A Critique of
Faith Talk II
By Vernon Wishart
While
serving on the United Church’s Theology and Faith Committee, I found the
group divided between two opposing theological perspectives – those who
held the orthodox view and those who didn’t. The two positions were in
tension and are reflected in the document, Reconciling and Making
New. In Faith Talk II the tensions are no longer recognized
but accepted. Note particularly in Reconciling and Making New,
Section V, page 33 and in Faith II, the statement near the end.
Orthodoxy holds that God is distinct from His creation, a transcendent
Trinity of Persons wholly other from what He has created. Faith Talk
in the section mentioned espouses quite a different view. It speaks of
our “integration with the common ground of all being” etc. The view
that made its appearance in Reconciling and Making New is still
alive and well. This represents a profound break with Trinitarian faith
and reflects the ancient heresy of Monism.
To put it
rather dramatically, we have within the United Church a war for its
soul. Some say that Faith Talk has something for everyone. That
may be true but underlying what seems to be good old United Church
inclusivism is the inclusion of a theological perspective that is
contrary to orthodoxy’s theology of redemption. In the name of
inclusivity two mutually exclusive statements are included in the
document – one that appears as part of a systematic theology linking the
whole document, the other, something of a step-child, espousing a view
that at one time would be found as heretical. A decade after
Reconciling and Making New the step-child is being accorded family
status. By the next decade it may be used to supplant the orthodox
position.
While on
the Theology and Faith Committee there were a few of us who struggled
mightily against the Camel getting its nose in the tent. Now it is
seeking to be comfortably ensconced. Pardon the mixed metaphors but I
hope the point is made.
I fear the
acquiescence that says “my best hope is that the draft statement remains
as it is.” Or, “there is at least a chance that the voice of biblical
faith can once again be heard.” If the draft statement remains as it
is, the voice of biblical faith will become optional. In the words of
Timothy George: “A Church that cannot distinguish heresy from truth,
or, even worse, a Church that no longer thinks this is worth doing, is a
Church which has lost its right to bear witness to the transforming
Gospel of Jesus Christ who declared himself to be not only the Way and
the Life but also the Truth.” This is what I fear the United Church of
Canada is becoming.
