new covenant theology 11 – the church and creeds

In chapter 15 Tom Wells explores the relationship between the authority of Scripture and the authorityof human confessions. He notes that our sinful condition makes objectivity difficult and this causes divisions among us. Yet this does not mean we should capitulate into an emergent style “chastised epistimelogy = everyone’s viewpoint is valid” approach. As with other spiritual problems that arise from sinfulness, a lack of objectivity must be attacked “with fervor” (p260).

Wells states the problem with unity and objectivity in the church by focussing on two issues:

1. Our creeds and confessions are one immense barrier to unity.
2. There is no obvious way to cross this divide.

Wells will not say that doctrinal unity is impossible. Indeed the Apostle Paul, he reminds us, insists on doctrinal unity (Eph. 4:4-6). Neither is it enough for us to say, “I believe the bible” since every church group, including heretics, have claimed Scriptural authority for their views. Even those groups which oppose written creeds, e.g. the Brethren, have held to common convictions tenaciously.

Wells notes the fact that strongly confessional groups have had very little influence outside their own circles. As an example he asks if any of the Lutheran confessions have been changed in the last couple of hundred years as a result of the doctrinal insights of Calvinistic groups (or vice versa)? In theory, many admit that their confessions are man-made and open to correction by the word of God, yet in practice many treat the confessions as infallible guides thus creating a Protestant magisterium. I think Wells is right on the money here. As an example of the grip of this magisterium, one need only look at the demonising of some among evangelical circles who question the biblical basis of doctrines such as the imputed active obedience of Christ. “It’s not confessional” or “it’s unProtestant” cry some while holding hands to their ears as the question “Is it biblical?” is asked over and over.

What is the answer to this problem? How do we relate our doctrinal formulations to the authority of Scripture? Wells proposes the following:

1. A major simplification of our creeds. D.A. Carson has got at this with his centre bounded set model, i.e. define the centre (i.e. the gospel) and only exclude those who move far enough away from this centre to be called evangelical.
2. A looser subscription to creedal statements. This doesn’t mean having a smaller confession to which all must strictly subscribe. It just means that people within denominations should be free to question the biblical basis of aspects to their confessions. Certainly, this seemed to be the Old Princetonian way of subscription, e.g. John Murray’s objection to the “Covenant of Works” didn’t seem to incur any sanction as he worked and ministered in Reformed circles.
3. Encouragement for change within the confessions themselves. Wells is frustrated at the lip service paid to the fact that the confessions are merely human words. Within the confessions, he argues, there should be included some kind of statement which states that the confession expects to be reproved by Scripture at some point. Only when the confessions expect to be challenged without fear of consequence will they find our respect.
4. A grading system. Wells moots some kind of system where there are grades given to deviations from a confession. Some aspects of the confession could be marked ‘N’ for non-negotiable. Others could be graded from 1 to 10, with 10 representing the most important matters. If a member, deacon, elder, etc scores a grade of more than 50, he would be excluded unless he could presuade the others of the rightness of his views (and thus gets his score below 50 again!)
5. Some combination of the above.

Wells ends the chapter with the realisation that he probably hasn’t convinced everyone and that the two problems he explored will always be with us. This really was a superb chapter IMO. Maybe I’ll explore Wells’ suggestions some more in future posts.