If Only they Would Speak with Clarity

I’m still preparing for Saturday’s presbytery meeting where we decide whether or not to approve a thoroughly revised edition to our “form of government" I’ll take a break to record something I discovered.

In speaking of the confessional (doctrinal) standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) the following couple sentences caused me to pause. Take a moment to read the following slice carefully – maybe read it three times.

“They (the various confessions) appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other.”

Do you notice a disharmony between the first and second sentences? Consider the difference between “the universal truth of the Gospel” and “a common faith tradition.” This “common faith tradition” can only be “common” because it is founded on a set of universal truths? Truth has the inherent characteristic of both uniting or dividing people. Truth also has the quality of bringing lucidity or an eloquent clarity to a subject.

Let’s compare the language of the sentences I cite above with the paragraph below. Each are found in the proposed form of government.

“That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And that no opinion can either be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.”

I own a copy of the original Form of Government adopted in 1821. This language appears verbatim in that document. It is clear that the two statements come from very different worldviews. This difference is so very importance to understanding our current impasse within the Presbyterian Church (USA). I suspect, if many pastors would clearly and simply express what they believe and disbelieve the congregations they serve would run away or chase them off as false shepherds speaking with a “stranger’s voice.” (see John 10) Speaking clearly on doctrine might be difficult for liberal (post-modern) preachers who are confused by a lifetime of living under the cloud of their own muddy thinking.