A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Garth Wilson is pastor of Wychwood-Davenport Church, Toronto.
The 110th General Assembly voted almost unanimously that the document Living Faith be commended to our church “as an acceptable statement of faith and useful in worship and study.” The action of the Assembly marked the culmination of a process which began in 1981 when the 107th General Assembly authorized the preparation of a new statement of faith for our church. It was my privilege to be a member of the committee responsible for drafting the new statement of faith. After some thirty meetings, various consultations with groups and individuals in our church, the careful reading of many responses to the earlier version, and much reflection and theological debate within our committee, it was a joy to see the 110th Assembly respond so affirmatively to our work. Our labour was decidedly worthwhile.
What I write rises out of my experience as a member of the committee. It could be called “Reflections on a Process.” Several issues emerged as we proceeded from draft to draft of the document. Here I comment on a number that came to assume much importance. The first concerns the validity of our task. To begin with, it is necessary to affirm our faith from time to time. Given that starting point, the task of drafting a statement of faith took on a certain urgency. To each generation is given the responsibility of stating “the faith once delivered” in cogent and contemporary terms. Creeds and confessions are not an intellectual luxury or a mere theological exercise. They serve to make plain what we live by as Christians. They are more than something we recite. The making of Creeds or statements of faith did not begin at Nicea. Scripture does not know of a “creedless Christianity”. Imbedded within the New Testament are allusions to the “sure sayings” (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:11), and the presence of earlier creeds is evident in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 and Romans 1:3,4. For that matter, to step back into the Old Testament, Israel attached importance to creeds. We have, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4 and Joshua 24:19-28. Scripture gives signal precedent for the drafting of statements of faith.
The validity of our task stems from the Reformed tradition, of which we are very much a part. We are “the church reformed, being reformed” (semper reformanda), which is not a mandate to adopt every new nuance in theology: we are to be a church continually reforming itself according to the Word of God. Does what we say faithfully reflect the intent and scope of Scripture? When we are true to our tradition we repeatedly ask that question. Fidelity to the supremacy of Scripture (14<C.F.I:X) did not spell fixedness at every point in theology for our fathers. There is a sense in which finality in certain theological matters is foreign to the Reformed tradition. For that matter, our tradition has shown a willingness to allow elbow room on particular doctrines. Witness the way in which our tradition has allowed a reasonable amount of flexibility of interpretation on the matter of predestination and election throughout its history. That our tradition has a commitment to theological progress is seen in John Robinson’s address at Leyden in 1621: “The Lord hath yet more light to break forth from his holy Word.” Robinson’s complaint of the Reformed churches of his day was that they had come to a “full stop” in theological matters. Robinson’s point was that, however much they were indebted to Bucer and Calvin, theological insight did not end with these men. To expand my point further, The Westminster Confession was not intended to be a final statement. Those who framed The Savoy Declaration of 1652, of which some were involved in the Westminster Assembly, saw themselves at liberty to change the wording of the Confession at several points and to depart from its teaching in some areas. While Savoy is basically a repetition of Westminster, it departs from Westminster in such areas as the doctrine of assurance, ecclesiology and eschatology. Whether Savoy has improved upon Westminster is a moot point. What Savoy illustrates is the willingness of Reformed theologians to attempt to sharpen and reshape particular doctrines in the light of further reflection upon Scripture.
When we attempt to draft a new statement of faith or couch our faith in contemporary language the presence of theological nostalgia becomes evident. Theological nostalgia is the attempt to live on the memory of yesterday’s theology. It assumes two things: nothing more can be said and we lack the competence to say anything further in our day. Theological nostalgia is a form of traditionalism which is not to be identified with respect for tradition. To cite Tevye’s song in Sholem Aleichem’s Fiddler on the Roof, “Tradition, tradition, that’s what makes us what we are.” There is a distinct difference between traditionalism and the participation in a lively tradition. To be involved in a lively tradition is to respect deeply our heritage, but is also to recognize at the same time that the historic confessions of the Reformed churches, for all their excellence, need to be supplemented at certain points. We are greatly indebted to our fathers in the faith for the way in which they enrich us in the present, but we capitalize best on the theological riches they have bequeathed to us if we endeavour to express this theological heritage in a contemporary idiom. As for the matter of competence, we do not presume to have written a document which will replace The Westminster Confession. Indeed, that was not our design. But we did feel competent to state the basics of the Christian faith for our generation. One test of the committee’s competence will be whether what it wrote serves the people of God today.
The second issue that became evident as we worked on the statement was the context in which we were doing our work. We became increasingly aware of what we already recognized, that we do theology in a pluralistic setting. Theological consensus is not as prominent as it once was within our church, not to mention the church at large. Theological pluralism both enriches us and makes our task difficult. It also prompted us to seek common ground. We found common ground in the classical themes of the Christian faith. Living Faith may be called “centrist”. We did not, however, design a document in this mould simply in order to make it acceptable to the various groups in our church. I believe, we had a higher motive. We became increasingly convinced as we reflected upon what should be stated that what is at stake today is Christianity itself and that what should be reaffirmed are the tenets of the faith. We, of course, were quite aware of recent currents in theology. But we were equally aware of the pitfalls of building a document around one particular theological theme. To accent one theological theme, be it “liberation” or “reconciliation”, would have, in our mind, lead to a truncated statement of faith. The grandeur and wholeness of the Christian creed is sacrificed when one theological theme assumes dominance. For that reason we resisted structuring our statement in terms of one particular theme.
The context in which we sought to formulate a clear statement of Christian doctrine is one which resists the very attempt to do so. The erosion of concern for theology makes it difficult to frame a document which is unavoidably doctrinal. “Action” is the primary word in our vocabulary. The credo “deeds not creeds” is more deeply ingrained than we are aware. More recent expressions of this creed are “God is where the action is” or “God is a verb.” Theology is quite readily set aside in the interests of activity and even legitimate programmes. The concern for action is, of course, biblical, and the church has been inactive too often, but I sense that one source of the premium upon action is the agnosticism of our time – and agnosticism attends church. To put it another way, we have lost hold of conviction that God reveals Himself and that we are given to say something about God and His way with us. In the absence of such conviction it is understandable that the accent should fall upon doing rather than believing, for the latter requires that we have something we can believe. Our statement presupposes that Christian action stems from Christian belief. Action needs a certain rationale, and even more, it needs to be shaped and motivated by biblical themes and concerns. Far from being merely a doctrinal statement, Living Faith contains much that begs to be applied. The thrust of Living Faith is Christian understanding so that there can be Christian activity.
In highlighting the concern for action at the expense of belief, I run the risk of generalizing. I would not want to give the impression that this is the whole story, for there are pockets of concern for Christian doctrine in our church. We received many responses to the first draft of the statement and learned of many study groups devoted to exploring its content. Many of the responses were marked by a real theological sense and a concern for a clear statement of Christian teaching. Indeed, one of complaints encountered was that we had not given an index of Scripture references to facilitate study of the statement. Our church is more interested in doctrine and the study of Scripture than we suspected, and we were happy to have our perception corrected.
A third issue came to the fore. The mandate to frame a statement of Christian belief placed a weighty responsibility upon us. Our responsibility was threefold. The first area of responsibility was fidelity to Holy Scripture. That we made a serious attempt to be faithful to Scripture is evident in the lengthy index of Scripture references appended to Living Faith. However, fidelity to Scripture is more difficult than we think. For one, our heritage has influenced the way we read Scripture. This is unavoidable and good. We would be impoverished theologically if we had not been enriched by the long line of careful interpreters of Scripture that have enhanced our tradition. I think of the Puritans, A.B. Davidson, A.B. Bruce, James Denney, George Adam Smith, to mention a few, and we must mention John Calvin himself. But at a certain point it is necessary to break with our heritage in the interests of faithfulness to Scripture and in the interests of letting Scripture speak to us in new ways. We recall Jesus’ words: “every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt. 13:52). At issue is freedom before the Word of God on our part and the freedom we must allow the Word of God. The freedom in question is the freedom to listen to the notes of Scripture differently than we have been accustomed to. Faithfulness to Scripture has another nuance. A sense of the scope and shape of Scripture should accompany our approach to Scripture. Our tradition has possessed this sense, as is evident in its confessions: “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (WC.F.I,9). Finally, we were repeatedly reminded that faithfulness to Scripture is engendered by the Holy Spirit. New insights into Scripture and the freedom to listen to the Word of God are the fruit of the Spirit.
… we are to be a Church continually reforming itself according to the Word of God.
The second part of our responsibility involved a simple and direct statement of the basics of Christian faith. We were to provide a reliable summary of Scripture’s fundamental themes. A clear outline of the parameters of the Christian faith was basic to our task. To put it another way, it was important that we avoid reductionism. For example, in the section on Christology (Ch. 3) we were guided by the historic Creeds. Scripture and the Creeds affirm as much about Jesus Christ, and we could do no less. The Gospel is not served by saying as little as possible about the identity of Jesus Christ. He is “truly God” and “truly human” with all that these terms entail. We sought to draw out the implications of these rich affirmations concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
We saw ourselves as responsible at a third point. The range of our responsibilities, as we saw them, included the drafting of a statement that had a distinctly pastoral side. One of our aims was to build up people in the faith and inform them of basic Christian realities amid the theological uncertainty of our time (Eph. 4:12-13). We hope the Living Faith will provide a stimulus to study Scripture. It is important that we find ways of overcoming the sometimes abysmal and crippling ignorance of Scripture that is encountered. Theology for the people of God to strengthen the people of God capsulizes our aim. The pastoral note sounds most clearly in the section on Doubt (6.2). There were some objections to speaking of doubt in a statement of faith. But doubt is a distinct issue in our day, and doubt attends church. Scripture is sensitive to doubt – doubters are welcome; we too should be sensitive. To address ourselves to doubt is to help people in their struggle to believe again.
The process of drafting Living Faith sharpened certain questions. Creeds and confessions give us theological identity. They state what is basic to Christian belief. We were aware that statements of faith express our convictions and certainties in life and death. A statement of faith actually marks us. The Apostles’ Creed was first called “the Symbol”; it was, in effect, a “badge” which the Christian unavoidably wore. Living Faith is also something that marks us. The role of a statement of faith raised the questions. “Who are we theologically?” or “What do we actually believe today?” And there is perhaps a more basic question – “Are we willing to have Living Faith as our Symbol today?”
Another question frequently surfaced – to what end are we writing Living Faith? What is its purpose and what status shall we seek for it? From the outset, we were concerned that Living Faith be a document useful in worship and study. That it be something our church would put to good use in its life and witness and that it not suffer the same fate as our subordinate standards had much influence upon how we shaped and worded Living Faith. Regrettably, The Westminster Confession seems to remain on the shelf, except for instances where it is useful in theological debate. Our church
at large simply does not study it. As for the status of Living Faith, the issue is extremely delicate. While The Westminster Confession no longer informs us in the way it once did, it continues to command our respect. It is in many minds somehow irreplaceable. Presbyterians have a sense of their heritage which is fairly unique in the ecclesiastical world. This is salutary. Aware of who we are as Presbyterians, we felt that the only status Living Faith should be given is that it be^. approved for study and worship. To seek higher status for it. say, to have it adopted as one of our standards, would defeat our purpose. Living Faith would become the occasion for intense debate and would divide rather than unite us. It would not come to be seen in its own right as a means of enriching our grasp of Christian essentials.
Throughout the drafting stage other questions lay not far from the surface. To what extent are confessions binding? In what sense are we a confessional church today? Confessional standards do pose a problem given the pluralism of our church. And consider the numerous overtures that come before Assembly relating to some point of doctrine in The Westminster Confession. I note the way in which we have responded to overtures concerning Predestination and Election. We are a confessional church, but only in a certain sense. We do have subordinate standards, but we have taken the liberty to distance ourselves from them at particular points and have qualified what it means to adhere to them as standards. Note, for example, the Preamble and Ordination Questions in The Book of Forms.
The matter of confessions of faith and subordinate standards brings to the fore other issues. For one. they are subordinate, lower in rank and subject to a higher standard. Holy Scripture, which means that what we say in statements of faith is incomplete and sometimes lacks the full breadth of Scripture on certain points. We ask therefore that Living Faith be judged in this light. We sought to be faithful to Scripture and ask that what we have affirmed be assessed in terms of whether it is “founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God.” Second, we were aware of the reality expressed in a sentence from James Denney: “it is entirely possible for us to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture with a loud voice but never be submissive to its actual teaching.” Applied to creeds and confessions, we can affirm our creeds and confessions and say that they are our subordinate standards, and yet fall short of fidelity to the Gospel. The issue is whether having drafted a document which sounds many notes of Scripture we see it as more than something we recite or study.
At the very beginning of our work an important question posed itself – Where shall we begin? The Scots Confession (1560) begins with a chapter on God. The Belgic Confession (1561) likewise begins with God. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) begins with us: “what is my sole comfort in life and death?” The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) adopts a different starting point – it begins with an article on Scripture. The Westminster Confession (1647) is shaped in the same way. The Canons of Dort (1618-19) reflect their reformed pedigree in beginning with Election and Predestination. The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648) asks as its first question, “What is the chief end of man?” Historic Reformed confessions and catechisms were shaped by the issues and concerns of their times. To adopt a certain theme as a point of departure is not arbitrary. We had to make a meaningful decision. We began with God for we feel this is the most pertinent question of the day. This is one way in which we can respond to the contemporary secular mood. While the choice of starting point was influenced by the design of The Scots Confession, we had a further reason for focussing upon God at the very outset – Living Faith is intended for use in worship.
One further question occupied much of our time at the beginning of our work, that of language and style. A statement of faith must be readable and intelligible. To serve its intended purpose, a certain flow of language and a particular structure of language were necessary. But more than use and readability are involved in the choice of style. How the notes and accents of biblical revelation are best captured and communicated is involved. In our estimation, free verse and narrative do more justice to how God communicates to us through Scripture than a tightly knit and highly reasoned document. Much of Scripture is comprised of poetry and narrative. Through these means God speaks to us in a lively way. The words of praise that frequently appear in Living Faith are there for a distinct reason. Scripture is filled with doxology. Following the lead of Scripture, confessions of faith and theology are to reflect this doxological base. Revelation issues in praise. I am reminded of Geoffrey Wainwright’s recent book, Theology as Doxology, a helpful reminder of how integrally related worship and the formulation of creeds and confessions are. To refer again to the matter of style, we deemed that the style we adopted would help render Living Faith as a means of praise.
Living Faith did not come easily. In addition to the choices noted above, the writing of some sections was particularly difficult by virtue of the fact that their content is either debated among us or perplexes us. I have in mind “Salvation in Christ” (3.6.1), “God the Holy Spirit” (Ch.4), “The Bible” (Ch. 5), “The Church Reaches Out” (Ch. 9) and “Our Hope in God” (Ch. 10).
As for “Salvation in Christ”, in the first draft that was distributed for study and comment much the same material was placed under “Election in Christ”. There were reasons for changing the title. For one, the term “election” is frequently misunderstood, even among Presbyterians who stand in a tradition that has given it prominence. Furthermore, the doctrine of election has become attached to the idea of fate. We retained the theme of election, for to omit it would be to neglect an important element in Scripture, but we placed it under “Salvation in Christ”, for this is where it rightly belongs. Election has nothing to do with fate; it speaks of God’s initiative in Jesus Christ which issues in our salvation. Election is one way of highlighting the amazing grace of God which brings us within the orbit of eternal salvation. It is not our willing but God’s willing that ultimately matters. The electing grace of God is an “open secret” (Eph. 1:13). It is the occasion for praise (Eph. 1:3) and not for speculation. These are the lines that are clearly drawn in Ephesians 1. At this point a note from James Daane is appropriate: “the theme of God’s gracious election is a distinctive characteristic of Reformed theology. So the silence of Reformed pulpits on this theme is strange indeed” (The Freedom of God, p.6). I suspect that Daane’s comment applies to us. It is hoped that Living Faith by its willingness to say that at its heart election is “the good news of the Gospel” will prompt reflection and biblical preaching on this neglected theme. After all, we do not elect God – God graciously elects us, and for a purpose.
To accent one theological theme, be it “liberation” or “reconciliation”, would have, in our mind, led to a truncated statement of faith.
We come to Predestination, a misunderstood theme and a matter we are inclined to avoid. But it needs attention, for while it is not identical with Election, it is integrally related. We speak of Predestination (3.6.2) and give it biblical footing. Predestination is not a matter of salvation; it takes one step further. It speaks of God’s purpose for his people in Christ. Predestination, far from being “a horrible decree”, pertains to the purpose and destiny of those whom God has called to salvation in Jesus Christ through the Gospel. Said the Psalmist:
“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; thy steadfast love, O Lord, endures for ever” (138:8).
The section “God the Holy Spirit” represents a movement beyond the range of most Reformed Confessions. The Westminster Confession, while having much to say about the work of the Spirit, does not contain a chapter on the Spirit, which is striking, for those who drafted the Confession show an intense interest in the Spirit in their writings. We included a section on the Holy Spirit for the simple reason that we should be fully Trinitarian and attuned to Scripture at this point. The New Testament would make it plain that all God the Father does for us and lavishes upon in Christ is accomplished through the Spirit. Much of what we affirm about the Spirit echoes our Reformed heritage. However, “the charismatic movement” has served to remind us of a dimension of the Spirit’s activity that Reformed confessions largely neglect. The section on “spiritual gifts” (4:3.4) helps fill this lacuna and brings us more in line with Scripture. We are inclined to focus on the Spirit’s “private work”, the presence of the Spirit in our inner lives where the Spirit assists us in prayer and assures of our status as God’s children, but sometimes to the neglect of the Spirit’s “public work”. One aspect of the Spirit’s “public work” is seen in the exercise of “spiritual gifts”. To cite Living Faith:
“The presence of the Spirit is evident where people are made whole, encouraged, and enabled to grow in Christ” (4.3.4).
In these three lines we have attempted to capture what occurs when the various gifts of the Spirit are operative among us.
The chapter “The Bible” is the product of much deliberation and revision. We wanted to be faithful to our heritage in our account of the nature and role of Scripture, and to Scripture itself – its impact and teaching have earned for it the status “the supreme Judge”. It is uniquely the Word of God, “necessary, sufficient and reliable”. The nature and role of Scripture cannot be stated in lesser terms.
We sought to avoid two mistakes. One is to isolate Christ from Scripture. Christ and Scripture are integrally related. Our knowledge of Christ is dependent upon Scripture. Through Scripture Christ rules the Church. But at the same time, Christ is the Lord of Scripture. It is but the instrument he uses to make himself known. Living Faith seeks to bring home these points where it says:
“Through the Scriptures the church is bound only to Jesus Christ its King and Head. He is the living Word of God to whom the written word bears witness.” (5.1)
and where it says:
“The Scriptures are necessary, sufficient and reliable, revealing Jesus Christ, the living Word” (5.2).
The second mistake is to separate Scripture from the Church. We certainly read Scripture privately, and it goes without saying that we should, for one source of spiritual nurture is our individual reflection upon it, but we never read it in isolation from the Church. Our awareness of its relevance to our lives is heightened when we hear Scripture together with others.
“Those who seek to understand the Bible need to stand within the church and listen to its teaching” (5.3).
These words we hope will serve to underline the importance of hearing expository preaching and participating in corporate Bible study.
Living Faith presents a high doctrine of Scripture. We sought to honour Scripture. However, if we are to honour Scripture more than an ample doctrine of its nature and authority is necessary – we honour Scripture best when we are grasped by its authority over us and allow it to inform and shape our lives. “The Word of God”, said John Calvin somewhere, “is not intended … to make us eloquent and subtle, but to reform our lives.”
“The Bible” was placed after “God the Holy Spirit” by design. The Holy Spirit is the key to understanding Scripture:
“Relying on the Holy Spirit, we see the application of God’s word for our time” (5.4)
To speak of the authority of Scripture is to speak of the Holy Spirit:
“The Holy Spirit gives us inner testimony to the unique authority of the Bible . ..” (5.2).
… we deemed that the style we adopted would help render Living Faith as a means of praise.
Here we echo The Westminster Confession: “our full persuasion and assurance of . . . the divine authority (of Scripture), is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts” (1,5). The power of Scripture stems from the Holy Spirit (5.2). Again, we are simply affirming what our tradition has rightly affirmed – the word of God is effective through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
In the chapter “The Church Reaches Out” we were sensitive to the presence of other faiths. We sought, as a priority, to be true to what is central to the Christian faith. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the particularity of the Gospel are not negotiable. At the same time we wanted to be gracious rather than condescending. Two attitudes are not worthy of the Gospel. If that attitude that undercuts the mission of the church by assuming that all faiths are equal and the Gospel is but one among many options is to be avoided; so is a smug attitude when we address others with the Gospel. Our concern was that “The Church Reaches Out” breathe the spirit of the Gospel.
“Our Hope in God” was written in response to the perplexity and emptiness of our time. “Hope” is written in large characters in the New Testament – it is the Good News. All the speculation concerning “the end times” that is quite popular in some quarters should not make us hesitant to speak of our “well-founded hope” (H. Berkhof) in God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have something to say which surpasses all else that we attempt to say.
Understandably, I urge that Living Faith be used, used as an aid to study, as the ground plan for a series of sermons and as part of our service of worship. The test of Living Faith will be in its use. I believe we shall be richer for using it. If we use it we shall not be more Presbyterian – that is not the purpose of Living Faith: we shall be more Christian, for we shall have tapped some of the riches of our very rich Christian faith.