In our day, we find everyone and their dog making
declarations – frequently ecumenical in nature (which is not always bad – many of
the aforementioned confessions or creeds were ecumenically driven) the net
result is a cheapening of the work. The
individual is king in the culture of the day, and few declarations have meaning
which the majority could or would be compelled to subscribe to. So I was not too excited about the exercise. I took it on, out of a respect of the men who
were party to the making.
I also expected to find some rather difficult to grasp and
thereby to ascribe to statements which I would be critiquing. This I was delighted to find was not the
case. In fact as I was reading through,
I became more excited. You see the style
of the piece is plain, even ordinary, but not flat. The language, though at times novel to my
eyes, was edifying to my soul and lifted my spirit. It
actually began to teach me. Let me
clarify, because one can learn in many ways.
What I mean to say is not that I was learning new prescribed doctrinal
points (although that is one of the express goals and that did happen with
me). Rather the very use of the language
added to the declaration. It was sweet
to my soul. It communicated eloquently,
simply, and at times powerfully ideas which have at times been fleeting around
my little brain so fast I never quite got them down out of the ether and into
words! A wonderful statement. And all this to say that it was engaging to
the core. Never overbearing in the
point, most articles were only 2 or 3 pages in length.
While there are a total of 15 articles – The theme is to
address today’s excesses without creating much which might be construed as
new. Pointedly this is only an addendum
to what has already been written creedal-ly and confessional-ly (sp.?) over the
centuries. So it is not a new catechism
as it were. Just a fine-tuning of what
we already know, particularly dealing with what our modern or even post-modern
minds have been grappling with over the last 100 years.
In the preamble, “We object to this religious reductionism and
desire to reclaim the entire heritage of Christian doctrine, obedience, and
adoration.”
Speaking of the gospel, “To deny the historicity of the events of the
gospel is to deny the gospel. To deny
the biblical interpretation of those events is also to deny the gospel.”
Speaking of harmony and variety in
ordinate expression, “[T]his delightful
variety must not be exploited as a rational for aesthetic agnosticism. Both ordinate and inordinate expressions
exist in great variety. Truth can be communicated in hundreds of languages, but
so can lies.”
Speaking of the works of popular
culture, “Their ephemeral nature
precludes them from reflecting the weighty, the profound, the transcendent, and
the enduring. ...Immediate gratification cannot cultivate profundity”
Speaking of Christian tradition, “We insist that a Christianity that must
change with each wind of fashion is confessing that it has nothing permanent to
say.”
Didn’t I say it was that good?!
No comments:
Post a Comment