The first of two talks given by Stuart Lange
at the regional Fresh Vision meetings, August-September 1998.

(Second talk - The Way Ahead)

The following talk - with some variations in different venues - was given at the six regional meetings by Stuart Lange (AFFIRM’s National Secretary).

Before we can talk sensibly about where we might be going, it may be helpful for us to reflect on where we are at present.

When we look at the current theological landscape in the Presbyterian Church, I guess we would all acknowledge that our denomination has a big problem, and that it goes to the very heart of who we are. Our problem is that we are a house divided.

The recent General Assembly only makes plain, once again, what has long been the case: the reality that our denomination is deeply divided at the level of basic theological conviction and practice. Our denomination contains within it two or three understandings of Christianity that are increasingly heading in different directions. I must stress that this is primarily a clash not so much of people (there are often very good relationships across the divides), but a clash of convictions - in fact, a clash of world-views.

As I see it, there are three main theological and ecclesiastical perspectives within our denomination...

(1) Evangelical/orthodox:

Now the indispensable foundation of orthodoxy is the understanding that our knowledge of God, although variously interpreted and applied by human understanding, is essentially something that has been revealed to humanity from God above. Orthodoxy believes not in an infinitely changeable human religion, but in divine revelation.
 

Heading in a radically different direction are the so-called “liberals”. In all sincerity - and we need to acknowledge the sincerity of all perspectives - liberals work out of the basic assumption that Christianity has arisen not so much from above, but out of the evolving religious consciousness of humanity, and so, as humanity’s ideas change, so too the Christian faith may be adapted and re-modelled to fit the modern context.

Liberal Christianity believes that humanity has now come of age, that we can no longer believe that there is any one way to God, and no longer any absolute truth. The church, liberals believe, must adapt its beliefs and morality to fit in with modern society, and with those of other faiths, and with those of no faith. And so, according to this liberal perspective, it is entirely appropriate that we should hold lightly to the authority of the Scripture and the creeds, and should interpret them broadly.

For this liberal perspective, the key beliefs and values are the grace of God and the compassionate example of Jesus. Everything else is secondary, and often dispensable.

Liberalism does not emphasise the need for personal salvation through faith in Jesus, and often suggests that - because God is loving - then ultimately everyone will be saved, that - if there is a heaven - everyone will get there.

Some thorough-going liberals, the radicals, question the objective existence of God outside of human consciousness, and deny the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection as a real event in space and time, life after death, and anything miraculous.

Most liberals do not go that far - but liberal Christians still generally feel uncomfortable with talk about sin, or judgement, or hell, or repentance, or conversion and the new birth, or evangelism, or personal holiness, or hard and fast rules for sexual morality - liberal Christianity prefers to major on such values as acceptance, justice, and the unity of the Church. From the liberal perspective, perhaps the major sin is intolerance. Now there is considerable overlap between these two approaches: both claim to be following Jesus and the Scriptures, and liberals do usually believe in God - and often a great deal else), and evangelicals do believe in grace and justice and social action. Many Presbyterians would be hard put to know which description would best describe their own perspective, not least because many Presbyterians, and many parishes, would have something in them of both approaches. But orthodox and liberal tendencies, as I said, are ultimately heading in opposite directions, and when it comes to difficult matters on which the church sometimes must decide, the orthodox and liberal conclusions are often mutually exclusive. Professor Morris, the head of the department of Religious Studies at Victoria University, has recently made the following bold assertion (I think he may be slightly overstating the case, but his point is clear):

The split between liberal and orthodox cannot be reconciled in one church. There’s been a quarter of a century of liberal dominance and the last five or six years have seen a traditional [ orthodox] backlash. It comes down to fundamentally different ways of reading Scripture, of understanding the message. These are ships passing in the night. There is no middle ground. Now the problem is, both of these perspectives - the orthodox and the liberal - are very strongly represented in our Presbyterian denomination, and - nothing surer - neither is going to lie down. Several Presbyteries(or UDCs) tend very strongly in a liberal direction, and several tend strongly in an orthodox-cum-evangelical direction. Many other Presbyteries are mixed, and find it hard to agree on anything of any real substance, doctrinal or ethical. Many local churches tend strongly in one direction or another - but, equally, many local churches are mixed, containing for instance both evangelicals and Sea of Faith people.

So far I have talked about just two perspectives. But I believe there is a very significant third perspective.
 

(3) Middle of the Road

The middle of the road people are influenced by both orthodox and liberal approaches. On the core doctrines of the faith, the middle of the road people may in themselves be essentially “orthodox”. But they are often “liberal” in their understanding of scriptural authority, and “liberal” to the extent that they would not want to insist on orthodoxy in anyone else. They probably would not agree with the radicals, but they would not want to condemn their views, because they feel it is important not to be judgemental. As a matter of conviction, or in recognition of their own very mixed context, this middle perspective is quite happy to live in a theologically pluralistic church, in fact they may really believe in a broad church, they really value people being able to choose from a range of convictions.

The every instinct of this middle group is to keep the peace, to avoid what they see as extremes, and to try and hold the traditional church together. The key values of this group would be stability, continuity, the unity of the church, accepting diversity, order, and maintaining the institution. This middle group likes to make reassuring claims that everything is essentially OK in the PCANZ, and that any talk of a crisis is exaggerated and alarmist and divisive and just stirring up trouble.

Now how does this all affect where we are at, especially at General Assembly? Well, at Assembly level, evangelicals are certainly the biggest single group, but they are constantly frustrated by a significant liberal minority, who often manage to attract support from the middle of the road people. Evangelicals (and some of the liberals too) feel deeply frustrated by what they see as frequent compromises. There is constant underlying conflict, and most people feel very tense - and in the end neither evangelicals nor liberals have any hope of getting very far with their fondest dreams and hopes for the Church. There is, in effect, a deep impasse in the life of the denomination. The fruit of longstanding doctrinal pluralism has become denominational paralysis.

The 60-40 rule makes it even more difficult now for the Church to make decisions on anything substantial or controversial, including matters of basic faith and ethics. The recent Assembly reaffirmed the resurrection of Jesus as a saving act of God in history, and more than just a continuing memory of Jesus or the awakening of faith in the disciples, but it did not support a resolution which unambiguously insisted on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And in the Assembly climate as it exists, there was no hope (and no one even tried) of bringing to account anyone who may have publicly denied the resurrection. In our theoretically confessional church there are now no doctrinal boundaries, and very little left of moral boundaries.

As we know, Assembly was unable to bring itself to listen to the grassroots and to pass a rule which would bar from leadership those who are living a lifestyle contrary to Scripture. That outcome illustrates perfectly the impasse in the Church’s life: on the one hand evangelicals are dismayed at the Assembly’s inability to abide by what they see as basic biblical morality; on the other hand, liberals are appalled at what they see as the intolerance and injustice of any such moral legislation - and the middle of the road people were inclined to agree. This impasse has left the Church in a terrible bind: both the liberal and the evangelical positions on that issue are held with very deep conviction and feeling, the two approaches are mutually exclusive, and each position amounts to a violation of the conscience of the other.

So as a denomination we have a major problem, of which the homosexuality issue is but a symptom. Theological pluralism and compromise has left our denomination theologically paralysed, speaking with many voices, but with no clear voice, and the denomination as a whole lacks authority, direction, credibility, or genuine unity. So the question we must wrestle with is: where to now? what is the way ahead?’

(Second talk - The Way Ahead)