Reformata semper Reformanda…
February 9, 2006
"ecclesia reformata semper reformanda"
During the next two weeks, I have a few things that I need to get started on writing, and two of them are specifically related to my decision to proceed with ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA). One of the things I’m writing about is how I can describe myself as an emergent Presbyterian, and what the PCUSA can learn from Emergent and what Emergent can learn from mainline churches (in particular, the PCUSA). That should be interesting to think about.
I also have paperwork and questions to answer for my Candidacy
paperwork (Candidacy is the phase after the Inquirer phase of the
ordination process). They ask some real intense questions, many of
which have me thinking (which, granted, is the point I’m sure). The
ones that I’m currently most…well, I won’t say "stumped" by, but they
will be difficult, are:
- A statement of personal faith which incorporates an understanding of the Reformed tradition.
- A statement of what it means to be Presbyterian, indicating how
that awareness grows out of participation in the life of a particular
church. - A statement of his or her understanding of Christian vocation in the Reformed tradition.
The truth is, I am just beginning to learn more about the Reformed tradition. While I grew up in a Presbyterian church, I was definitely never one of those "hard-core" Presbyterians kids that you find from time to time (and often, at seminary, aspiring to be the next Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCUSA). So some of these questions are a little intimidating to me. Am I Presbyterian? Do I want to sign up for this for life? How does my role in Emergent play into all of this?
I was beginning to get a little nervous about this, until I remembered one of the Presbyterian mottos: "ecclesia reformata semper reformanda" - the Church reformed and always reforming. It was brought to my attention that perhaps my role may be more on the side of the "always reforming" aspect of that saying. This is not to say that I totally forget about the role that the Reformation played into the formation of the church today, and that I should have some type of chronological snobbery and look down on that time from the past. However, I think that one could fairly easily make an argument that many of our Presbyterian churches today have focused primarily (almost exclusively) on the "Reformed" aspect, and have not critically evaluated how the church may need to continue to be "always reforming" in light of our current context.
Always reforming. Always being sensitive to the radical openness and movement of the Spirit. Always being aware that we may need to be critically evaluate our theology and methodology. While at the same time, being aware of and sensitive to the things that are part of the tradition of the Presbyterian church, and those things that are important in the holy scriptures. The Bible is an important part of the heritage of the Presbyterian church and the Christian tradition, but we must be wary of creating logocentric churches, where we become strict-constructionists when it comes to our theologies and methodologies, only allowing whatever the scriptures and tradition says. That must be balanced and held in tension with the new waves of the Spirit that may be calling for new theologies and new methodologies in a new world.
At any rate, it helped me to think about it in terms of this balanced view of the phrase "reformed and always reforming." I’m sure there are other interpretations on this phrase, and I’d love to hear how you Presbyterians, especially pastors (or those on CPM committees) think about the idea of being both reformed and allowing freedom for continued reform.
Posted in Check out some related posts:
- No related posts
Subscribe to RSS
Subscribe to Feed | Subscribe via email
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
February 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
You wrote, “think that one could fairly easily make an argument that many of our Presbyterian churches today have focused primarily (almost exclusively) on the “Reformed” aspect…”
Yeah, I think this is 100% on target. My most recent P.I.F. included the phrase, “We act like it’s… the church reformed… 450 years ago… and we haven’t changed since.’
As to “always reforming”… You’ve hit one of my pet peeves here. I’ve always thought we translate this wrong. (granted that my Latin is both rusty and inadequate.) But the active tense of “reforming” implies that we’re doing something. I was taught that it was passive, “always BEING reformed” with the implication that God is the One doing the reforming, we’re the ones being reformed.
Dennis Hancock, (Reformed Angler) posted something pretty informative on it here. http://reformed-angler.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-reform.html
Have fun with all the questions!
Peace,
RPS
February 9th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
I’d say, don’t go with ordination. Yet, i am not God and you must do what you sense God calling you to do. The entire process would send me over the edge! All the best!
February 10th, 2006 at 4:06 am
sounds like you are having similar questions to the ones I am struggling with at the moment with regard to ordination in the Church of England. One of the things that brought a sense of peace that I may just fit in is the vow that priests make to ‘proclaim the gospel afresh to each generation’.
I think that like your phrase about being constantly reformed give permission for things to exists on the edge that challenge norms about what is the church, and how does it ‘achieve’ its mission to follow God today.
I think it is often the case that delving back into the tradition can often bring about unexpected permission to experiment as the foundations that may have been laid hundreds of years ago were probably born out of experiment and life on the edge.
Hope all goes well and you get some good advice on the journey :-)
February 10th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Cleave -
I made note of this last time you used that motto. The phrase is (in its entirety): ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei [the church reformed, always being reformed, according to the word of God].
The point that the reformers painstakingly made throughout their lives is that the Church must reform continuously, but not by its own insights or efforts. The only true reform comes through the Spirit leading the church throught the witness of the Scriptures.
I’m certainly not accusing you or emergent of reforming for reformation’s sake; but I would always caution any reform movement to pay attention to the second part of the phrase which reminds us that the warrant to reform occurs within limits.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Steven, thanks again for the reminding me about that. I forgot about the last past again. Although, I think the phrase still stands on its own without the secundum verbum Dei; that phrase is just put on the end to clarify what the phrase means. Check out this article entitled Our Misused Motto, written by Anna Case-Winters, a theology prof at McCormick Seminary.
She definitely wants to use that to clarify what reforming happens and argues for a passive translation of the reforming, just as RPS above mentioned, so her full translation would probably read: reformed, and always being reformed, according to the Word of God.
Good stuff to think about…
February 10th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Actually, I’ve done some original historical research on this one, and it turns out the original motto is “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum whimmus academicus.”
February 10th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda is a classic dialectic, as I think about it. It shows that the church has one foot in its Reformed heritage (salvation by grace alone, election to not just salvation but to service here and now, focus on the word written as testament to the Living word, not just sin but grace too, the community as a place of nuture–spiritual, moral, interpersonal) but also looking to the word of God as it is speaking today for today’s world.
So past and future, in tension. Not focused so much on what we’ve done before to ignore what God is doing now. Not sure that God’s ‘new thing’ is so new that it is not continuous with the grace and ‘great cloud of witnesses’ from which we have been formed and through which we see the world and God’s ‘new thing.’ And out of that tension, wonderful things might come…
Wonderful thing, I think, is that you can see this in most of the traditional Reformed heavyweights: Calvin and Barth, certainly, and in American voices like Gunthrie and Migliore.
The emergent world starts from a varied background. Some of it will meld well with this reformed dialectic and some will not. It will be interesting to see how Reformed thought changes with some of the catalysts coming from there….
February 10th, 2006 at 11:13 am
I am a recently ordained young, straight, white male Minister of Word and Sacrament with affinities for Emergent (’m from KC and I love this place)but some strong, and I mean strong, critiques of it. I went to Louisville Seminary a few years ago with the same thoughts, feelings, questions, etc. that I read from you. I feel your pain. Here’s my two cents.
On PC(USA) Ordination in general: God calls us and then works out the call in us. Here’s a few questions: Do you think that the Spirit works better in groups? Do you believe that the Sovereignty of God supersedes everything else? Do you believe that we are “saved by grace, through faith, because of the work and person of Jesus as the Christ” (interpret as you will)? Do you believe in one baptism, one church, one Lord, and one hour (tee hee)?
If you said “yes”, chances are you’re a Presbyterian.
I found that the Reformed Tradition and Presbyterian heritage and polity leaves plenty of room for me to be who I am, and I’m a freak in our church. I’ve not read anything on this blog (I know it’s not exhaustive) that would indicate that you’re less Presbyterian than I am. One thing to consider is that you’re getting the “Princeton Version” of Presbyterianism, and, as we all know, “Nothing new will ever come out of Princeton” (a little inter-seminary dig for ya).
On Emergent: Dorothy Butler Bass has a great new book called “The Practicing Congregation” in which she outlines a similar possible shift for mainlines as she sees in the evangelical church. What you need to ask yourself is (in my opinion) “Am I evangelical?” Because, Bro, no matter how you slice it Emergent=Evangelical.
I don’t know what the answer to that question is for you, but for me it was clear that I am evangelical in the best sense of the word (I share the good news and ask people to respond to God’s call) but I decided to move and operate in a different sphere than Emergent because the “evangelical” of that world seems very wesleyan to me. That ain’t Reformed - that ain’t me. One thing I find interesting is the theologians that Emergent is now engaging - Bruggemann, Moltmann, Volf. PC(USA) has been dealing with these folks for years - nothing new.
It comes down to this: which particular rendering of the story are you willing to throw yourself into?
The Lord of the Harvest has called you to work. You won’t ever be able to resist the call so don’t try. The laborers are few, my friend - don’t leave me in the field alone.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Landon–
I just emailed ya, but its weird. I’m a newly ordained PCUSA pastor who just MOVED to KC. Small world.
I’m not sure I agree that emergent=evangelical. Not yet, at any rate. But I agree with this:
One thing I find interesting is the theologians that Emergent is now engaging - Bruggemann, Moltmann, Volf. PC(USA) has been dealing with these folks for years - nothing new.
What is new is the dynamism and spirit given to engaging these thinkers. That’s a fresh breath that the PCUSA really can use….
February 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I’m not a Presbyterian, but am heartened and encouraged by your thoughtfulness about ordination in the Church, Adam. May God be with you and bless you as you wrestle with these important issues.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I’ve been on COM and CPM both. My suggestion is that you answer the questions honestly, and allow the community to help you discern your call.
From my point of view, based only on this blog, is that you are very Presbyterian. You are interested in the emergent church, and you seem to feel that is somehow at odds with the PCUSA. Why? Have you read some of the blogs of emergent churches in the PCUSA? Have you taken a look at the PCUSA’s web page on emergent churches?
February 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Apostle John - maybe you could direct me to these blogs of PCUSA emergent churches that you’re speaking of. And no, I didn’t know there was a PCUSA web page on emergent churches. Can you put the links in the comments section?
February 11th, 2006 at 12:05 am
I’ve been reading your blog for sometime and thought before that you were a fellow Episcopalian and didn’t know it yet. ECUSA is reforming very painfully right now, and so . . .
I enjoy your blog.
February 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Adam - a few thoughts for you, having gone through the Candidacy process last spring.
Background - I don’t know if you knew, but I grew up on the other side of the aisle, both in Canada and in the Wesleyan/Holiness Tradition - the Free Methodist Church. I went to Roberts Wesleyan, did a whole class on John & Charles and had some interesting “discussions” with the lone Presbyterian in the class of about 30 or so. But then I went to Los Angeles after graduating, got hooked up in a PC(USA) church there, one thing led to another and bam! I’m at Princeton, persuing ordination in the PC(USA). So I understand completely the idea about learning about the Reformed tradition on the fly. McCormack’s class “16th Century Reformed and Lutheran Confessions” was an awesome class this Fall that I took upon some recommendations. I learned more reading some of those confessions thatn anything before.
Anyway, all that to say that the confessions are what are truly at the heart of the Reformed Church’s beliefs and they are actually very diverse in some regards and very rich…
Oh yeah, I was talking about Candidacy…
1. Remember, they can’t ask you any theological questions. My church made that mistake and I spent about an hour answering dumb questions like “Why did you capitalize Virgin?” Until you go to be Certified, they can’t ask you about your theology. So don’t worry too much if you’re still searching. If you don’t write down stuff like “I believe Jesus was actually a 28th Century Time Traveller” you’re probably going to be fine.
2. Keep your answers succinct. People just won’t read or appreciate a 20 page application for Candidacy, especially because they can’t interact with you on it yet anyway.
3. What I found in general is not, surprisingly, that they’re looking necessarily for you to say the right key words or phrases, but more so they’re looking for red flags. They expect, coming from Princeton (no matter your backgroud, I found) that you understand what it means to be Presbyterian. They probably believe you’re more Presbyterian than you do.
Finally, just enjoy the process, both of writing & the meetings. It’s a great time of discerning both what you believe and your call. Know that your statements don’t have to be definitive for all time, but are a picture of where you’re at when you write them. I know I would write some different things if I was going for Candidacy this Spring than I did last Spring that’s for sure…
February 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Oh yeah - you also get to re-write your answers to a number of that stuff, including your Statement of Faith. So don’t worry if, like me, you don’t include something on say, the Church or the Sacraments. You get a redo when you’re ready to be Certified…
February 11th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hey Adam-
There are some elements of the PC(USA) that are quite open to Emergent. John Franke was here at the “other” PTS this week and he spent some time with two of the Presbytery staff meetings, both of whom came to our cohort meeting. Most of the New Church Developments here in Pittsburgh Presbytery are involved in emergent-type activities. If you go to http://emergentpittsburgh.blogspot.com you’ll see a list of PC(USA) churches that are involved in Emergent-type stuff. Four out of the five churches listed are PC(USA)
February 11th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Adam–
I’m not Apostle John, so I don’t know if this is what he was referring to or not, but a quick search on the pcusa webpage for ‘emergent’ led to an interesting find under the New Church Development (http://www.pcusa.org/newchurch/help.htm) page. There are some interesting items under the bibliography and links sections…
Interesting to see all that there….
February 13th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
you might find this article helpful…
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2006/06054.htm#top
then again, you may have already read it.
February 13th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Visco–
I took that class at the APCE conference. I think Rodger is right on. Thanks for the link for the summary….
February 14th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Adam - Go for it. The church needs you. My own congregation — as I’ve emailed you before — is exploring calling a pastor to head up emergent worship service. Spread the word.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Adam:
Having served on CPM, and within a validated ministry, I would assure you that if the Lord calls you into candidacy, then what you (not the others) broadly call “emergent” can and will be welcomed as who you are, re: SOF, meaning of Presbyterian,sense of vocation. A few other comments, though, in response to others, might serve you.
1. Emergent=evangelical. In some cases, yes. Yours? :) If the one who made this comment would have attended ETC last week, it would be constructed differently.
2. The suggestion(s) above regarding relationships between New Church Developments (NCD’s) and Emergent could be better characterized as experimental. I spoke with an accquaintance at ETC who is also an organizing pastor; we’d met at an NCD national conference hosted by the PCUSA. He felt comfortable at ETC because some of content among Emergent folks connected with his community and his ministry. In contrast, most NCD’s (and their organizing pastors) simply experiment as a worshipping and witnessing community: and will “dabble” in different ways of life: including an “Emergent” way-of-life together. If it fits, they’ll wear it. Sounds pragmatic, and it is, but the reality of many NCD’s is a suburban culture: and not really conducive to an “Emergent” posture. Make sense?
3. Finally, more than once commenters have said “be honest: be yourself.” Amen. I could fill pages here about one or the other being absent in CPM annual appointments with inquirers & candidates: and committee members-worst of all! :) Suffice it to say, while there are some centers and boundaries of theological and ecclesiastic nature that you would do well to have a good-to-firm understanding of, you also can affirm to the CPM that the fulfillment of God’s call does take a lifetime, however long that life may be and become.