mgpcpastor's blog

My recent trip home from Port Augusta proved the usefulness of a Global Positioning System device. Press the ‘home’ icon on the screen and nine and a half hours later we arrive at that very destination.
As I talk to folk at mgpc about the events of recent weeks in the Church of Scotland (yesterday we prayed that the Presbyterians of Scotland would know much wisdom, grace and faithfullness) they ask ‘How could it happen’. While they hold that group with much affection they want assurance they will not follow their direction.
Well I believe that a reading of the Case Document tells us how. Now, you really should read it, if you have not done so already. When you have, come back and then read what I’ve made of it. Please try and read the primary source first.
So, you’re back?
Right from the outset I want to affirm the dissenters. They proceeded through the appropriate channel to have the matter reviewed. But I think it is important to realise that the dissent document itself is indicative of having lost a war, not of fighting one. Again, that evaluation is a not dismissal of the commitment and belief of the dissenters, nor of their integrity. Their document just seems to indicate how little ground they have upon which to fight.
The document seems to assert that the action was wrong under Scripture and doctrine, but clauses 5, 6 and 7 also seem to assert that the action was wrong in terms of process and timing. There seems to be a mixed voice. I know there is great pressure in these documents to try and make as broad a case as possible. Again I want to recognise the tremendous integrity of these folk in pursuing the matter.
The most obvious problem is that a single understanding of the role of Scripture within the Church is not clearly shared by all.
While the dissenters state that the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the supreme rule of faith and life in the Church of Scotland.” The defendants state that “in the historical tradition of the Church of Scotland, it is the ‘Word of God’, which is identified as being the supreme rule of faith and life. The ‘Word of God’ is not synonymous with the Scriptures, but it can, in part, be discerned from the Scriptures through prayer and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
This second interpretive principle is illustrated in this way: “After receiving a report from the Panel on Doctrine in 1998, the General Assembly resolved (in section 3 of the associated deliverance), to ‘affirm the conclusion drawn in the report that, drawing from a common Gospel, there is a variety of ways of interpreting Scripture, always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.’ When considering the issue of same-sex relationships, the 2007 report of the Mission and Discipleship Council ‘A Challenge to Unity’ acknowledged, ‘Theology reflects on Scripture. But theology is also formed by our own individual experience and that of the people of God as a whole, in life and liturgy’.
Just to summarise my understanding, one group believes the Bible cover to cover is God’s Word, the rule of faith and practice, the second group believe the Bible contains some parts which are God’s Word and some parts which are not, that the Holy Spirit can provide interpretations of Scripture at variance with one another and that theology is derived not solely from Scripture, but experience. It seems that the view of the defendents is the view of Scripture which generally prevails.
Contrast this with the Westminster Confession, chapter 1, paragraph 2: “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: [there follows a list of individual books]. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.”
Also Chapter 1, paragraph 4: “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” A plain reading of these shows the historic position of the Confession is that the terms Holy Scripture and Word of God are synonymous.
Consider too, in the face of the claim that there is a variety of ways of interpreting Scripture”, the Confession’s summary of the Biblical position that “when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” The point in that quote is that any Scripture has but one meaning, not many.
Having demonstrated that, in the practice of the Church of Scotland, that their understanding of Scripture seems to have been the normative one, the defendants point out that having played by these rules in the past, there is really no legitimate reason for the dissenters to want to stop playing now. Notice the basic integrity of their logic as they question why the application of the principles outlined in the appeal are being produced at this time, while not in other areas: “This would also be true in relation to other moral issues, such as divorce: in this regard, the report ‘A Challenge to Unity’ questioned why traditional interpreters might regard scriptural prohibitions on homosexuality as decisive, while statements, for instance, prohibiting women’s leadership or the remarriage of divorcees might not be.” Why indeed?
Their logic is nothing if not consistent. Just as a few generations ago arguments were raised that the Bible was locked in a particular historical attitude with women that did not reflect their modern educated situation, we are now told: “The Bible does not directly address the concept of open, stable homosexual relationships that are essentially a feature of modern society and which did not exist in their current form in the biblical world.”
The dissenters asserted that the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, when
they take up the subject of same-sex activity, present it as a wrong choice.” [curiously they do not use the word sin] and that “This is the historic and orthodox position of the Church from which it has not departed.”
The defendants respond in this way: On the basis of the Articles Declaratory, the concept of ‘orthodoxy’ (as opposed to ‘heresy’) can only be applied to ‘the fundamental doctrines’. In contrast, the Church of Scotland recognises ‘liberty of opinion on such points of doctrine as do not enter into the substance of the faith’, even in relation to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Such ‘liberty of opinion’ would extend to the Church’s stance on same-sex activity, which is neither creedal nor confessional. As a result of this, it is perfectly permissible for different views to be
held within the Church of Scotland on the matter of same-sex activity.”
One awaits a future debate about the Westminster Confession’s 24th Chapter (On Marriage and Divorce) with a mixture of curiosity and dread.
It is in the latter stages of the defendent’s paper that the weight of their arguments lie. All they really have attemped to do so far is point our error and inconsistency on the part of the dissenters.
While asserting their concern for the person in question and prodedural fairness, they also cite that they are concerned that “nothing should be done in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights or the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.” In addition, the person involved had full standing and a well supported call from a Parish. Their contention is that not supporting the call would have been “wrong”.
As mentioned above, the dissenters referred to the urging of the General Assembly for “Church members to commit themselves to ways of prayerful dialogue over the controversial questions which arise.” In response the defendents asserted that this is precisely what they had done: “Many of the individuals who participated in the
Presbytery meeting on 6th January did so after engaging in prayerful reflection in relation to the issues. It was also clear that they took part in the debate with a defined spiritual perspective and theological interpretation of the issues. This prayerful
dialogue continued throughout the conduct of the meeting, as those with different views were allowed to express them. As a result, the eventual decision of Presbytery was firmly made in the spirit of prayerful dialogue.”
Having been called upon to engage in prayerful dialogue, and providing evidence that they have engaged in prayerful dialogue the outcome is presented in such a way that it makes the accusation of the dissenters look like bad losers.
If you want to figure out how you ended up lost, you need to know where you took a wrong direction.
Given the arguments presented here there are two areas that seem to stand out.
The first is the doctrine of Scripture.
The first paragraph of the Westminster Confession states: “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”
If we look anywhere else for God’s guidance but in every word of the Bible we will be lost.
This leads to a second observation: how closely we can walk with those who do not share our map. Can two walk together unless they are in agreement? The dissenters in effect are saying, “According to our map we should be here”. The defendants in effect are saying, “But we are actually travelling according to our map, and we are here.”Trying to get to the goal we know the Scriptures point us to while at the same time paying lip service to an inferior map will end up with us either staring down a wrong path or finding ourselves a long way down one trying to get back.
Here at mgpc we’ll be committed to the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God written, the rule of faith and life.
Many contemporary churches have evangelical groups within them who seem to constantly assert that the next major departure from biblical truth will see a split or a major exodus. Yet many major departures from truth go by and yet the evangelicals remain.