Kruse Kronicle

Reflections on the “Wide, Wide Circle of Divine Love”

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

I have just completed a ten-page article about an issue of deep concern to me. Below is the introduction, followed by a link to the article.

"The General Assembly Council (GAC), PCUSA, started something new in 2004. We set aside time at each Council meeting to reflect on issues confronting the church. Each member receives a book to read a month in advance of the meeting. We come prepared to hear the author and participate in discussion. First we talked about church growth. We read Beyond the Ordinary: Ten Strengths of U.S. Congregations. At the next meeting, we talked about leadership and read To Walk in Integrity: Spiritual Leadership in Times of Crisis. Both contributed to helpful reflection on our work.

When the GAC gathers in Sacramento next month, our next topic will be pluralism. Last Saturday, I found a packet arrived containing the book, The Wide, Wide Circle Of Divine Love: A Biblical Case For Religious Diversity, by W. Eugene March. I have read the book and I have much I want to say about it. I know when I get to GAC there will be no forum where I will be able to express all the concerns I have. Furthermore, since the purpose of these events is to foster discussion around critical issues facing the church, I thought I might begin by having a discussion with the broader church. I also think it worthy to discuss whether this material is appropriate for the context.

I have written an overview of the book with extensive quotes. Next, I have provided some quotes from The Confession of 1967 and official statements of the General Assembly over the past four decades. I end with my observations and conclusions. I hope that this will add a different perspective to the dialog."

REFLECTIONS ON "THE WIDE WIDE CIRCLE OF DIVINE LOVE"

Comments

14 responses to “Reflections on the “Wide, Wide Circle of Divine Love””

  1. Denis Hancock Avatar
    Denis Hancock

    Thank-you for expressing those concerns.
    It almost seems a cognitive dissonance to call ourselves “Reformed” yet at the same time reject a defining aspect of Reformation (i.e. Sola Scriptura

    Reply
  2. Christian Boyd Avatar
    Christian Boyd

    Great study paper! Dr March was one of my professors in seminary and I love him dearly. However I was disturbed by his shift to pluarlism. I believe our confessions and our newest catechisms leads us to a more inclusive understanding, which resonates with the Calvin and the teachings of the Church through time. “What is God doing?” “What does God desire of us?” Be faithful and follow the Way we have received through our baptism, nurtured by Christ’s presence, illuminated by the Spirit through the Word, and be sent out as missionaries of the Good News. If we do this, then we cannot be pluralistic. If we embrace pluralism, then as St James said, our works are empty and are faith is dead.

    Reply
  3. David Hackett Avatar
    David Hackett

    Well stated and researched. I’m grateful that you are articulating these concerns in advance of the Council’s meeting, and backing them up with statements from PCUSA confessions and documents. Go ahead, be bold, bring this before the Council!

    Reply
  4. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks for these observations, Christian. I am deeply passionate about this issue and I suspect that was evident in my writing. I don’t know Dr. March and I wish him no ill will.
    I do think the GAC needs to be more focused about our mandate. I fear this situation in September is going to be awkward for a number of people but the stakes are too high on an issue like this to let it slide.

    Reply
  5. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Denis, it all comes back to your “What is Reform?” question from earlier this week, doesn’t it?
    http://reformed-angler.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-reform.html

    Reply
  6. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    David, I suspect this is all going to make it to the Council well before September. We will see what unfolds. Actually, I suspect the Darth Vader theme music has already been queued up for my arrival in Sacramento. *grin* Seriously, the Council are good folk. At least they put up with me.

    Reply
  7. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    Well done.

    Reply
  8. Dave Moody Avatar
    Dave Moody

    Michael,
    Great review– thank you. And I suspect your concerns at the end are spot on. By reading this book, tacit legitimacy is given to its thesis by the GAC. For us in the trenches this is just one more thing we have to defend to our sessions- if folks are reading the web… thank you, and godspeed at GAC.

    Reply
  9. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    I believe this conversation is revealing a real divide emerging in the church. It’s actually not a theological division. It’s between those who are willing to have conversation–even boundary-pushing, assumption-challenging, potentially unorthodox conversation–and those who feel that the right posture of the church is not exploration but boundary-setting.
    I don’t mean this unkindly or cynically. Does the Church exist primarily to say “This is as far as you can go and no further.” If so, then it will bother you that our leaders would read something with which you disagree. But if part of the Church’s calling is to say, “Where is God leading us? Are we led somewhere different?” then books like March’s will not be threatening.
    Even if one concludes (and I have no reason to think Mike’s analysis is wrong) that March is incorrect, we are not worse for having had that conversation. Some might say we’re stronger, because we are firmer in our convictions.
    One other thing: To say that the GAC reading a book gives “tacit legitimacy” to its thesis is simply ridiculous. If I were deemed to be giving legitimacy to the thesis of every book I read–or even asked others to read–then I would seem very conflicted indeed. But if I avoided books out of fear that they might say something wrong, or unorthodox, or difficult–well, I wouldn’t learn very much.

    Reply
  10. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Hi Brian! Long time, no see. Here is my take.
    The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution provides for freedom of speech. Yet, courts have ruled that not all speech is protected. Often the focal issue is context. “If I yell fire! Run for your lives!” in the middle of a city park with virtually no one around, that is one thing. If I yell the same thing in a dark crowded theater, that is another. Context is everything.
    Our denominational structure is very different from most institutions. Most organizations have a board that is responsible for both setting policies and giving oversight. In our case, the General Assembly sets denominational policy and priorities. The elected General Assembly Council is charged with giving oversight to the execution of the GA decisions. The staff, through the leadership of the executive director, is charged with effective and efficient execution of these plans.
    At the risk of oversimplifying, the GAC is not a boundary-setting body or a boundary-pushing body. We are a boundary-maintenance body! If we want to set or push boundaries, we have the General Assembly for that. By keeping the boundaries clear, we empower effective execution by staff.
    This book is not about a peripheral aspect of the church life. The only thing we require for denominational membership is a profession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This book is advocacy for a position that takes direct aim at this affirmation and contributes nothing to the dialog about how we as the GAC might better communicate Jesus as Lord, honoring the boundaries set by the General Assembly. The issue here is not one of embracing or resisting boundary exploration. It is about the appropriate context.
    I would generally agree that it is ridiculous to say that discussion of a book that advocates against denominational policy implies tacit endorsement. However, when the body discussing the book is the boundary-maintenance body of the denomination having dialog about how to further mission, and we chose to study a book that is a direct assault on the very center of our mission, how does this book help us with our work? How should that be interpreted? Why not use a compilation of the General Assembly statements like I wrote of, or use something like the “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ?” Bring in someone from Theology and Worship or someone with expertise in this discussion. Discuss the tensions this creates in a pluralistic society. I maintain that this is the wrong discussion with the wrong group at the wrong time.
    Sorry for the rambling but I hope this is coherent.

    Reply
  11. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    Michael,
    You address this distinction very well. I was trying to think of how to express the difference. Obviously, no one would or should be concerned about individuals reading specific books and discussing them. The issue is more the purpose of the GAC — I mean, no offense, but this is neither Oprah’s book club, or a group deciding on statements of our beliefs as a denomination.
    Again, I would always default on the side of reading, but the issue of endorsement (in this context) is a very real problem. It is similar to the events that moderators or stated clerks attend in their official capacity. If they are there as observers, fine. If they are there as private citizens, making this fact known. If they speak, pose for photos, issue joint press releases, etc., then not fine. It is an endorsement.

    Reply
  12. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks Will. I really think the biggest issue here is confusion about what we as the GAC are called to do. The broader issue is the underlying theological questions. Because, IMO, we are confused both in polity and theolgocially, we are prone to these types of errors. This confusion leads to those who would suggest such a dialog feeling unfairly censored. And those who object to the dialog feeling like they are being manipulated.

    Reply
  13. Rev. Toby L. Brown Avatar
    Rev. Toby L. Brown

    Thanks for your reflections on this important issue–that of Dr. March’s theological dissonance with our faith. I would also refer you and the readers here to my own article that spoke to Dr. March’s essay in the June issue of the PW magazine, Horizons. You can find it here:
    http://www.vow.org/viewpoints/essays/05may12-tbrown-denying_great_commission.html
    Thanks for you dedication to what matter most–living for the glory of God.

    Reply
  14. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention Toby. I changed a setting that may actually make your link work. *grin*

    Reply

Leave a Reply to David HackettCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading