Table of Contents | Next Chapter 
Chapter Fourteen
Dealing With Our Assumptions
Besides
the attitudes of our hearts, we must also become more self-conscious about
the assumptions or presuppositions we bring to the question of church
union. Some of these assumptions may be unconscious, in the sense that we
do not explicitly say them, also
in the sense that we do not reflect on them. Yet they do influence our
decisions, our attitudes, our openness or lack of openness to the views of
others. They even influence the way we see
reality. For assumptions do influence observations.[1]
Very often, we see what we want to see. The mind is selective. It screens
out data that is unsuited to our preconceptions, and it
evaluates that data in the light of its established value system.
In
my experience, attempts at church union have often been frustrated by
assumptions such as those on the following list. They are all in my
estimation untrue and unbiblical. So we may profitably ask ourselves
whether any of these assumptions are lurking in our own hearts.
1.
"Nothing much of religious significance can be learned from outside
of my own (denominational or theological) tradition." I ask: is it
likely that God has limited spiritual wisdom to some small segment of his
body? A segment, moreover, which exists as the result of sin? God's wisdom
is given to his whole body, though to be sure there are some imbalances
among gifts within individual denominations as we have seen.
I
continue to believe that the Reformed theological tradition is superior to
all others as a general rule. Yet I am constantly impressed with the
wisdom that God has given to people of other backgrounds. They say things
that are unquestionably biblical, but which would never have been
"put that way" by a Reformed teacher.
2.
"The distinctives of my tradition are more important than the
doctrines and practices which we share with other traditions." Few
would admit to holding this assumption. Still, I think many Christians
feel this way; for the things that really excite them about the Christian
faith are the distinctives of one tradition rather than the common
property of the universal church. Such people are understandably reluctant
to consider merging with other bodies and perhaps losing those
distinctives. But can anyone seriously maintain such a view? Is the
Lutheran view of Christ's ubiquity more important than the
universal church conviction as to the deity of Christ? Is the
charismatic experience of being "slain in the spirit" more
important than justification by faith?
My
own view is that the most important things are the things that are most
broadly confessed across denominational and theological traditions. I
value the Reformed distinctives chiefly because they give me a coherent
theological account of those trans-denominational truths. It is the
Reformed faith, in my view, which gives the most consistent account of the reality and
sovereignty of God, the creator-creature distinction (
3.
"The distinctives of my tradition must be preserved at all costs in
any church union." To say this is to deny the point made earlier,
that Scripture warrants and necessitates a certain amount of theological
tolerance.
4.
"Since the truth is at stake, we cannot enter any union until we are
convinced that no erroneous teaching will be permitted." Same reply
here. There will never be a perfect church, and no constitution or
negotiation can guarantee inerrant preaching and teaching. The issue is
the extent to which tolerance of
different views will be permitted.
5.
"We should not merge with any church that uses extra-biblical data in
its determination of policy." There is truth here: scripture alone is
our ultimate standard sola Scriptura. But Scripture must be applied to
circumstances; and to do that we must understand both the Scriptures and
the circumstances. To deny that is to betray a false
(unbiblical) concept of scriptural sufficiency. The issue of
scriptural sufficiency is important; but that principle must be
stated precisely, not according to someone's vague feeling about what it means.
6.
"We should not unite with any body which does not share our emphasis on (this or that)." This
is an even worse misunderstanding than 1-4 above, and my replies to those
apply to this one also. God's word itself expresses a wide variety
of different "emphases." The teaching ministry of the church, as
I indicated earlier, should focus on the central message of Scripture
which is shared among all the churches. Beyond that, Scripture warrants
considerable flexibility, as we apply the scriptural text to the ever
changing situations of our day. See my earlier discussion of
"priorities."
7.
"In a union, nothing should be agreed simply on the basis of trust.
All the details of our future church life must be stated in writing,
formally, with consequences of violation clearly spelled out." But
churches will never unite if they insist on formally spelling out all the details of their life
together. Indeed, the more biblical procedure is to merge first, then to work out differences! (See
Chapter Sixteen.) As in a marriage, trust is important. If there is no basic trust, then formal
procedures will not insure the permanence of union. But if there is
substantial trust, then formal statements and procedures (which are not emphasized in Scripture)
are relatively unimportant.