Shades of Westberg: Deja 1992 ... All Over Again (Part 2)Share
by Daniel Alicea (posted with permission)
Part II:
The Rub Described
It is this premise and historical context of unity and tolerance in which a movement that once allowed for divergent soteriological, and even sanctificational views, must now decide, once again, it's future.
So, what does this all mean in relation to the Shaw's latest blog?
First, kudos must be given for the noble and quixotic fashion in which this man of God displays a heartfelt desire in building a bridge between an older and younger generation.
He must be commended for endeavoring in this effort with his recent blog series for some of the most well-thought out, poignant, balanced and reconciliatory articles written in a long time within this circle of fellowship.
It appears that Shaw really believes, some may say, naively, that the crossroads that he and others stand squarely before is primarily a misunderstanding over "methods" and not necessarily theology or doctrine. Those differing theologically, in his opinion, as stated here, are merely "a few on the fringes".
However, the very notion that he has brought stalwart doctrines and positions to the table should underscore the reality that there is a whirlwind of conversation going on about these things in the UPCI which apparently are not "forever settled".
Also, in describing the generational differences as mainly methodical, however, I am reminded of JL Hall's seemingly inaccurate historical description of the differences between the PAJC and PCI dealt with "methods of evangelism".
A casual outside observer can clearly distinguish doctrinal disparities existed as it pertains to the when of salvation, the role of baptism in the life of a believer and the definition of what constitutes the New Birth while agreeing on doctrinal distinctives like the Oneness of God, Jesus name baptism and tongues as evidence of Holy Ghost baptism.
The march of history appears to be drumbeating similar questions about such issues into the conscience of the movement once again.
What if what is before this organization, that we all love, once again, is not exclusively what constitutes THE MESSAGE but also the theological reality of how we proceed when there are theological differences?
Or perhaps we are seeing a new generation of preachers that have in some ways "returned" to some of historical diverse views as it pertains to such things like the New Birth?
Or what of the holy, consecrated men of God who have prayerfully studied various holiness issues like dress, adornment and hair and find that their theology does not necessarily agree with the general interpretation of some of his elders but know it's consistent with apostolic doctrine?
Is the ethical thing just to walk away from fellowship he's enjoyed, supported and sacrificed his time, energies, effort, and finances for decades without seeking to maintain it first?
What of the theological prescription set out by Paul in
Romans 14 to those theologically "weak" in applications of faith? Does Paul advocate tolerance on some matters of doctrine here?
Are there organizational and theological protections, or covering, for those who don't agree eye to eye with the majority, especially when there is ambiguity in phraseology in faith statements?
Ultimately, we all can agree that theology is not limited to the issues surveyed by Shaw, right?
And who can fully disagree with Shaw's platitudes? ... like: Theology is our starting point. That it is universal. That it transcends patriotism, economics, politics, culture and methods.
Yet, I would submit that one thing theology is not -- it is not always, necessarily, 100% lockstep in implementation or interpretation. Nor, I'm sure he would agree, that unity means uniformity.
We have evidence of this throughout New Testament writings concerning the 1st century apostolic church, even on doctrinal viewpoints (i.e.
Acts 15,
Romans 14).
In a similar vein to what Shaw seems to be graciously pursuing, we find our chief cornerstone, Christ, in the first three chapters of Revelation, not seeking to disfellowship but seeking reconciliation.
And then one reads Shaw's closing thoughts ...
Shaw's conclusion pertaining to fellowship and the AOF
Brother Shaw concludes, in The Priority of Theology, with:
"We all need to be honest with ourselves. If we want to have more relevant cultural expressions in our churches, we need to be honest about our true motives and intentions. If we are indeed wrestling with our doctrinal positions, we need to have the courage to say so, get counsel from trusted elders, and try to reconcile ourselves with the apostles’ doctrine. If we cannot reconcile ourselves to this, we should move on. That is the ethical thing to do. Likewise, if a fellow minister opts for cultural expressions and methods which are different from our own, and if he is committed to apostolic doctrine, we should encourage him in his work; he is doing the work of the kingdom."
Personally, I think, it is here that his message can be misconstrued by the younger minister who might walk away after reading this with:
If this is about methods, stick around, some of us have got your back. But, if you have a divergent theological view, you may be unethical if you don't reconcile it with the majority view. Even if one is still holding to core doctrinal distinctives, take a hike.
Ironically, what Shaw seems to be proposing had been the crux of the argument by some of the conservatives who left the movement over television advertising in 2008. They ineffectively argued that if by signing your name to Affirmation Statement you affirm a Holiness article that states disapproval of the television as a medium; and since the manual also prohibits television in the home of a minister this proposed relevant method is by virtue, against Apostolic doctrine, and, hence, any usage contradictory to the agreed standards of fellowship, the AOF and manual.
They felt that the ethical thing to do is if one wanted to go against the manual then just leave as not to contradict the Articles of Faith and ministerial fellowship requirements.
Notwithstanding, what is of primordial note in relation to this, is that at the end of Shaw's discourse on the priority of theology, he suggests that his peers compare their well-thought out, prayerful, theology with the org's Articles of faith. He asks his peers to reflect with,
"How do my beliefs compare to the Articles of Faith of the UPCI?"
As part of this exercise in reflection he also asks,
"What would cause you to break fellowship with another Apostolic?"
It is here that I believe that some wade in a pool of inconsistencies when asked to compare their views with the Articles of Faith and believe that fellowship must be broken if we are not in lockstep in theological interpretations. Presumably, this is not Shaw's position but we have seen this "spirit" before, in others.
(A little later, I will discuss several plausible inconsistencies as they relate to the majority view of the movement and the priority of well thought out theology)
As some acquiesce to the suggestion of prioritizing with an inventory of one's theological beliefs and making a comparison via an unscientific online survey - must there not be a consensus, or at least a disclaimer, as to what these Articles signify, or don't signify?
After the passage of the Westberg resolution, David K. Bernard, in a circulated essay to several ministers, entitled "Affirming Our Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness Message" apologized for the institution of an Affirmation Statement stating:
1. The Westberg Resolution did not change the Articles of Faith in anyway
2. The original founders of the org regarded Articles of Faith as a minimum standard for ministerial fellowship.
3. He insisted that the AOF was not intended or designed as a creed or "authority in doctrine".
4. The "UPCI has never stated that affirming these articles is necessary, or sufficient, for salvation.
This last point has been contested on the premise that the resolution for the Affirmation Statement clearly mentioned that false prophets would arise and deceive many, plus some would depart from the faith in the latter times. It was stated that even some within the UPC were being led astray. Other verses were quoted about marking those who cause division and to withdraw yourselves from every brother who doesn't walk after the traditions he received.
Moreover, the author and it's supporters felt there were those in the UPC who were departing from "the faith" yet were remaining in the organization.
Linear Mode
