A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Bill Campbell has served as a minister in the P.C.C. for years, retiring recently for health reasons. Bill has also been on the Board of the Renewal Fellowship.
I speak out of deep concern for the church in which I was baptized, married and ordained and which I believe is committing suicide. How can the Renewal Fellowship fulfill its mandate of renewal within this denomination? Discussion about renewal in the church must always begin with definition, for the term “renewal” in the P.C.C. is subject to diverse interpretation. A simple working definition of renewal in the church would be nothing less than its reformation and revival, i.e., a return to truth and life. My purpose in this article is to set forth two focii as foundations for genuine biblical renewal. First, a clear commitment to a confessional ecclesiology as a basis of security and fellowship in that faith and secondly, an intensely practical involvement in theological issues that impede renewal.
The great divide today on several fronts is a division between an old Confessional Evangelicalism, with the infrastructure of the church as institution, and the new evangelicalism which is a conceptual unity created in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by the “evangelical awakening” in Britain and the “Great Awakening” below the border. Though there are many points of variance between the old and the new evangelicalism, our concern at present is limited to one glaring area of difference – the doctrine of the church.
The great focus today is upon the response of individuals to the Good News and personal renewal, with a view of the church as an amorphous collection of individuals in any denomination who have responded to the Gospel. The focus of the old evangelicalism, however, with its confessional ecclesiology, was upon the church as an institution with sacramental and non-sacramental ordinances. Its great distinctive emphasis was upon correct expository preaching, right administration of the sacraments, and discipline. In other words their priority was first “inreach’’ before it was “outreach.” There is a strong move today both within and among denominations to have renewal fellowships as a forum for unity with kindred spirits. Similar movements existed in the nineteenth century, forming a group on the basis of evangelical principles held in common. In the interim this arrangement has served a very worthwhile purpose and has been a real encouragement and strength to many lives. It has afforded evangelicals the opportunity for worship, fellowship and theological liberty within the church. However, the churches themselves in the nineteenth century were not transformed by the stance of noncontroversial piety and the organizations themselves either ceased to exist, or became a catalyst for a “Council of Churches”, or in the case of the Evangelical Alliance in Britain, it survived within the Anglican Church providing an outlet for Anglicans dissatisfied with toleration of non-evangelical positions within the church of England.
The stance of separating spirituality from theological truth relative to responsibilities for the whole church has become fatal for a true and pervasive evangelical witness in that church. Pietistic “renewal” divorced from polemical responsibility will be fatal for us as well. As churchpeople who shall answer to God, our greatest challenge ahead is to overcome this. If we are to be anything other than an historical anachronism by the twenty- first century, we must deal seriously with the nature of who we are as Reformed Presbyterians. In order to do that we must revitalize in our thinking and retain as impetus for our actions, the Reformation’s stress and our confessional understanding of the institutional nature of the church. The influence of dispensationalism has eliminated this aspect of ecclesiology from the forefront of our thinking and failed to impact our actions in dealing with the issues of theological truth that are so glaring and crippling in our denomination. We must plunge into the polemical arena to stem the tide of increased unbelief and/or confront it with the determination of a Luther. Rapprochment which manifests itself in determining an internal fellowship by the use of even the Renewal Fellowship statement of faith, while bypassing the clear confessional issues, is neither a viable or obedient option. Members of the fellowship are aware of this and a degree of churchmanship has been evidently effective amongst us over the years. It is, however, time to rear up on our hind legs and say, “Here we stand and so will we act!”
What must we plunge into? Let me suggest two pivotal issues upon which every other issue is contingent. First, the authority of the Scriptures and secondly, coupled with the first, the rule of Christ in the church. Our colleges, some C.E. curriculums and much of our emphasis in our publications, are underscored by a view of Scripture that is less than our official confessional standards and at variance to the historical position of the church – verbal plenary inspiration. What Scripture says – God says. Scripture itself warns: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Col. 2:8). Nowhere is this danger of disobeying Paul’s exhortation more apparent than in the drift in our denomination from the historic biblical doctrine of inerrancy. Major philosophical presuppositions have contributed to the virus of denouncing biblical authority. Between the alien philosophical presuppositions of Bacon’s inductivism, Spinoza’s rationalism, Hume’s empiricism and Kierkegaard’s existentialism, contemporary denial of Scripture’s authority in all matters of faith and life has been spawned.
We cannot start with our colleges, or the bureaucrats, but with Nehemiah we must confess that we share the sin and guilt of a derailed denomination.
This has led to our second major problem, the way in which Christ rules his church. He is the administrative and organic head of the church, giving her directives by the Word and life through the Spirit. We must therefore ask this question, can a denomination claim to be part of the visible Kingdom of Christ which does not acknowledge him as its head, by submission to his sole authority? Is it possible to bear evidence of participation in his kingdom and of being a true church, when its constituted authorities don’t speak and act as deputies of the only King and head of the church, teaching and enforcing nothing but what he commands and all that he commands? Jesus said, “If any man be ashamed of me and my words (no dichotomy between the written and incarnate Word here; Mark 8;38) the son of man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
The Word of God today is often interpreted, not in terms of seeking the original intent of Scripture and how it applies today, but in terms of how it may serve our present agenda. We have raised up a generation in the P.C.C. with the notion that you really can’t be too sure about this portion of Scripture, or we have ambiguity here, or let’s not be too dogmatic about this, let’s be open about that. Statistics showing a denominational breakdown of the faith of the Bible as the Word of God written shows that in answer to the question, “Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?” the older they are, the higher the percentage of those who believe this; and the younger they are, the lower the percentage of those who believe that it is the Word of God. What I’m talking about is the most critical issue we can possible think of. Humanistic and philosophical manipulation of our confessional understanding of the Gospel has resulted lately in one of our former moderators’ and one of our “missionaries’” repudiation of particular redemption.
Where then do we begin our trek toward true renewal? I urge that we take our cue from Nehemiah in his engagement of building a work of God, for whatever renewal is it is engagement in building a work of God. We begin with clear foundational principles found in Nehemiah 1 – a compendium of basic steps we desperately need to take.
Two principles guided his agenda of renewal, the principle of personal involvement and the principle of perserving prayer. We need to be involved three ways. First, like the prophet, we need to be involved in the burden for God’s glory and honour in our church. Nehemiah, when he heard about the ruins of Jerusalem, wept and mourned, not over his own condition, or even primarily over the needs of nation but his soul was broken when he saw God’s name dragged through the mud. This I suggest is the ultimate motive for the very existence of the Renewal Fellowship and the true impetus for all our endeavours in renewal.
Before every true revival there is a humbling of God’s people before him and confession and repentance. This we must do.
Secondly, we need to be become identified with the sins of the denomination. We cannot start with our colleges, or the bureaucrats, but with Nehemiah we must confess that we share the sin and guilt of a derailed denomination. Jealousy for the honour and glory of God and acknowledgement of personal sins lead directly to confession and repentance. We must say that we’re part of the problem. We must bear the guilt in our own souls for the spiritual state of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. We must repent and confess that we stood not when we should have, that we did not cry to God for wisdom before Presbytery, Synod, and Assembly. Commitment to the unity of the church played havoc with sincerely-held but misguided motives. We must confess and repent of the indigenous congregationalism and/or isolationism that rationalizes, “Well they have changed that but I still believe this.” Lord have mercy on us! Before every true revival there is a humbling of God’s people before him and confession and repentance. This we must do.
We must also be engaged in persevering prayer and not just any old general, “God grant us renewal.” Renewal means mercy and judgement at the house of God! This must be prayer rooted in God’s character (Nehemiah 1:5-7), God’s Word (v.8), and God’s will (v. 11). If you look at the time sequence in Nehemiah 1:1 and Nehemiah 2:1 you will see that he spent about four months in prayer to do a work of renewal that took less than half that time! It is a fixed principle with God that a work of renewal not founded upon prayer will not succeed. And the secret of failing God will be failure to be in secret prayer with God.
The adjunct of true prayer is always faithful action. Serving God in renewal means getting in step with him, being carried along with his purpose and seeing him pull down strongholds and raise up others. Nehemiah knew this; that’s why he could say, “Therefore let us rise and build. The God of heaven will give us success.” We his servants will rise and start rebuilding, but as for you, you who repudiate the faith, you who bend, twist and distort the Word in the interests of egalitarian sexuality and the innocuous personhood of inclusive language and sexual function, rejection of biblical authority, existential hermeneutics, repudiation of the gospel, etc… you have no share or any claim or historic right to this church except you repent of your way and forsake you own thinking and come under the liberating correction of God’s holy Word.