Since my last post on this topic, the Presbytery of Northern California and Nevada has posted another mp3 of their "debriefing," a discussion of their Animus Imponentis conference. There were some very interesting observations aired. Upon listening, some suspicions I've had have been confirmed.
For one, discussion of animus imponentis becomes very quickly a substitute debate over the days of creation. That is, because "animus imponentis" is so frequently invoked by those arguing for something other than 6 days of ordinary length, the two matters become quickly linked and then confused. This is highly unfortunate, since the Confessions address a much larger set of doctrines, and we ought reflect on how we interpret everything they address. For those who hold to the "6 24-hour days" view, there seems a sneaking suspicion that "animus imponentis" is invoked almost entirely to avoid a debate on the substantive question.
Not unrelated are (below the surface) questions of power. To digress a bit, it's long seemed to me that elders in the OPC fall into two basic categories: those who expect to be at General Assembly pretty much every year, and those who do not. Those in the former category have, practically speaking, far greater power and influence than those in the latter. They may not see themselves as privileged in this manner, but that can make matters worse. To return to the subject at hand, the former seem to believe (broadly speaking) that the endorsement of a report on the days of creation by a single GA has settled the matter once and for all. The latter, especially those among the latter unhappy with said report, don't have the same confidence their views have been adequately heard and may not be easily persuaded the matter has been settled. While attendance at our General Assemblies has long been numerically capped, we ought not forget that, properly speaking, every elder (teaching and ruling) is an equal to the other. When those not in attendance at Assemblies get the feeling their rights are being ignored, aggrieved sensibilities are likely to ensue.
Along the same lines, those comfortable with the status quo can easily fall into the habit of speaking of the "animus imponentis of the OPC" as though this were a final and settled matter. As John Muether noted in one of his lectures, the OPC has moved from a vague tolerance of some varieties of evolutionary theory amongst her officers to an absolute intolerance. We can and should discuss what our shared confessional interpretations have been and are. Such, however, is the beginning of doctrinal debate, not its end.
In connection with this, a brief paper by the Rev. Bob Needham made a very telling point. In my own words, he observed that tolerance of anti-confessional views in the past could be read not as a revealing of the Church's views, but as a sin of omission. Thus, one ought not argue "the animus imponentis is to tolerate anti-confessional position X."
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again. So long as we refuse to amend, revise, or add to our Confessional Standards, we will argue over whether we should really believe what they say. That argument continues to strike me as silly and fruitless, while a debate as to what is and is not an essential doctrine would be anything but.
No comments:
Post a Comment