements like A Song on the grounds that they are felt to be “in essential agreement” with the foundational statement in the Basis of Union. However, the Basis restricts the use of that phrase to the declaration required of individual candidates for ordination, commissioning, or admission (Basis 11.1, 11.2). It nowhere suggests it is applicable to actions of church courts.

6. It is the view of the NACC that A Song of Faith is effectively, but improperly, being accorded doctrinal status in today’s United Church. Indeed, its stated intent is to represent “what the United Church of Canada understands its faith to be in its current historical, political, social, and theological context at the beginning of the 21^st century” (A Song of Faith, Preamble). That accords with our understanding of the meaning of the phrase “permanent law” (see #2 above), that is a law that is in force until it is properly amended or replaced.

Posted at May 19, 2007 06:19 PM

Comments