It seems to me, writes Rev. Professor Charles Cranfield that `Vision 2020' is fundamentally misconceived. (Vision 2020 planning for growth in the URC : hearing your views) On p.8 we read: `It challenges the whole church at local, synod and denominational level to think about what kind of church we want to be in ten years time'. But this `WE WANT TO BE' surely indicates that this is the wrong question for a Reformed church to be asking. Surely we should be asking what do we seriously believe to be the sort of church that Jesus Christ, the only Head and King of the church, wills us to be.
This seems to me to be the fundamental error of `Vision 2020'. And closely related is what struck me most forcibly when I first read these papers, the fact that there does not seem to be any clear indication in them that those who produced them realize that the church has a gospel to proclaim, good news from God of his love for us sinful human beings revealed in what he has done for us in Jesus Christ his Son, in his bitter death at the hands of human beings and in his resurrection from the dead to be our living Lord.
In view of these two closely related and (I believe) extremely serious deficiencies in `Vision 2020', I can only declare my whole-hearted conscientious objection to this project and plead with the URC to think again, more humbly, more prayerfully and with much greater attention to the witness of Holy Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Before the original was expunged from our books on the grounds of its non-inclusive language, there was a Barthian parody on the old hymn that went something like:-
ReplyDeleteSit down O men of God,
His Kingdom He will bring,
whenever it may be His will,
Ye cannot do a thing.
Without our being out and out Pelagians, surely we can see that if the Church (which is a human as well as a divine institution) is to be what God wants it to be, there are things that we need to do. There will be have to be processes and programmes – otherwise we just sit and wait.
I recall that somewhere in his writings Hendrik Kraemer, whom I think Charles will have known well at Bossey, says something to the effect that there is a time and a place for being theological – and implies that we’re not asked to reflect theologically everywhere and all the time.
With that in mind, I wonder if Charles is not underplaying the whole Catch the Vision process which has led up to Vision2020? There was certainly theological reflection in the early part of the process; and I had seen Vision2020 as arising out of Vision4Life, in which we will have been going back to the Bible, strengthening the practice of prayer, and looking for ways of sharing the faith. Just as I would reject the old conservative evangelical dictum that a sermon is not a sermon without a reference to the cross, so I would be unhappy to think that we have to spell out the content of the gospel in the way I think Charles is asking for before we can take any step forward together. Isn’t life too short for that?
However, Charles’s call for us to act more humbly, more prayerfully and with much greater attention to the witness of Holy Scripture does leave me wondering whether Vision2020, like much of the material we produce, isn’t too strongly based on a contemporary secular agenda. One of the things I’m most looking forward to in retirement is no more having to present lists of realisable targets, and no more having to answer that inane question, Where do I want to be in x years time?
A vision for the Church that could both challenge us and provoke us to action, but also affirm with thanks that we ARE all under God’s good hand and that the future is HIS – that would surely be a vision to embrace.
Dave Tomlinson starts his book “Re-enchanting Christianity” (Canterbury Press 2008) with a quote from Lenny Bruce the American stand-up comedian, writer, social critic and satirist who said “Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God!” After leading Sunday worship recently with 4 god fearing prayerful church souls; the next Sunday with a similar nine bible reading church members I am beginning to think there is some truth in that statement. I suspect that these 2 churches, despite their prayers, bible reading and humble loving concerns may not be able to tick the boxes in the next 10 years.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Prof Cranfield’s view of church is one seen through a rear driving mirror. Thomas Merton the acclaimed Catholic spiritual writer and poet wrote that “to cling to the past is actually to loose ones continuity with the past, since this means clinging to what is no longer there.” “For faith to flourish,” to quote Tomlinson again, “it must engage in a vigorous conversation with contemporary culture.” If the 2020 vision is to be realised then I understand this to mean an open discussion and consultation with local church members, people who are a part of contemporary culture.
Richard Hooker a sixteenth century priest and theologian suggests that Christian truth exists in the interaction of scripture, tradition and reason – popularly known as his “three-legged stool” and that none can be properly understood without the others. In 1988 the Lambeth conference decided that a fourth leg should be added, the experience of God’s people. It is this experience – the “what we want to be” to quote Prof Cranfield, is what I believe the editors of the 2020 vision, a text grounded in prayer and theological reflection is seeking to establish, a document which I would wish to support and commend.
Robert Runcie had a lovely saying “A church which only listens to its traditions will end up speaking to itself. A church which listens only to what is happening in the world will end up becoming a dull echo of the latest liberal fashion. It is the interplay between tradition and discovery (perhaps read interpretation?) that creates a proper relevance.”