Valued heritage or crusty tradition?

Jeff Meyers is an interesting mix of old and new. While in the conservative Reformed tradition (PCA), he is quite critical of it at certain points. He’s getting in trouble for saying this:

“The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church.”

But then, he clarifies that his concern is one of engaging present culture, not revising those confessions’ interpretation of Scripture.

“I fear that many Reformed men escape into the past…. We love the Puritans more than we love our own generation, and it often seems more than we love digging into the Bible for fresh, relevant answers to modern problems…. If we want to be an enclave of ecclesiastical romantics living in the 17th century, a tribe of irrelevant theologues, then by all means let’s continue to multiply conferences and books on the glory of Westminster. Let’s continue to demand subscription to every jot and tittle of our precious unreformable tradition. Let’s attack anyone who suggests updates and changes. If, however, we desire to minister to people in our world, we need to stand on the shoulders of our glorious forefathers in the faith and do what they did—preach, write, and formulate answers from the Bible for the people of our generation!"

1 comment:

  1. In the RCA I would add a third option, not so valued heritage. While I have sections of the three forms of unity that I would like expanded or clarified, it seems in the RCA they have become the three forms of lets forget them completely.