Sep 20
Is this to keep the Catholics out?
Claude Mariottini draws attention to a proposal to amend the Evangelical Theological Society’s (ETS) statement of faith by (mainly) adopting and somewhat adapting the British UCCF (Christian Union) statement. The proposed revisions can be found here.
Now, I probably shouldn’t intrude on private grief, and I don’t have much time for statements of faith or doctrinal bases; what, after all, is wrong with the Catholic Creeds? But I do want to ask a question. I note that the proposed rewording not only seeks to combine the two statements but to add the following wording to the statement about the Bible:
This written word of God consists of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments and is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior.
Could this possibly have anything to do with the recent resignation of the ETS President Frank Beckwith when he became a Roman Catholic? Then he said:
Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS
Adopting the UCCF statement, which is much more explicit in its articulation of the evangelical Protestant tradition would make it harder for Roman Catholic to sign up (though I once knew one at least who did). Adding this clause (not in the UCCF or ETS statements) specifying 66 books seems to make it impossible.
So I ask: is this a hidden and prejudiced agenda — to make sure no Roman Catholics can ever again sully the doctrinal purity of ETS?
Update 21:45 See Claude Mariottini’s further information and links. It certainly looks as though keeping Catholics out is part of it. As Jim comments below, a general circling of the wagons is intended.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I wonder if this particular point will actually keep anyone out. After all many Roman Catholics accept some kind of special status for the 66 books. If ETS really wants to keep Catholics out they need to include in their doctrinal basis something like article XIX of the 39 which I expect you to expound shortly.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I always chuckle at quasi-legal documents that rely on some form of convoluted linguistic purity to create a sense of authenticity. If the drafters are not careful they soon sound as convincing as Nigerian 419 advance fee fraud emails.
‘God is a Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit …’ Why use the indefinite article? Are there other Trinities? Is ours but one amongst many?
I think the first Article of Religion ‘Of Faith in the Holy Trinity’ has the edge on truth in the matter.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Peter K: At the time of Beckwith’s resignation, particular attention was given to this, and many commented that because the ETS statement simply referred to Scripture without specifying what was meant by Scripture, he could still sign it. The implication was that if it deliberately specified the Protestant canon, he couldn’t. Article 19 will be around sometime over the weekend but I may raise different problems and questions from the ones you appear to foresee!
Peter D: actually the UCCF article on the Trinity, though short, is also better than this rather odd formulation
September 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Doug,
I had not associated the revised statement with the Beckwith affair. The ETS doctrinal statement is so narrow that many evangelicals have refuse to join the society because they are not willing to sign the doctrinal statement. I believe you may be correct in your interpretation. It is possible that the proposed revision may be intended to exclude some people from ETS.
Thank you for your post.
Claude Mariottini
September 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
The ETS is just trying to exclude- it doesn’t care who. It simply wants to circle its fundamentalist wagons and become nothing more than a ‘good ole’ boys club’ of like minded, narrow minded, pseudo-evangelical gnostics.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I’m puzzled about which evangelicals the current statement excludes. Perhaps those like Wayne Grudem who might not agree that the Son is “equal in power and glory” to the Father, but rather is functionally subordinate? Or maybe those who are not prepared to accept any definition of “inerrant in the autographs”. I’m not sure if I would.
Anyway, it is clear that because the additions are simply to be added, not a replacement for the old one, the result will be to exclude more people. Why?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Someone else who doesn’t have much time for statements of faith: Emergent Village. This is an endorsement neither of them nor of John Piper’s response to them.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:05 am
The specifying of the number of books is certainly intended to limit membership to Protestants. There is no other possible motivation. Of course, in doing so, they are suggesting that the majority of Christians down the ages were in fact sub-Christians, which is rather disturbing, but not that uncommon in Protestantism!
September 24th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Why would they expect that any self-respecting Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian would join such an outfit in the first place?
Much ado about nothing, in the end.