Biblical—Theological Vision Part Five
By Charles Anderson
We are continuing to expand and explain AMR’s Theological Vision, offering a closer look at each of its core commitments. as it shapes the church’s pursuit of renewal, faithfulness, and mission amid fear, cynicism, and cultural uncertainty.
“Because Christ, the Head of the Church, births and grows his Church through his life-giving Word, “the only infallible rule of faith and practice,”
We submit ourselves in every way to His holy and inerrant Scriptures, eschewing both progressive drift and fundamentalist perfectionism.
We oppose any behavior that subordinates the Bible to human wisdom, whether in the form of adding extrabiblical constraints to faith and practice—for God alone is Lord of the conscience—or by taking anything away from the whole counsel of God.”
(from the Theological Vision)
Why It’s Good and Necessary to Say We’re Biblical
Saying that we are for Scripture feels like saying we’re for motherhood and apple pie—yes, of course. After all, our first ordination vow affirms that we “believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice” (BCO 21-5). Scripture is so obviously important, an area where all the PCA agrees, that what is there to say?
Actually, there is a lot to say, starting from the very fact that we do agree upon this biblical identity. For that agreement can lead us into assumptions which will prove dangerous over time. If we are on the same page about Scripture, it may feel like we don’t need to spend time talking about it. Let’s instead focus on the things that are controversial or controvertible, either because they need our attention, or because we find them more exciting. Because we agree on the inerrancy and importance of Scripture, we assume a biblical identity. But what we assume, we tend to minor on. What we minor on subtly moves over time to the periphery. Not to say much about our biblical identity would say a lot. That identity would become less central, because we do not focus on it. In turn, what for us was unintentionally peripheral becomes optional for our children and grandchildren. For us to retain—and indeed grow—in our biblical identity, we must keep it at the forefront. Talking about it frequently is itself saying something about it.
Our AMR theological statement centers on Christ, and because the Scriptures testify to him (John 5:39-40), we, therefore, rightly claim a biblical identity. To the extent that we are Christ’s people, we are and must be a biblical people (although the Pharisees show there is a way to be a “biblical” people and not be Christ’s people). In Scripture we hear God definitively speak, and what he speaks across all of Scripture points to Christ (Luke 24:27). To proclaim Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2) requires that we do all our ministry from Scripture, declaring the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). We humbly and boldly claim a biblical identity because Christ has claimed us.
Resisting Progressive Drift
That positive need alone would suffice for naming our identity first as biblical. But we also need to give attention to our biblical identity because of the ways we fall short as a denomination in rightly upholding the authority of Scripture. We want to eschew both progressive drift and fundamentalist perfectionism. I suspect that some of my PCA brothers and sisters have concern or even suspicion of AMR on the first of these: that we fall prey to progressive drift. How mainline denominations have progressively moved away from biblical authority validates this as a legitimate question. In this statement, therefore, we commit to speaking boldly and wisely from Scripture into the contested issues of our day, including cases where God’s way runs starkly against the prevailing cultural wisdom. At my church, Redeemer Presbyterian in Indianapolis, we make the “life-giving authority of Scripture” a core value, which we say entails that on any topic, we will always ask, “What does the Bible say?” and make that our guiding star to follow and submit to. We want to cultivate Berean Christians in the PCA—an old-school, need-to-know-your-Bible reference if there ever was one (Acts 17:11)! We need each other in this regard. We all alike need to cultivate a communion in which we mutually correct each other from Scripture, which requires that we cultivate trust (see Howie Donahoe’s practical recommendations on how to do that).
“Biblical” means that we let the emphases and proportionality of Scripture guide and shape how much we talk about topics rather than what is pressing and grabbing attention in our North American cultural context, or in our church sub-cultural context. We allow Scripture, as opposed to our fears, to shape what we teach and how much we teach it. For example, being biblical likely means that we talk more about the dangers of greed than abortion, because Scripture addresses the former far more than the latter. At the same time, we don’t avoid talking about abortion just because it is pastorally fraught or contentious for some. We teach the whole counsel of God.
Our commitment to Scripture should caution us against the slippery slope fallacy. For example, those who oppose women’s participation in leading elements of the liturgy or serving as deaconesses may sound an alarm about a slippery slope—that is, allowing such practices will lead inexorably to the ordination of women as elders. Again, anyone paying attention historically should appreciate that possibility. But if someone advocates for women serving in these ways on biblical grounds, that should, at least in part, allay our fears. A position should be held and defended because it comes from Scripture, and arguments against it likewise should come from Scripture, rather than from the slippery slope. Resorting to the slippery slope can actually lead us into Pharisaism, where we erect a fence around Scripture, an extra boundary, to ensure that we don’t transgress Scripture itself. When we are submitting to Scripture, though, seeking to apply what we believe it teaches, there should be no slippery slope. Following Scripture leads us on a firm, level path.
Resisting Fundamentalist Perfectionism
A biblical identity also means we resist the fundamentalist perfectionism, that is, an unjustified confidence in our (fallen) human capacity to get the Bible and all of its implications exactly right. Scripture clearly and repeatedly narrates that every believer and every congregation is in the midst of sanctification, that we all await glorification as we live in the already-not yet. Scripture is perfect, but we are not (yet!). Moreover, Scripture records the church working out what Christ’s coming means for keeping the OT food laws or eating meat sold in the market after it had been offered as a pagan sacrifice. Not all agreed right away, and it was messy at times. Accordingly, we must have a tolerance for ambiguity and being in process—without being satisfied to remain there—trusting in the Spirit through the Word to lead us into “the practice of true holiness” (WCF 13.1).
The quest for interpretive perfection also tempts us to go beyond Scripture in order to protect Scripture. We do this out of fear, mindful that the faithful can unfaithfully use Scripture. Yet where Scripture is silent or allows for a diversity of applications, we must allow for the same, because Christ is Lord of the conscience. As Jacob Gerber helpfully says, “we must bind consciences to the Word of God,” but, “we may never bind consciences according to our own opinions” (emphasis original). Instructing people to abide by a particular, culturally contextualized application of Scripture, as if it came straight off the biblical page and universally applied in the same way to all believers in all times and places, is to be sub-biblical. I suspect that at least some of our debates around a constitutionally binding Directory of Public Worship turn on this question. But I hasten to add that I can respect that others in the PCA believe they are being faithfully biblical when they advocate for constraints that I deem extrabiblical.
Might the proposal to adopt strict subscriptionism also be a form of fundamentalistic perfectionism? The PCA asks of her officers that we subscribe in good faith to our system of doctrine. To argue instead that a PCA officer must agree on all points with our Standards assumes a very high confidence in our abilities to interpret Scripture. But we acknowledge that sin has distorted our noetic abilities, even as those abilities are being renewed in Christ. More basically, we are finite and limited in those abilities, as creatures. We should thus have a chastened sense of our ability, both individually and corporately, to interpret Scripture—on the one hand, confident that we can rightly know, believe, and obey those things necessary for salvation (WCF 1.7), yet also humble and circumspect about our ability to discern all things rightly. A biblical identity, therefore, should lead us to charity to those in our denomination who interpret Scripture differently on matters that are “not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine” (BCO 21-4g).
Upholding Scripture’s Unique Authority
Finally, being biblical means that we are careful to differentiate between the authority of Scripture and the authority of our Standards. Scripture as the norming norm stands above the Westminster Standards, which are normed to it (WCF 31.4). I genuinely think that all of us in the PCA believe in this distinction. I do worry, though, that we do not always hold to this distinction in practice. Advocating for strict subscription to our Standards may run the risk of failing to subordinate the Standards to Scripture and thus to treat our fidelity to them as one and the same. Or, naming “biblical fidelity and confessional integrity” alongside each other as a distinctive for the GRN makes good sense at one level, because we hold that a faithful interpretation of Scripture is reflected in and epitomized by Westminster. But yoking them together as one distinctive could lead in practice to obscuring the primacy of Scripture in our arguments and adherence.
Conclusion
We long for, pray for, and commit to work for a PCA that is deeply biblical. We do so, grateful for our heritage as a denomination that treasures God’s gift of Scripture, hopeful that Christ will lead us into greater confidence in and submission to his Word, and trusting that we all together can grow and live into this biblical identity.
Charles loves helping people connect to Jesus and being part of how he’s bringing wholeness to our lives. Before he came to Redeemer Presbyterian in Indianapolis in 2017, Charles served as a pastor in Columbia, Missouri, as a seminary professor in London, England, and in college ministry with Cru in Missouri and Eastern Europe. He did a M.Div. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge.
Charles and his wife Erin got married in 2000 and have four kids (all born in England, though none of them have English accents anymore, unfortunately). You can find them walking their downtown neighborhood, enjoying Mexican food, cheering on the Chiefs and Royals, playing pickleball, and looking unsuccessfully for bridge partners.