Centrality of the Word (Part 1)

Mark Jensen resides in Winnipeg, where he recently completed his Master of Theology. This is the first of a three part treatise on the first Covenant Affirmation, The Centrality of the Word. To begin, Mark explains his own interest in Covenant theology as well as the basis for the Covenant affirmations beginning with Scripture. 

Introduction

The Covenant Affirmations were first published in 1976 and later revised in 2005 in order to name the “spirit of our common life.”¹ Resisting the connotations of a formal doctrinal statement, the Evangelical Covenant Church (hereafter ECC) nevertheless speaks through the six affirmations it sees to be integral to its identity.² I am taking up the task of examining the first affirmation, the Centrality of the Word. I want to give some clarifications of what it means to affirm scripture as central, based off of a close reading of the affirmations, but also off of sources external to the Covenant Church, texts from the pietists (in particular, Philip Jacob Spener).

I began taking an interest in the theology of the Covenant Church through the time I spent in researching for my masters thesis, eventually taking a systematic theology course where I was encouraged to engage with the sources and texts of my tradition as I worked through the class topics. Perhaps what I have to say may not be of immediate interest to some, but I do think the stance of the ECC presents an original position in the pool of options in evangelical theology with much to offer to a theology student who wants to maintain a commitment to being evangelical and scriptural. I see the ECC’s position carving out a fresh and illuminating path for the young student of theology. This is what I want to explore in my concluding reflections. 

Scripture in the Covenant Affirmations

The Introduction to the Covenant Affirmations open with the following statement: 

The Evangelical Covenant Church adheres to the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation regarding the Bible. It confesses that the Holy Scripture, the Old and the New Testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct. it affirms the historic confessions of the Christian Church, particularly the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, while emphasizing the sovereignty of the Word of God over all creedal interpretations.³

Later the Affirmations (“Common Christian Affirmations”) positions the ECC within the rubrics of being an apostolic, catholic, Reformation, and Evangelical church. It is within the category of being an apostolic church that scripture finds clout. Scripture contains the record of Christ and the faith of the apostles. Scripture becomes the basis for “faith, doctrine, and conduct.”⁴ Following St. Paul in 2 Timothy, scripture serves the needs of the church community is “teaching, reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”⁵   Scripture is authoritative to the community of faith, deserving of our trust, allowing fellow Christians to ask each other, “Where is it written?” This does not mean scripture answers all the questions we may have or that it is our exclusive source for making decisions about the world. There are many things scripture does not address, but this does not diminish its importance or authority. Scripture has its own questions and its own answers–sometimes it does so unabashedly. Properly understood, scripture functions as a guide, rule, a “norming norm,” a standard of measurement.⁶ Scripture is authoritative because it communicates the narrative of God’s workings, through which we encounter Christ and in whom faith is enkindled by the work of the Holy Spirit. 

While scripture is authoritative, the ECC does not subscribe to any particular theory of inspiration or authority, nor does it provide explicit justification or extended for argument to construct a basis for this authority.⁷ The young theology student entering into evangelical theology will never cease to find tireless (perhaps intractable) debates seeking to specify and ground the nature of scripture’s authority in order to protect it from the perceived onslaughts of historical criticism, scientific understanding, moral relativism, and religious pluralism. Such debates are enough to leave them lost in the mucky mire of arguments with only a faded glint of a coin at the bottom of an opaque slough. The affirmation of the ECC does not prompt an apologetic, as if there were some anxiety to justify the assertion upon stating it. One Covenant writer states it this way: “Theories of inspiration often are at bottom a question for security, and we believe our security lies in God.”⁸ What matters most is not one’s knowledge of the information of scripture but the performance of it.⁹ Perhaps, then, it would be fair to say, following James K. A. Smith, that the Covenant affirmation pertaining to scripture’s authority does not fall under the category of  a “metanarrative” in that it does not seek to legitimate or ground itself by modern canons of rationality but on the basis of faith through the testimony of the Holy Spirit.¹⁰ 

Scripture is also explained under the headings reformation and evangelical, with these largely relating to the message of justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law, as well as to Pietism’s emphasis one’s life of discipleship to Christ, sanctification in the Holy Spirit, and service to the world, in order to balance the lives of the head and the heart.¹¹ This includes the practice of the reading of scripture among the laity, and less emphasis on a kind of theological disputation that easily can devolve into philosophical spiralling. With the evangelical renewal movements, the Covenant Church has followed in its emphasis on biblical authority.¹² Perhaps the most influential renewal movement on the ECC has been Pietism, a renewal movement that first sprouted in 17th century Germany, most notably through Philipp Jakob Spener. 

In his next post, Mark will examine how the ECC draws upon Spener's idea of scripture as a living text and how that forms our practice as a church. 

Notes

<sup>1. James K. Bruckner, Michelle A. Clifton-Soderstrom, Paul E. Koptak (eds.), “Preface,” in Living Faith: Reflections on Covenant Affirmations by the Faculty of North Park Theological Seminary, (Chicago, IL: Covenant Publications, 2010), xi↩
2. Ibid, xii. ↩
3. Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 1. ↩
4. Ibid., 3. ↩
5. Ibid., 3. Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16. ↩
6. Brucker, Clifton-Soderstrom, and Koptake, Living Faith, 36. ↩
7. Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 3. ↩
8. Brucker, Clifton-Soderstrom, and Koptake, Living Faith, 32. ↩
9. Ibid., 32. ↩
10. James K. A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 64-70. ↩
11. Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 5. ↩
12. Ibid., 6. ↩</sup>

A Compass, Not a Map

Jeff Anderson lives in Winnipeg and is the Superintendent of the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada. It is fitting therefore, that he direct our conversation about these six Affirmations. In this entry, Jeff reflects upon the value of the Affirmations as a whole and addresses the nature of these Affirmations. 

The Evangelical Covenant Church has, since the founding, taken a slightly different approach than many of our Evangelical cousins.  Back when Survivor first came to television, each participant was allowed to take one item that they thought might help them over the course of the contest.  If we apply this to the area of church theology we might say that while most of our sisters and brothers took a theological map (doctrinal statements) we chose instead to take a compass (affirmations). 

The Covenant has as a community embraced six affirmations that have guided the church since 1885.  These Affirmations are as follows:

• the centrality of the word of God,

• the necessity of the new birth,

• a commitment to the whole mission of the Church,

• the Church as a fellowship of believers,

• a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit, and

• the reality of freedom in Christ.

A question often asked is, “Can this really work, and won’t some people take advantage of the lack of definition?”

I heard a speaker from Australia talk about the vast cattle ranches in that country.  One of them, Anna Creek Station is over 6,000,000 acres or slightly larger than the country of Israel.  On those vast ranches it would be nearly impossible and economically unfeasible to fence the entire station.  His comment to “how do you keep the cattle from wandering off” is a parallel to the affirmation verses doctrinal statement discussion.  Their practice is to drill deep and bring up clear clean water.  The well becomes the centre of the field and it is that refreshing centre that keeps the cattle from moving away to areas that are harmful. 

The Covenant sees the Affirmations as taking us into the deep well of life that is found in our relationship to God.  Canadian Pastor Bruxy Cavey in his book “The End Of Religion” explains the danger of focusing more on the edge than the centre of our faith:

“When faith becomes religion, people on the inside of the group begin to focus their attention on the perimeter, patrolling the boundaries to regulate who is in and who is out.  They develop visible boundary markers, demarcations of holiness, which become important signs of group identity…” (p. 212).

One final thought.  It is the capacity of the deep reservoir that brings life, not the precise placement of the well.  Because of this, you will find the same Affirmations understood and applied in slightly different ways.  This does not mean that one is right and one is wrong.  It means that the reservoir is deep enough and wide enough for many expressions and experiences.

It is my hope that as you dialogue with these Affirmations through this site and also with others in the community that you will be refreshed by the cool and clear living water offered by God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.