8/31/10

On Saying Less More Loudly

I’d like to offer a brief follow-up to my last post in which I rose the issue of a new confession for the Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

To put it simply, the purpose of a new confession would be that of unity.

Now, try as I might to make this point convincingly on the Puritan Board on Tuesday (and I did try), the vast majority of contributors just dismissed the idea with a chuckle and wave of the hand. So I’ll try again here, and then I’ll let the matter drop.

I’m starting with the premise that unity actually matters. Now, I doubt many will disagree, so long as we define unity as something essentially spiritual and invisible. If I had a nickel for every time I was told, “I have unity with all believers who agree with me about doctrines x, y, and z,” I’d have, like, two dollars probably, maybe more.

But is this how the New Testament speaks of unity?

No, it’s not. When Jesus spoke of unity in his high-priestly prayer, he was clearly speaking of something visible:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21).
And when Paul spoke of unity, he was referring to something that is sacramentally displayed:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:27-28).

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (I Cor. 10:17).
If these passages are taken seriously, this means that I have no unity with Christians who would insist that my children be re-baptized when they’ve made a profession of faith, nor do I have unity with those whose churches would refuse me Communion if I couldn’t articulate Calvin’s doctrine of Christ’s mystical presence in the Supper. In a word, it doesn’t matter how much I may pal around with such people on my own time, if we don’t share the sacraments in common on the Lord’s Day, we’re fundamentally disunited.

Now here’s where it gets tricky....

If unity is supposed to be visible, and if Paul is correct when he says, “There is one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” then how do we deal with the fact that the OPC and the PCA are not one church, but two?

Here’s where a new confession comes in. What is needed is the ability to avoid the task of divining the ever-elusive “system of doctrine,” the confession-within-the-confession, the bits and pieces of our doctrinal standards that really matter. But as long as we theoretically subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms but allow countless exceptions to be taken to them, we leave ourselves no choice but to scratch our heads over whether things like refraining from recreation on the Sabbath and 6/24 creation are intrinsic to the system. My proposal is simply that if we all agree that something is not intrinsic to the system, then why not omit it altogether? Then, once we have identified what our system of doctrine actually is, we can confess it strictly and with confidence. It is just this kind of approach—one that calls for strict subscription to the system of doctrine but allows laxity on incidental matters—that could potentially be the impetus for an ecumenical Reformed church consisting of believers from British Presbyterian and Continental Reformed backgrounds.

Of course, none of this will have any appeal if visible unity is unimportant. But if our lack of visible unity doesn’t bother us, then we may need to reconsider the passages adduced above (and the countless others in the New Testament that deal with this issue), as well as asking ourselves what we mean when we claim to believe in “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

In a word, let’s say less, but say it way louder.
Posted by Jason Stellman at 9:51 PM
Labels: , , , , ,

82 comments:

  1. If the CREC, PCA, OPC and all the other Reformed Churches in America entered into true unity what next?

    Is it good enough to just have the 400-500,000 self attesting Reformed Presbyterians in the United Stated in sacramental union within one another?
    ReplyDelete
  2. The PCA has significant "confessional integrity" issues, as seen in the two issues you cite above: creation days and Christian sabbath. To redefine WSC's "space of six days" to accommodate a diversity of views (with a non-constitutional study report effectively serving as a de facto confession) is simply dishonest, not to mention a dangerous precedent. I expect the Westminster Divines would say that their doctrine of the strict Christian Sabbath is ESSENTIAL to the system of doctrine they authored. Yet the PCA demurs as we readily grant exceptions to their Sabbath doctrine & piety.

    I think your proposal is a good idea. The language of Westminster is at the same time excellent and excessive. It uses precise language, yet ironically seems to say "too much" at times (the Larger Catechism's exposition of the Ten Commandments is a good example of both tendencies).

    On the other hand, do we really need to reinvent the wheel? What do you think about the Three Forms of Unity? Do these standards have the same issue of saying too much at times? The Belgic Confession mentions Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but that seems to be a smaller matter.

    Out of curiosity, I did a simple size comparison between the Belgic and Westminster Confession (without scripture proofs) on MS Word. With a 12 point Times Roman font, the Belgic is about 15.3 pages with a word count of 9498. Westminster is about 27.3 pages with a word count of 12074. IOW, the Belgic Confession already says... less! :-)
    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and what the Three Forms of Unity say about the Lord's Day (even with Dort's statement on the Christian Sabbath) would be agreeable to those who take exception to the "whole day" worship and no recreation clauses of Westminster. Also, the Belgic doesn't even specifically mention creation days. Just sayin'...
    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous JohnSep 1, 2010 07:13 AM
    What you're talking about requires two simultaneous things: writing a new confession and changing what subscription means. That's a tall order. Subscription in the PCA right now is a matter of coincidence between one's views and the confession. In other words, the degree to which one can subscribe is the degree to which one actually agrees with the confession. Very few people have the idea of subscription-as-act-of-will. But even with a new confession that 99% of presbyters who live right now could subscribe to coincidentally, that won't be the case in 3 months, 3 years, 30 years if subscription continues to be anything but a choice made to subscribe whether or not the confession matches up with one's private views.

    I'm not saying confessions are impossible or bad, just that long or short, minimal or maximal, a confession will always be the touchstone that we react against or in concert with. We're in the PCA because we've decided that the PCA's particular way of dancing around the lines of the westminster confession makes more sense than the other ways. Make a subscribable confession, sure, but just realize that the PCA's culture of subscription will continue to be the way subscription is approached in our body.
    ReplyDelete
  5. I appreciate the effort, and I do hope you’ll continue, if not on the topic of the Church’s continuing need for earnest confessional reflection, consideration, and, yes, advancement in refinement and Biblical adherence, at least on the promotion of unity to the level of impassioned Gethsemane purposefulness our LORD engages and commands. Too often I scrutinise that Presbyterian and Reformed history and continuance is substantively a theology of division contrasted with what is found in Reformed confession and Biblical design.

    I hope it won’t be found an unedifying appraisal to post that I’ve found the Puritan Board and many such venues of supposed ‘Puritan’ or ‘Presbyterian’ or ‘Reformed’ congregation and expression particularly at theological odds with most any notion of unity, peaceable-ness, or even allowance of participation. Even with many follies of supposed ecumenism, I’m quite hard-pressed to view that we may cavalierly claim some Christian mark of being TR (truly Reformed) without a much greater respect for unity than observed to date.

    It certainly bears respectful consideration elevating that in our LORD’s eye unity not only actually matters but is primary, the greatest of these… and that purity doesn’t actually get very far without it; even if it is watered down to the PCA + OPC or CanRef + URC.

    I confess, I left the PCUS in the formation of the PCA. I too, am no model of unity where compromising departure from Scripture truth is concerned, not simply interpretive difference of opinion. But, perhaps if there had been more of an ironclad confessionalism beyond superficial assent to some “system” of ‘ancient and complex creedal archon’, we might at least have found a better rallying cry or reigning rope. Even with some kinder, simpler, yet firm taskmaster of creedal confession, I don’t doubt we’d continue to have filoqueesque arguments, overtures, court actions, and departures; but, again, visible unity is surely worth a better effort than we’ve historically embraced. If our worthy leaders among the Presbyterian and Reformed are up to the task, why not at least formulate some unifying confessional document and overture the highest courts?
    ReplyDelete
  6. JJS:

    Starting where you start, visible unity matters. Immediately, this brings to mind several key terms and questions.

    Here's one: unity of what? Are we talking unity of belief, unity of teaching, or unity of some other sort? As we all recognize, unity of belief and unity of teaching are not necessarily coextensive.

    This leads to another question. Unity of whom? Are we talking unity between individual believers in a community or individual teachers in that community or both? Also, what is the extent of the community: is it unity within a local congregation, or is it unity across congregations, or both? In other words, where is this unity to be found? It's clear we're thinking of a trans-congregational phenomenon, but it seems certain we're talking about a unity of teaching and not merely of belief. Granted that we're talking a unity of teaching, we get to the idea of office and ordination.

    Another question: by what is the unity we have in mind expressed? The terms "confession" and "sacraments" are mentioned above. Both of those terms invite scrutiny. So far, it looks like we're using "confession" to refer to a document composed by one generation and used by subsequent generations as a reference for teaching. If that's the case, it seems inevitable that we must distinguish a unity of what teachers will teach from a unity of what learners believe.

    But it seems to me that "confession" is also more than what is taught or what is believed: it is that according to which Christians include or exclude people from their community: that is, it is that standard according to which Christians engage in formative and corrective discipline. It looks to me that this is where sacraments are connected to confession: inclusion in and exclusion from community are signified by the ministry of sacraments. The linkage between confession and sacraments, then, entails a linkage with formative and corrective discipline. In this matter of discipline too is where we'd see a link to the matter of office.

    My suggestion is that it would help some to define the term "confession" more explicitly in light of these questions and probably others.
    ReplyDelete
  7. First off, I don't think anyone here at the Puritanboard dismissed your idea with a chuckle and the wave of a hand. That is just a another straw man you are presenting. We took you very seriously and I personnally was saddened by your thoughts....

    To read the rest of the response go here.
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/time-new-reformed-confession-62902/index4.html#post811741
    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm with you on this, my friend. Influenced by the same teachers, no doubt, but it resonates with me regardless.

    Martin
    ReplyDelete
  9. Andrew McCallumSep 1, 2010 10:07 AM
    Is it good enough to just have the 400-500,000 self attesting Reformed Presbyterians in the United Stated in sacramental union within one another?

    Sean,

    I think you probably know the answer to this question. Reformed Presbyterians generally perceive that they are already in sacramental union with other evangelicals. As rfwhite points out, this union is tested in the application of the sacraments. In my PCA church we open the table to whoever is a member of a Bible believing evangelical church. I would wager that this is the practice of the congregations of most of those who are reading this blog. Of course we do want more visible unity but that cannot be sacrificed to true confessional unity as is the case in the RCC where everyone from the extreme left to the extreme right are all in "sacramental communion." Reformed denominations go through the sorts of debates that you are reading here because we hold that unity is more than just institutional. Now I know that conceptually you would agree that there should be something more, but the practicality of the matter is that in the RCC those who affirm Christ and those reject Him are all sacramentally unified. But for us, Christian unity must mean something more than answering through the same authority structure.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Tony,

    On the other hand, do we really need to reinvent the wheel? What do you think about the Three Forms of Unity? Do these standards have the same issue of saying too much at times?

    No doubt the 3FU are much less bogged down by detail than the WS, but there are still plenty of issues that have arisen since the seventeenth century that it leaves unaddressed, or at least not directly addressed. But yeah, they are more accomodating and conducive to unity, I think.
    ReplyDelete
  11. John,

    Very few people have the idea of subscription-as-act-of-will. But even with a new confession that 99% of presbyters who live right now could subscribe to coincidentally, that won't be the case in 3 months, 3 years, 30 years if subscription continues to be anything but a choice made to subscribe whether or not the confession matches up with one's private views.

    Yes, I think that would certainly be a challenge, namely, who's to say that six months in to this experiment someone won't decide that even our new confession is too restrictive?

    On the one hand that is just indicative of our human and fallen problem: we all drift away from truth eventually. But I'm not so sure that your "subscription as an act of the will" is a solution. As has been pointed out already, since we Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura, at the end of the day all we can appeal to for why people should stick with our denomination is that it conforms to Scripture as closely as possible, in our estimation. So when someone decides that we're unbiblical, we have no authority over their consciences beyond that which they voluntarily gave, and are now rescinding.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Puritancovenanter's claims that nobody at PB dismissed JS's idea with "a chuckle and a wave of the hand" may be literally true, but is indubitable that the vast majority of respondents at PB do not agree with JS's thesis and link PC supplied makes that quite clear.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Puritan Covenanter,

    First off, I don't think anyone here at the Puritanboard dismissed your idea with a chuckle and the wave of a hand. That is just a another straw man you are presenting. We took you very seriously and I personnally was saddened by your thoughts....

    Well, I guess we disagree, then. I think that the one making the unpopular argument is in a better position than others to judge how receptive his opponents are to it, and I hardly think the PB displayed an open-mindedness about this. There were exceptions, of course, but when people call what I said "laughable" or simply disagree with it while admitting they didn't bother to read the post themselves since the idea is doomed to fail anyway, well, that's what we call a "tough crowd."
    ReplyDelete
  14. Fowler,

    Great questions, and I hope to address them later today. Right now, though, I gotta bounce!
    ReplyDelete
  15. Reverend Stellman,
    I guess we will have to disagree. Just because one makes an unpopular argument and judges by the receptiveness of his argument that it was nonchalantly received doesn't necessarily put him in a better place to judge the situation as you seem to imply. I believe that the discussion was very attentive and discussed seriously. I have read thru the whole thread and your blogs. I believe you were answered very fairly and with respect. I also believe you were understood. I also believe you were given ample opportunity to define your position and that you have been answered in a respectable manner.

    I am just concerned about your blanket statement and believe you unjustly made a blanket statement which is a dangerous thing. It is also something to be cautioned against.

    Thanks for all your hard work Rev. Stellman.

    R. Martin Snyder
    ReplyDelete
  16. John AnonymousSep 1, 2010 12:45 PM
    You wrote "So when someone decides that we're unbiblical, we have no authority over their consciences beyond that which they voluntarily gave, and are now rescinding."

    Well, I think the strict subscriptionists don't agree with that in practice. Their position is not "we inhabit a group of people who happens to believe the Confession 100% and thus we advocate a communion of the like-minded." Their position is that regardless of my private judgment, I am agreeing to subscribe to the confession in my teaching and preaching and that any quibbles I have with the confession are probably my problem and I should be working to conform my private beliefs to my public subscription. Isn't this kind of what R. Scott Clark's confessional absolutism sounds like? Reformed = the confessions. Subscribe or cease to be reformed. Don't like the confession, go through proper channels to change them. If you lose, say "i was wrong" and re-subscribe. Again, the confessions become, in practice, unchangeable in that view, but at least it is clear what unity consists of.

    So I really do think that whether the confession is broad or narrow, the real debate is over the nature of subscription. If subscription is not a choice, as opposed to a rough coincidence, then we will always only have unity insofar as we agree on how to navigate living together when we don't all happen to agree 100%.
    ReplyDelete
  17. It’s perhaps a bit of an aside from a strict confessionalism of this thread’s topic (that is, a confession of what the topic is genuinely), but I suppose it warrants some additional testimony, and may also give pause to our disparate qualifications and perspectives of unity in diversity, that I find both Stellman’s characterization of the related Puritan Board (PB) thread as, “the vast majority of contributors just dismissed the idea with a chuckle and wave of the hand”, and PB staff member PuritanCovenanter’s characterization of , “I don't think anyone here at the PuritanBoard dismissed your idea with a chuckle and the wave of a hand” (bolded at that site, and somewhat more fully given as: “That is just a another straw man you are presenting. We took you very seriously and I personnally was saddened by your thoughts. I think you are treading on seriously dangerous ground.” ), as insufficient. I found that many PB contributors, including PuritanCovenanter, indeed poked at least a little fun at Stellman’s posts (as initially and supportively directed here from there by ken.kang-hui), that a majority indeed dismissed much of Stellman’s thought ‘out of hand’, and that characterizing Stellman’s comments regarding the PB treatment as a “straw man” (or, rather, “another straw man”) is rather emblematic (all images of Christ aside) of a disunity in strictness common at the PB. I also found that many PB contributors, including PuritanCovenanter, indeed took this Stellman blog and his PB comments quite seriously, thoughtfully, and dismissively ( or even sadly), thought not without some good measure of support.

    I think these disparate perspectives are valuable for consideration, especially as regarding a quest for “visible unity”, but serve to illustrate that while no two (or three) of us may agree completely or even sufficiently, there remains an admirable and Christological hope of agreeing to the essential substance of what we’ve said and believe about our conversation. I further think that after some measure of dialog we three and a host of others might well agree on both the tenor and timbre, the essence and subscription of said conversation, across Reformed, Presbyterian, and perhaps even Reformed Baptist confession (though evidently not in PB allowance); and might well define points of essential agreement regarding our confessions of what has been said. Oh, I’m sure we’d maintain some unique and circumspect diversity, but hopefully not to a degree that would continue to divide our visible witness of fellowship across generations regarding this blog post and the PB thread of note.
    ReplyDelete
  18. JJS:

    Won't we discover our "confession" by identifying those beliefs and doctrines for which a church court should impose the sanctions of admonition, suspension, excommunication, and deposition in the event those beliefs or doctrines are ever denied by a member or an officer?
    ReplyDelete
  19. While I do find some dismissiveness in the thread. I do believe it was seriously looked at and the ramifications seriously considered by all.

    Thanks Grit for the more balanced look at the situation. If you noticed I did make a comment on the thread that the LBCF is suscribed to on the PB as Reformed. I would rather just acknowledge it as Confessionally Puritanical.

    BTW, I wouldn't be able to hold office in the Presbyterian Church even though I suscribe to almost all but the paedo baptism issue. I am still a Credo only guy. I have been for 30 years. I render to live and promote the unity of my Church as I did when I was a member of the PCA. And I think that is a good option. As long as I as a member do not cause division and promote the unity of the Church I hope they will receive me. At the same time I am honest about who I am and what I believe. I do not make mere mental assent.

    Let the Ordained men bare the confession and promote it under the care of the Presbyters and GA. They make the vows and are responsible for the maturing of the body they are given charge of. If I am found to be harmful then I should be dispelled.

    BTW, I really appreciated Rev. Winzer's comment.

    "While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.

    The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust."
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/time-new-reformed-confession-62902/index3.html#post811544

    R. Martin Snyder
    ReplyDelete
  20. Pastor Jason,

    I want to question the suggestion (from a comment in the Complexities of Confessionalism thread) that the status of Roman Catholics should be a side issue confessionally. I have had many challenging and helpful discussions with others about the goodness of love and charity towards RCs. Love, respect and kindness are doubtless required in a Reformed believer's attitude towards and dealings with RCs.

    On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that a confessional conviction about the status of RCs should be dropped. We can love RCs without minimizing the seriousness of their errors. Let me suggest two reasons: 1) Idolatry is characteristic of Roman Catholic doctrine and worship (e.g. the Mass, prayers for the dead, prayers to saints, Justification by grace+works, etc.); 2) Dropping a conscientious protest against RC doctrine and practice opens up a serious dilemma surrounding our separation as protestants from the Roman Catholic Church. If adherence to Rome isn't spiritually dangerous, than it seems that the Reformation was in some a way an over-reaction or even a great sin.
    ReplyDelete
  21. Two thoughts:

    1) http://www.davidbahnsen.com/index.php/2010/08/24/roman-catholics-the-heirs-of-the-reformation/

    2) Have you read Frame's book about unity? It has a cool proposal called something like "The Nicea Proposal" and Dr. Frame says he wouldn't do it. There's a sense in which he helped me make the decision to leave Protestantism, because I took unity so seriously that his proposal made sense.
    ReplyDelete
  22. John,

    ... regardless of my private judgment, I am agreeing to subscribe to the confession in my teaching and preaching and that any quibbles I have with the confession are probably my problem and I should be working to conform my private beliefs to my public subscription.

    I take the same approach to the WCF: "These are my lenses, and if I see a discrepancy between Scripture and the Standards, I will try my hardest to bring my interpretation into conformity with the doctrines that I have vowed to uphold."

    On the other hand, though, the reason it's the Reformed confessions that I adhere to and not the Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran ones, is that the former most conform to what I think anyway. In other words, the WCF can make no initial claim upon me, as if it's purportedly carrying divine sanction. Rather, it is the one that seems most biblical to me.

    My point is that, in the absense of any claim to divine authority, the Reformed confessions should get the benefit of the doubt up to a point. But sometimes we think and act as if we believe about our Standards what the Catholics believe about theirs.
    ReplyDelete
  23. I share some of Pastor Stellman's concerns, and agree that we need a new confession, from where I sit in the PCA, it seems our loose subscription policy isn't working, for example some seem to think a confusion on Justification by Faith alone can be an exception... However I concurr with Pastor White's comment (on the previous post), when we look more closely at the WCF we may find that the Divines had good reason for writing what they did (I subscribed to the WCF as an officer in the PCA because I believed it was a faithful exposition of scripture). I think we need a new confession as Reformed churches for some of the same reasons the WCF and the Three Forms (and a host of other reformed confessions) were originally written, ie, to deal with the errors of our time, such as,for example, possibly the one that Pastor Stellman (and Pastor White, also) have been fighting. Also, having a little background in Presbyterian Tradition, the Dutch Reformed Tradition, and the German Reformed tradition, my pessimistic human nature fears that cultural differences may be too much of a stumbling block...
    ReplyDelete
  24. Some here are acting as if, "in the space of six days" in the Standards commits one to holding a 6/24 view, and therefore some argue this means we must keep it, others that we must get rid of it. There's been a lot of work done on how that's not what it means. Read this from the WTS faculty http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html
    ReplyDelete
  25. Fowler,

    Won't we discover our "confession" by identifying those beliefs and doctrines for which a church court should impose the sanctions of admonition, suspension, excommunication, and deposition in the event those beliefs or doctrines are ever denied by a member or an officer?

    Well, you'd think so, right? But as long as we have an incredibly detailed confession that we allow our ministers to pick and choose from, then the answer is "no." As it is, we have a confession within a confession, which is why we scratch our heads over whether a candidate's exceptions are damaging to the system or not. My point is that the confession shouldn't be bigger than the system of doctrine, but equal to it.
    ReplyDelete
  26. BFW,

    I remain unconvinced that a confessional conviction about the status of RCs should be dropped.

    OK, but if someone came to you and asked if their Aunt Mildred, who was a Catholic until she died ten minutes ago, is in heaven or hell, would you be fine with saying she's in hell (setting aside the need for sensitivity and all)? My point is that I don't think we should enshrine as confessional dogma the state of anyone's souls.

    If someone's not trusting in Jesus, they're in trouble. But as Zrim asked, are we willing to say of evangelicals what we say of Catholics? They can be just as idolatrous and man-centered, can't they? Can't you or I?

    Plus, if we're going to insist that Catholics or FV'ers or whoever else are maintaining damnable heresies, then we need to be willing to send a lot more people to hell than just them. I mean, FV'ers are Lutherans on baptism, and Catholics are pretty Augustinian when it comes to soteriology. I'm not sure that's a bullet I'm willing to bite.
    ReplyDelete
  27. Contrarian,

    What's the "Nicaea Proposal"? Break it down, son.
    ReplyDelete
  28. contrarian 78,

    What is your point with the D. Bahnsen article? Most of the article is about bashing and belittling WTS (a popular but tasteless sport), calling Dr. Trueman stupid (albeit in a cowardly fashion) and promoting Transformationalism or some form of Neo-Kuyperian utopianism. It is debatable at best whether the latter two ideologies (and related ones) are the great legacy of the Reformation as opposed to, for instance, the soteriological insights of the Reformers.
    ReplyDelete
  29. JJS:

    I'm tracking with your point, which, I take it, is summarized in your concern about the PCA's "confession within a confession." My point was the same, only from the angle of corrective discipline for members and officers. Reworded, my point is simply that, if we want to know what a church's confession is, we should ask, What are the issues over which that church's courts impose sanctions on officers and members?

    If I'm following you, your concern goes farther, however: you want us to acknowledge that the "confession within a confession" state of affairs is a problem and to join you in ending it by drafting a new confession. More precisely, your proposed remedy to the problem is this: "What is needed is the ability to avoid the task of divining the ever-elusive “system of doctrine,” the confession-within-the-confession, the bits and pieces of our doctrinal standards that really matter."

    Here is what I have trouble seeing: presuming that the task of examining a man to discern his system of doctrine is the church's duty, why would a new confession provide us the ability to avoid the task you describe?
    ReplyDelete
  30. Fowler,

    Reworded, my point is simply that, if we want to know what a church's confession is, we should ask, What are the issues over which that church's courts impose sanctions on officers and members?

    I agree.

    Here is what I have trouble seeing: presuming that the task of examining a man to discern his system of doctrine is the church's duty, why would a new confession provide us the ability to avoid the task you describe?

    I was once talking with Bob Godfrey about choosing elders in the Dutch tradition, and he remarked, "Well, on one hand it's much easier since every man in the church is doctrinally qualified by virtue of his being a member." In other words, since in the URC a man must subscribe the 3FU in order to join, there's no sifting process needed if he is nominated for office.

    The same would be the case here. If our confession were sufficiently concise (saying less) that we could insist on strict subscription to it (saying it louder), then it would help us function better because whatever "exception" a person had would itself identify the church's need to admonish him.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think it was the intent of the Westminster Divines for their work to still be in use 350 later. Didn't Owen expect new confession to be always being drafted?
    ReplyDelete
  31. Jason Stellman,

    If I may, as regards the "something like 'The Nicea Proposal'", Frame has an online series of articles (a book, really) @ reformedperspectives.org and IIIM Magazine Online. It can be linked from monergism.com. In Evangelical Reunion Part 2: Some Roads back to Unity, Chapter 8: Dealing with Doctrinal Differences, under the section on Back to the Future?, he says:
    "In an earlier draft of this book, I suggested what I called my "back to the future" proposal, which would involve uniting all Christians under one church government doctrinally based on the Scriptures and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381. That creed was the last creed that was agreed to by the one, true church and which is acknowledged by virtually all Christians to this day. That would, in effect, take us back before A.D. 451, before the major schisms. Then we could study Scripture together, hopefully without the atmosphere of party spirit, pressure and fear that has surrounded such discussions in the past.

    The assumption of the proposal is that since God has been teaching different denominations at different rates each group should be willing to wait, in effect, for the others to catch up. Presbyterians should seek to teach their view of predestination to the whole church, so that the whole church could pass judgment on it, before that doctrine is given creedal status.

    This proposal, I think, would not be disastrous for the church. As I indicated earlier, the church existed for 300 years before agreeing on a definitive formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Similarly, it took 450 years for Christology, 1500 years for an adequate formulation of justification by faith, and still longer for an adequate doctrine of predestination. Yet, during these waiting periods, churches were being planted, souls saved, believers taught, the poor cared for. People can, after all, come to salvation with very little if any intellectual grasp of theology...

    However, even in the previous draft I had to admit that this proposal is not a very practical one. The chances of our agreeing to accept it are very slight indeed. And if we did accept it, we would still have a lot of growing to do before we could listen to one another without the antagonisms of our denominational past. I merely mention it to indicate some of the issues that would have to be considered if reunion were our goal.

    And, to be honest, I must say that I really do not want, even in principle, to endorse the proposal. I really do not want to be part of a church which is unwilling to subscribe to the New Testament doctrines of justification and predestination. In this modern period, attempts to preach the gospel without acknowledging those scriptural truths are confusing. We can do much better than that, for God has taught some of us how. I would not want to be in a church where, for even a while, ministers were free to disagree with these teachings. These truths are too precious to be lost in an ecumenical shuffle. Their loss would not be a disaster, as I said earlier, but it would be crippling in the present context. Perhaps I am here admitting that I am not as ecumenical as I claim to be. If so, may God teach me a better way. But I am sure that reunion worthy of the name will not appear on a basis of doctrinal indifference, but on a basis of greater doctrinal insight, granted by God to the whole church."
    ReplyDelete
  32. As to Frame’s work (whose spirit I love, while perhaps taking issue with too much of his doctrine), we also find that many of those leaving a curious taste in the mouth of present and just Presbyterian and Reformed concerns, like Auburn Ave., N.T. Wright, Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, and others, have tended to reference an ecumenical fervour similar to that of Frame. In fact, as we all know, ecumenicity has often been the rallying cry of doctrinal departures from more classical Reformation orthodoxy; but Calvin, our doctrinal forefather, pressed ever so hard for unity among the Reformers. It is not some strange or perverse corruption, not that any would so say, though our visible practice is seen otherwise by many inside or outside the Church. There is no mistaking that your championing of the words, the commands, of our LORD and Master is as much a doctrinal, confessional, orthodox pure sacrament of mandated oath as any other alternately claimed for separation in some hoped-for preservation of peaceful purity. It is frankly painful to agonising that so many of our otherwise most orthodox and doctrinally concerned brethren so easily, commonly, and historically falter on that most elemental of Christ’s commands descriptive of very God - God is love. As noted in the OP:

    “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21).
    ReplyDelete
  33. JJS:

    If our confession were sufficiently concise (saying less) that we could insist on strict subscription to it (saying it louder), then it would help us function better because whatever "exception" a person had would itself identify the church's need to admonish him.

    To be sure, you're confirming what you said in your lead post: the new confession you propose is a more concise confession.

    Granting that the length of a confession is a function of its content, what would the content of the new confession purport to be? For example, would the confession bear witness to the system of doctrine taught in Scripture?
    ReplyDelete
  34. Pastor Stellman,

    Am I hearing you correctly that you would like this confession to be binding on all members as well (not just church officers)? It seems that you are suggesting that via the anecdote from Dr. Godfrey. That seems to me that it would either require (1)an extremely minimal confession, or (2) a whole different discussion about whether church members should be required to affirm the same as officers, as in the Dutch tradition. Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  35. in response to what puritancovenanter said,

    “As long as I as a member do not cause division and promote the unity of the Church I hope they will receive me.”

    Most valued and beloved baptizer, I wasn’t sure if you meant this as referencing the PCA or the PB (Puritan Board). I’ve perhaps already distracted enough from the “Saying Less More Loudly” aspect of the thread, and honestly, the PB hasn’t been very receptive of me or me of them, but I just wanted to make some minor notice that may certainly be flawed and justly thought unkind, though I here mean no disrespect. The PB admirably has a forum on the Confession of faith; it has major listings on Scriptures, theology, the Church, the Christian walk, apologetics, education, and general fare; it supports discussion on philosophy, on spiritual welfare, on Church history and Church order, on worship and preaching and missions; it has forums reserved for baptism, the doctrines of grace, Covenant Theology, and even two distinct ones for debate and controversial topics; but pray tell, I’m hard-pressed to find, where is there a major heading, a forum, or even a sub-forum on Church unity, ecumenism, peace, or Christian love? I couldn’t find one, and I find that very telling and troubling. I know, I’m being unfair, there isn’t one specifically on purity either, or a number of other topics folded into other categories as a site preference, and certainly you’re not the spokesman for the PB, but I simply find it odd and out of character that unity not only seems a neglected Reformed or ‘Puritan’ practice, but almost a boogeyman, a dirty word, or, in fairness, a “pie in the sky by and by” dream of distant ethereal sugar plums, and not the daily work, the very mark of the Church by which Jesus says men will know Him.
    ReplyDelete
  36. Wayne SparkmanSep 2, 2010 04:40 PM
    "I’m hard-pressed to find, where is there a major heading, a forum, or even a sub-forum on Church unity, ecumenism, peace, or Christian love?"

    We don't need one, because peace and love pervade all our threads. [big grin]
    ReplyDelete
  37. Grit,

    That's interesting, I had never heard of Frame's proposal before. I admit, my thoughts have only focused on the unity of the Reformed churches--broader unity is so seemingly impossible that it is staggering to even think about.

    One problem I see with Frame's proposal is that it leaves open the whole question of who gets to enforce the rules or determine who gets a seat at the table. I mean, what if a certain group never "catches up" and admits that Jesus had a divine and human nature? Would they be considered heretical? Or what if the majority never caught up to the Reformed on some issue, would it be us or them who's outside the pale? And who gets to decide?
    ReplyDelete
  38. Fowler,

    Granting that the length of a confession is a function of its content, what would the content of the new confession purport to be? For example, would the confession bear witness to the system of doctrine taught in Scripture?

    I think that to avoid our present confusion, the new confession would purport to BE the SODTIS, not simply bear witness to it. Part of our problem now is that we allow exceptions that don't strike at the vitals of our SOD, leaving our presbyteries with the task of distinguishing the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
    ReplyDelete
  39. Joel,

    Am I hearing you correctly that you would like this confession to be binding on all members as well (not just church officers)? It seems that you are suggesting that via the anecdote from Dr. Godfrey. That seems to me that it would either require (1)an extremely minimal confession, or (2) a whole different discussion about whether church members should be required to affirm the same as officers, as in the Dutch tradition. Thanks.

    Not necessarily. The point of the Godfrey example was just to show how strict subscription makes things easier, that's all.

    Because I am only talking about Reformed unity, I am not advocating a confession that reflects "mere Christianity." In other words, non-Reformed people can still be true believers. So I don't think that such people should be kept out of our churches, though we should do everything in our power to instruct them before they join. Does that answer your question?
    ReplyDelete
  40. That definitely answers my question. Given the nature of your posts, I didn't think that was your suggestion, just wanted to make sure. Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  41. JJS:

    I think I'm understanding your proposal better. Let me keep trying.

    You say, the new confession would purport to BE the SODTIS, not simply bear witness to it. Ok, yes. What I meant was that the confession's content would "bear witness" to the SODTIS because that content is the SODTIS.

    You also say, Part of our problem now is that we allow exceptions that don't strike at the vitals of our SOD, leaving our presbyteries with the task of distinguishing the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Let me pull on this thread.

    Do you envision, then, that this proposed confession will eliminate the need for a presbytery, in examining a candidate for ordination, to require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the confession in any of its statements and/or propositions? Or would it be your position that all such differences are de facto exceptions?
    ReplyDelete
  42. JJS:

    Allow me to relate my last question above to your interaction with Joel.

    You state, strict subscription makes things easier. Is it correct to say, then, that subscription to the new confession would require a candidate for ordination to have no differences with that confession in any of its statements and/or propositions?
    ReplyDelete
  43. I seriously wonder why we would think that changing our Confessional standards to make them more acceptable to matters currently considered "outside the pale" (as Rev. Rayburn seems to do) would make unity more likely when it is already obvious that denominations *with the exact same Confessional Standards* cannot find unity.

    Why not start with unity in the PCA/OPC? Various denominations with the Three Forms of Unity? Why begin by straining at gnats (e.g. language about lots) and whining about a "broader Reformed consensus" before doing the basic work of getting Confessional bodies *that already agree* to unite? Or if that is too much to ask - how about just work together instead of at odds?
    ReplyDelete
  44. Fred:

    For me, your comments expose the reality that there is a need to define more fully the visible unity that is lacking and that is desired.

    As I understand Jason's lead post, he set the trajectory by relating visible unity to consistency in the ministry of sacrament (baptism) and then relating visible unity to consistency in the ministry of the word.

    As I see it, we're circling around these questions: what is necessary and sufficient for us to conclude that visible unity does or does not exist? Does visible unity exist where cooperation does not? That is, on what does the visible unity that is lacking and that is desired depend?
    ReplyDelete
  45. Fowler,

    Do you envision, then, that this proposed confession will eliminate the need for a presbytery, in examining a candidate for ordination, to require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the confession in any of its statements and/or propositions? Or would it be your position that all such differences are de facto exceptions?

    That's a good question, and I think the answer is no, not necessarily. If a person can fully affirm the doctrine being taught while taking issue with the wording of it, that in my mind is different than what we do now, which is allowing someone to disagree with the doctrine being taught, and not justthe semantics of it. So no, my proposal doesn't eliminate the need for a presbytery exam, but it does eliminate the need for a presbytery to determine whether a person's disagreements with the teaching of the confession strikes at the vitals of the system or not. Those kinds of disagreements are not allowed, while differences of semantics may be.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Fred,

    Why not start with unity in the PCA/OPC? Various denominations with the Three Forms of Unity? Why begin by straining at gnats (e.g. language about lots) and whining about a "broader Reformed consensus" before doing the basic work of getting Confessional bodies *that already agree* to unite? Or if that is too much to ask - how about just work together instead of at odds?

    I am not convinced you have read my two posts very carefully (if you'll forgive my saying so). The bit about casting lots was Rayburn's way of demonstrating that many of our ministers are surprised that that's even in there, which only goes to show how little attention we pay to our standards. I think I made that pretty clear.

    As far as my "whining about a broader Reformed consensus," my question to you is whether you confess the Nicene Creed or not. I made some arguments about unity in this post that I plainly say are necessary to agree with before anything else I say will matter. You clearly haven't read those statements. If you had, you would argue against my undersdtanding of unity rather than accuse me of "whining" about it, which is just dismissive and unhelpful.
    ReplyDelete
  47. Fowler/Fred,

    As I see it, we're circling around these questions: what is necessary and sufficient for us to conclude that visible unity does or does not exist? Does visible unity exist where cooperation does not? That is, on what does the visible unity that is lacking and that is desired depend?

    That's a great way to put it. Why don't we draw a comparison/contrast between THE visible church, and A visible church (as in, a local congregation)?

    Is "First Presbyterian Church of Mayberry" one church? Yes. OK, what if half the members are fighting against the other half, is it still one church? I would say yes, it is. But if one half of First Pres splits off and forms "Second Presbyterian Church of Mayberry" with its own session and pastor, are those two churches one church? No, not anymore.

    Hence (if this analogy is fair), the OPC and the PCA are two churches, not one. And this gives rise to the question, "Where is this so-called 'visible church' we claim to believe in?"
    ReplyDelete
  48. To clarify the above example, I don't mean that the OPC and PCA split from each other (the analogy shouldn't be pressed too far). All I mean to say is that what makes a local church a local church is its having its own leadership. Hence the PCA is a church which is distinct from the OPC.
    ReplyDelete
  49. Jason,

    I should have been more clear. When I referenced "whining about the broader Reformed consensus," I specifically had in mind Rev. Rayburn, not you. The great irony is that if Rev. Rayburn had his way, you should never even have brought up the issue of TE Leithart, since he is (supposedly) "within the broader Reformed consensus."

    I did read your posts, and that is why I brought up the OPC/PCA analogy. If I may, as a more experienced minister (by age, and by ecclesiastical politics), I believe you are being "played" by folks who have an agenda very different from your own. If this were about unity first and changing doctrine second, the men who are encouraging you to think about this issue would be attending OPC meetings as observers and working for organic union in the two nearly identical denominations. The PCA and OPC have identical Standards, virtually identical BCOs, etc. All that separates us is "emphasis" or "culture." But what I see is men (not you) who fail to start at an obvious starting point, and who instead agitate for a change in Confession, which just (oh so coincidentally) would make their aberrant views suddenly Confessional. Viola!
    ReplyDelete
  50. Fred,

    I appreciate your input as an elder brother and minister. However, I have been of the position that the Reformed churches need a new confession since long before I was embroiled in any controversy with the FV. Plus, if a new confession were to remain faithful to historical Reformed theology, it would exclude FV'ists anyway. So if I am being "played" as you put it, I fail to see how what I'm avocating would in any way help my puppetmasters.

    In fact, wouldn't it be more damaging to the FV if the entire Reformed world came together under a single confession, and then excluded them?
    ReplyDelete
  51. JJS,

    Here is something I came across (interestingly in light of our previous discussion) while reading about the Second Commandment. I thought you and some of the others following the blog might appreciate it.

    From Jochem Douma (The Ten Commandments: Manual For The Christian Life, tr. Nelson Kloosterman, note on p. 68): "Is it a sign of the church's strength that she does not formulate a contemporary confession, especially with a view to the church's teaching ministry? A centuries-old confessional document can echo Scripture and still be so dated in its subject matter and formulations that if we were to start over and write it afresh, we might arrange and formulate things differently." Douma proceeds to quote Klass Schilder, "Every confession is capable of being revised. Of course, not every three years. It is a sign of impotence that we are still unable to do that. We have clung too much to traditions and had too little opportunity for study."
    ReplyDelete
  52. JJS,

    OK, but if someone came to you and asked if their Aunt Mildred, who was a Catholic until she died ten minutes ago, is in heaven or hell, would you be fine with saying she's in hell (setting aside the need for sensitivity and all)?

    No, I would not be fine with it. I am puzzled with how you invented a hypothetical situation that explicitly dispenses with the need for sensitivity when I made a point of saying, "Love, respect and kindness are doubtless required in a Reformed believer's attitude towards and dealings with RCs." I also think it is better to not form firm opinions about whether any particular person is in hell since that is God's business. All we can say is what you said, "If someone's not trusting in Jesus, they're in trouble." But we can say make general statements that people who are unrepentant, live in sin without remorse, lean on false gods and false teachers, rest on their own doctrinal rightness or moral righteousness, profane God's worship, etc. are in danger of eternal damnation.

    That's not the only thing wrong with the Aunt Mildred story. It is an appeal to pity and therefore a weak argument if you intend for it demonstrate the impropriety of the Westminster Confession calling RCs idolaters. You conclude that we shouldn't have confessional dogma about the state of anyone's soul. Westminster simply states that RCs are idolaters and you think that means that we are confessionally binding ourselves to the proposition that they're all going to burn without exception (or did I misread you?). I disagree. I think Westminster is simply laying out the serious danger of idolatry, and particularly in 24.3, pointing out the dangers and troubles of a Reformed believer wedding herself to one whose doctrine and practice is characterized by idolatrous worship. I think Westminster is trying to go deep with the Ten Commandments and tell it like it is. But in telling it like it is I really don't think the Confession is passing eternal judgment on any one person. It is making a Biblical judgment that their is a sin of idolatry and giving an example of what it looks like.

    So you ask about evangelicals. I guess it depends on what evangelicals we're talking about. That's a broad category. I'll just say that if the idolatry charge sticks biblically, then whoever it is, whether me, you or an evangelical, we will need to repent straight away.

    Plus, if we're going to insist that Catholics or FV'ers or whoever else are maintaining damnable heresies, then we need to be will to send a lot more people to hell than just them.

    Your sentence above implies a false dilemma. Either we avoid the issue by leaving it out of the confession or we send all these people we deem heretics to the eternal flames and (slippery slope) find ourselves damning even more people we ever imagined. Consider this alternative: We acknowledge the reality of damnable heresies like Westminster already does and leave the sending of people to hell to the Judge of all the earth Who will do right.

    I mean, FV'ers are Lutherans on baptism, and Catholics are pretty Augustinian when it comes to soteriology. I'm not sure that's a bullet I'm willing to bite.

    I am not sure I follow you on the Lutherans, FVer, Augustinian Catholics bit. Do you mean that we have to condemn the Lutherans because their view of baptism is embraced by FVers, whom we already condemn?
    ReplyDelete
  53. JJS,

    OK, but if someone came to you and asked if their Aunt Mildred, who was a Catholic until she died ten minutes ago, is in heaven or hell, would you be fine with saying she's in hell (setting aside the need for sensitivity and all)?

    No, I would not be fine with it. I am puzzled that you invented a hypothetical situation that explicitly dispenses with the need for sensitivity when I made a point of saying, "Love, respect and kindness are doubtless required in a Reformed believer's attitude towards and dealings with RCs." I also think it is better to not form firm opinions about whether any particular person is in hell since that is God's business. All we can say is what you said, "If someone's not trusting in Jesus, they're in trouble." But we can say make general statments that people who are unrepentant, live in sin without remorse, lean on false gods and false teachers, rest on their own doctrinal rightness or moral righteousness, profane God's worship, etc. are in danger of eternal damnation.

    That's not the only thing wrong with the Aunt Mildred story. It is an appeal to pity and therefore a weak argument if you intend for it demonstrate the impropriety of the Westminster Confession calling RCs idolaters. You conclude that we shouldn't have confessional dogma about the state of anyone's soul. Westminster simply states that RCs are idolaters and you think that means that we are confessionally binding ourselves to the proposition that they're all going to burn without exception (or did I misread you?). I disagree. I think Westminster is simply laying out the serious danger of idolatry, and particularly in 24.3, pointing out the dangers and troubles of a Reformed believer wedding herself to one whose doctrine and practice is characterized by idolatrous worship. I think Westminster is trying to go deep with the Ten Commandments and tell it like it is. But in telling it like it is I really don't think the Confession is passing eternal judgment on any one person. It is making a Biblical judgment that their is a sin of idolatry and giving an example of what it looks like.

    So you ask about evangelicals. I guess it depends on what evangelicals we're talking about. That's a broad category. I'll just say that if the idolatry charge sticks Biblically, then whoever it is, whether me, you or an evangelical, we will need to repent straight away.

    Plus, if we're going to insist that Catholics or FV'ers or whoever else are maintaining damnable heresies, then we need to be will to send a lot more people to hell than just them.

    Your sentence above implies a false dilemma. Either we avoid the issue by leaving it out of the confession or we send all these people we deem heretics to the eternal flames and (slippery slope) find ourselves damning even more people we ever imagined. Consider this alternative: We acknowledge the reality of damnable heresies like Westminster already does and leave the sending of people to hell to the Judge of all the earth Who will do right.
    ReplyDelete
  54. Sorry about the repeat. Please remove the last one.
    ReplyDelete
  55. Pastor S. The book is called Evangelical Reunion. Frame entertains the idea of forming a church based solely on the Nicean Creed for unity's sake. He sort of says a "just kidding" and doesn't propose it as it would abandon any good doctrinal development post 325.
    ReplyDelete
  56. JJS:

    You say, Why don't we draw a comparison/contrast between THE visible church, and A visible church (as in, a local congregation)? ... And this gives rise to the question, "Where is this so-called 'visible church' we claim to believe in?"

    Fair questions. Did the NT church enjoy the visible unity you have in mind? In what did it consist?

    For example, the apostle Paul reports in Phil 1.15ff, "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. ... The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." Is this in or out of accord with the visible unity we're talking about?
    ReplyDelete
  57. BFW,

    To boil down my point about the RCs, I would say that singling them out as idolaters or as uniquely semi-Pelagian only demonstrates how dated our confession is. Broad evangelicalism is a much greater threat to Reformed churches that Catholic ones are.

    And my point in bringing up the Lutherans and FV'ers was to say that we either need to pick on everyone we disagree with or not pick on anyone at all. Evangelicals are idolaters, Lutherans reject perseverence of the saints, and Augustinians are baptismal regenerationists.
    ReplyDelete
  58. Fowler,

    Did the NT church enjoy the visible unity you have in mind? In what did it consist?

    Well, Paul said there is one body, one faith, and one baptism, and he roots this unity in the unity of the Godhead, so I'd say yes, the NT church was united.

    This unity consisted (in part at least) in the ministry of the apostles, of whom Jesus said, "As the Father sent me, so I send you."

    For example, the apostle Paul reports in Phil 1.15ff, "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. ... The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." Is this in or out of accord with the visible unity we're talking about?

    If strife and discord could destroy the NT church's unity, then the NT church would not have been one. But since it was one, then its unity is not bound up with everyone getting along. As I mentioned above, a single local congregation is still one church when half its members are fighting with the rest, since they're all sharing the sacraments administered by the same pastor and elders.

    This is not to say that a loving, humble, and cordial spirit is unnecessary. In fact, Paul seems to argue for these things, not so as to create unity, but because a deeper unity already exists ("Since you're one, be nice to one another" and NOT "Be nice to one another so you can be one").

    So returning to my analogy between A visible church and THE visible church, my question has yet to be answered: Are not the OPC and PCA two churches? If so, how does that square with Paul's statement that "there is one body"?
    ReplyDelete
  59. JJS -
    Are the OPC and the PCA "two churches" by virtue of what we might call "localized differences," while yet being "one body" (= "one church") by virtue of their apostolic confession?

    It's my understanding that the differences between these two denoms is at the level of polity, not doctrine.
    ReplyDelete
  60. JJS:

    You said, [My] question has yet to be answered: Are not the OPC and PCA two churches? If so, how does that square with Paul's statement that "there is one body"?

    Part of the reason for this is that we're still haven't identified the traits that count as visible unity.

    In your comments on Phil 1, you stated, its unity is not bound up with everyone getting along. Ok, then, do you mean to say that cooperation is not a trait of visible unity?

    In Eph 4.1-6, the apostle appeals to the church to maintain the unity already created by the one Spirit (vv 1-3), an appeal based in seven unifying confessional acclamations (vv 4-6). In Eph 4.7-16, he shows how the diverse gifts bestowed on the church enable her members to attain to the unity of Christian faith and knowledge. From the unifying elements of her immaturity (vv 4 6), through the “speaking the truth in love” of her maturation (v 15), to the unity of Christian faith and knowledge in her maturity (v 13), unity is at the heart of the church’s identity. The context of Eph 4 speaks of a unity of the church's childhood (vv 4-6, 14) and a unity of her adulthood (vv 13, 15 16). There is a unity that the church already has; there is a unity that the church has to maintain and to attain.

    Your question can't be answered until you tell us what you count as visible unity. In your lead post, you related visible unity to the ministry of sacrament (baptism) and then related it to the ministry of the word. Do the PCA and OPC have visible unity on the terms you set out?
    ReplyDelete
  61. Paige,

    Are the OPC and the PCA "two churches" by virtue of what we might call "localized differences," while yet being "one body" (= "one church") by virtue of their apostolic confession?

    It's my understanding that the differences between these two denoms is at the level of polity, not doctrine.

    Well, doesn't there need to be some kind of polity in order to have a church in the first place?

    Think of it this way: Let's say you have a city with 1000 baptized professing believers in it, but no organized structure where worship happens. Now by virtue of the fact that you have 1000 baptized people there, is the visible church existing in that city? I would say "No, in order to have a visible church, there needs to be some kind of ordained leadership slash polity."

    And I've already given my other scenario, the one in which First Pres Mayberry and Second Pres Mayberry are (correctly) considered two distinct visible churches because they each have two distinct sets of ordained leaders.

    I bring up these scenarios to say that I think the OPC and PCA are two distinct churches by very definition, regardless of whether they agree on a whole bunch of stuff. We're not gnostics. It takes more to constitute a church than doctrinal affinity and goodwill and cooperation. Otherwise, Ligonier would be a church, as would White Horse Media.

    So going back to my previous question, it seems like our two options are (1) deny that Jesus intends our unity to be visible, or (2) insist that the OPC and the PCA are one church. Otherwise, aren't we just admitting that we are patently ignoring the need for the church's unity?
    ReplyDelete
  62. Fowler,

    Your question can't be answered until you tell us what you count as visible unity. In your lead post, you related visible unity to the ministry of sacrament (baptism) and then related it to the ministry of the word. Do the PCA and OPC have visible unity on the terms you set out?

    It might help if I distinguish between what's necessary for unity, and what's sufficient for it (because I think I may be focusing on one, and you on the other).

    It is not my intention here to outline all the factors that, when combined, make up the sufficient conditions for church unity (nor does my argument doesn't depend on this). Rather, when it comes to my OPC/PCA example, I am simply highlighting some conditions that while not by themselves sufficient, are nonetheless necessary for biblical church unity to exist.

    One of these necessary conditions is, in my mind, a single unified leadership. In the same way that you need a session to constitute a single local church, in the same way that two PCAs in the same presbytery, though in some sense autonomous, are in another sense connected (while my PCA and the local OPC are not), so in that sense one of the necessary conditions for true ecclesiastical unity is their having a unified leadership.

    In other words, as with A visible church, so with THE visible church: It's not a visible church until it has an ordained group of leaders over it. Unless we want to say that we believe in an invisible church and visibles churches (which is not what we confess), I don't see any way around this problem.
    ReplyDelete
  63. The real difference between the OPC and PCA can be narrowed down to style;

    PCA ministers were dark rimmed glasses and old man sweaters to be cool.

    OPC ministers were dark rimmed glasses, old man sweaters because that is what they have been wearing since the 40 and 50s, and it happens to still be in their closet.

    PCA ministers wear lots of cotton usually in the form of khaki pants, light blue button ups (with phone on hip)

    OPC ministers wear lots of polyester, and often dont have a phone on hip (almost as often, they dont have their original hip).

    There are likely others things that keep us apart, but I think this gets to the heart of it.
    ReplyDelete
  64. JJS -
    ...it seems like our two options are (1) deny that Jesus intends our unity to be visible, or (2) insist that the OPC and the PCA are one church.

    Or maybe we could just be trinitarian about it and recognize that Christ's church exhibits unity in diversity, and diversity in unity. Polity is often a matter of collective wisdom, rather than direct revelation, and it comes out differently in different settings. But apostolic teaching & the sacraments are nonnegotiables.

    (And Ligonier and WHI aren't claiming to be churches to begin with -- there's no "C" in their monograms -- so they are not even in the running.)
    ReplyDelete
  65. But Paige, the Trinity has a principle of unity: the Father, who himself constitutes the unity of the Godhead. If the visible church is supposed to be Trinitarian, where is its visible leader to make it one?

    Can we apply your logic about the visible CHURCH to visible CHURCHES? Why can't we say, "Well, the 1000 baptized strangers in Springfield are the visible church, even though there's no principle of unity holding them all together"?

    In other words, that doesn't sound like "unity in diversity," it sounds like diversity.
    ReplyDelete
  66. JJS:

    You said, [One] of the necessary conditions for true ecclesiastical unity is their having a unified leadership. In what does the unity of the leadership consist? Is it their ministry of sacrament? of word (confession)? cooperation? etc.
    ReplyDelete
  67. In what does the unity of the leadership consist? Is it their ministry of sacrament? of word (confession)? cooperation? etc.

    Well, if we think of a particular visible congregation, we would say that a duly ordained leadership is what constitutes the church, thus making the difference between a group of disconnected individuals and an ekklesia. That duly ordained leadership will then minister Word and sacrament to that congregation.

    So my point is that if two congregations have completely distinct sets of leaders, then how can their unity be said to be visible? Sure, all the congregations within a single denomination can be said to be visibly united, but all that accomplishes is the unification of a single denomination. But if Jesus meant something more than that when he spoke of our being "one, so that the world will know that the Father sent the Son," and if Paul meant something more when he talked about there being "one body," then we need to reckon with these passages more than we seem to be doing.

    In other words, it's not enough to take all the visible unity passages and think we fulfill them by applying them to our denomination, unless we're willing to say that our denomination IS the visible church.
    ReplyDelete
  68. JJS:

    You said above: So my point is that if two congregations have completely distinct sets of leaders, then how can their unity be said to be visible? ... In other words, it's not enough to take all the visible unity passages and think we fulfill them by applying them to our denomination, unless we're willing to say that our denomination IS the visible church.

    So, still seeking to understand you, are you saying this: if two sets of leaders remain distinct (separate) even though they are engaged in the same ministries of sacrament and word, there is no visible unity between those leaders?
    ReplyDelete
  69. Fowler,

    If I'm understanding you, you're asking whether I, as a minister of Word and sacrament in the PCA, share visible unity with a United Methodist pastor in my town who also has the same job as me. If that's the question, my answer is no, we do not have visible unity (even though she and I could probably grab ales and share some similar stories).

    Let me ask you a question: Why do you think that, in the NT, every time a new work of the Spirit broke out somewhere (such as in Samaria) the Jerusalem church would send some apostles to the scene in order to officially validate the work? If it was not for the very reason I am arguing (namely, that there needs to be visible unity among congregations, and that requires a unity of leadership), then for what reason was it?
    ReplyDelete
  70. JJS:

    You said above: If I'm understanding you, you're asking whether I, as a minister of Word and sacrament in the PCA, share visible unity with a United Methodist pastor in my town who also has the same job as me. If that's the question, my answer is no, we do not have visible unity (even though she and I could probably grab ales and share some similar stories).

    I would agree with you. The issue, as I see it, turns on our answer to the question, why do we say No? What is your answer to this question? My answer is, you and he do not have the same ministry of the word (confession). Without consensus on the ministry of the word, you and he would not and could not have the same ministry of sacraments. Alternatively and perhaps better stated, you and he would have the same ministry of sacraments only to the extent that you have the same ministry of the word.

    You also asked above: Let me ask you a question: Why do you think that, in the NT, every time a new work of the Spirit broke out somewhere (such as in Samaria) the Jerusalem church would send some apostles to the scene in order to officially validate the work? If it was not for the very reason I am arguing (namely, that there needs to be visible unity among congregations, and that requires a unity of leadership), then for what reason was it?

    My answer to your question would be this: apostles were sent because God had authorized and empowered the apostles uniquely to certify that the inclusion of Gentiles in the apostolic mission was, at every other point, fully divine in its origin and legitimation and integrally related to the historical administration of God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Eph 3:1-13). I do not see where we are told that the apostles who went to these places were sent there by the Jerusalem church.
    ReplyDelete
  71. Fowler,

    On my example of the Methodist minister, are you saying that if she agreed with me doctrinally then we'd be visibly united in our ministries? How much doctrinal affinity does there need to be? And what about the guy who agrees with me on everything and then starts a new church in his backyard? Am I visibly united with him since we agree on our doctrine?

    My point is that my agreement with someone is not visible, and thereffore it cannot be the basis for our visible unity. In order for there to be visible unity, there needs to be some sort of external leadership structure that we mutually submit to. In other words, I am visibly united to my fellow presbyters, even when I disagrree with them, more than I am to an OPC minister down the road.

    Concerning your answer to my question about why the apostles had to be sent to officially validate a work of the Spirit in the book of Acts, you said it was because the inclusion of the Gentiles needed to be certified and stamped with divine approval. I certainly agree that that was the case. But don't you think there was more to it than that?

    Take this example: Some Jewish guy hears a sermon by Philip while on vacation in Samaria, and then he goes home to start a church in his Jewish neighborhood. Things are going well, he has attracted a number of Jewish followers to his church. Then one day he runs into Peter and tells the apostle about his church he started for Jewish people. What do you think Peter would do?

    Here's what I think: Peter would rejoice at what God is apparently doing, but then he would explain that you "can't preach unless you are sent." He would then seek to validate the work and its message (either himself or by sending another apostle). Once that has been done, they would lay their hands on the man and thus constitute his (admittedly already-existing) church, bringing it into the apostolic fold.

    The point of this example is to show that regardless of whether the inclusion of Gentiles is at issue, a NT-era church would have needed to somehow be designated as genuine and apostolic so that it could be numbered as a congregation in the one visible church.
    ReplyDelete
  72. You said above,On my example of the Methodist minister, ... How much doctrinal affinity does there need to be? ...

    Jason, perhaps you’re seeing my point. In your lead post, you defined visible unity in terms of sacrament and doctrine, and you made a plea for a more concise doctrinal standard, which involves that there needs to be doctrinal affinity. You did not, however, tell us how much doctrinal affinity there needs to be for us to say, “Yes, we have visible unity,” beyond “saying less [than we currently say].” As this comment string has amply demonstrated, this conversation becomes an endless series of questions that cannot be answered because we haven’t defined the terms to which we're asking others to agree.

    My point is that my agreement with someone is not visible, and thereffore it cannot be the basis for our visible unity. In order for there to be visible unity, there needs to be some sort of external leadership structure that we mutually submit to. ....

    Since you argued in your lead post for doctrinal agreement (albeit with the qualifier “less”) I take it that you mean to say here that doctrinal agreement is necessary, but not sufficient for visible unity. We must have an external authority structure too. I don’t disagree with this. What we need now is a definition of the unity of that “external leadership structure.”

    Concerning your answer to my question about why the apostles had to be sent to officially validate a work of the Spirit in the book of Acts, ... don't you think there was more to it than that?

    As you might guess, that all depends on what you think the “more” was. We all come to Scripture seeking answers to questions that weren't part of the human authors’ agenda in writing, but this isn't to say that Scripture doesn't answer our questions. Still, as I understand it, Luke’s concern was to document the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, from the Jews to the Gentiles, through the ministry of the apostles and their associates, all with God’s authorization.

    Take this example: ... What do you think Peter would do? ... ... The point of this example is to show that regardless of whether the inclusion of Gentiles is at issue, a NT-era church would have needed to somehow be designated as genuine and apostolic so that it could be numbered as a congregation in the one visible church.

    With this example as clarification of the “more” that you had in mind above, I don’t dispute your point. The “somehow” to which you refer is, of course, an “external leadership structure” that is able to certify the genuine and apostolic identity of the congregation. So now we need to know the defining traits of that “external leadership structure” without which there is no visible unity between congregations.
    ReplyDelete
  73. On my example ... How much doctrinal affinity does there need to be? ...

    Jason, perhaps you’re seeing my point. In your lead post, you defined visible unity in terms of sacrament and doctrine, and you made a plea for a more concise doctrinal standard, which requires some measure of doctrinal affinity. Beyond saying “less [than we currently say],” however, you didn't tell us how much doctrinal affinity there needs to be for us to say “Yes, we have visible unity.” We haven’t yet defined the terms to which we're asking others to agree.

    My point is ... In order for there to be visible unity, there needs to be some sort of external leadership structure that we mutually submit to. ... .

    Since you argued in your lead post for doctrinal agreement (albeit with the qualifier “less”) I take it that you mean to say here that doctrinal agreement is necessary, but not sufficient for visible unity. We need an external authority structure as well as doctrinal agreement. I don’t disagree with this. What we need now is a definition of the unity of that “external leadership structure.”

    Concerning your answer to my question about why the apostles had to be sent to officially validate a work of the Spirit ... don't you think there was more to it than that?

    As you might guess, that all depends on what you think the “more” was. We all come to Scripture seeking answers to questions that were not part of the human authors’ agenda in writing, but this is not to say that Scripture doesn't answer our questions. Still, as I understand it, Luke’s concern is to document the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, from the Jews to the Gentiles, through the ministry of the apostles and their associates, all with God’s authorization.

    Take this example: ... ... The point of this example is to show that regardless of whether the inclusion of Gentiles is at issue, a NT-era church would have needed to somehow be designated as genuine and apostolic so that it could be numbered as a congregation in the one visible church.

    With this example as clarification of the “more” that you had in mind above, I don’t dispute your point. The “somehow” to which you refer is, of course, an “external leadership structure” that is able to certify the genuine and apostolic identity of the congregation. So now we need to identify the defining traits of that “external leadership structure” without which there is no visible unity between congregations.
    ReplyDelete
  74. On my example ... How much doctrinal affinity does there need to be? ...

    Jason, perhaps you’re seeing my point. In your lead post, you defined visible unity in terms of sacrament and doctrine, and you made a plea for a more concise doctrinal standard, which requires some measure of doctrinal affinity. Beyond saying “less [than we currently say],” however, you didn't tell us how much doctrinal affinity there needs to be for us to say “Yes, we have visible unity.” We haven’t yet defined the terms to which we're asking others to agree.

    My point is ... In order for there to be visible unity, there needs to be some sort of external leadership structure that we mutually submit to. ... .

    Since you argued in your lead post for doctrinal agreement (albeit with the qualifier “less”) I take it that you mean to say here that doctrinal agreement is necessary, but not sufficient for visible unity. We need an external authority structure as well as doctrinal agreement. I don’t disagree with this. What we need now is a definition of the unity of that “external leadership structure.”

    Concerning your answer to my question about why the apostles had to be sent to officially validate a work of the Spirit ... don't you think there was more to it than that?

    As you might guess, that all depends on what you think the “more” was. We all come to Scripture seeking answers to questions that were not part of the human authors’ agenda in writing, but this is not to say that Scripture doesn't answer our questions. Still, as I understand it, Luke’s concern is to document the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, from the Jews to the Gentiles, through the ministry of the apostles and their associates, all with God’s authorization.

    Take this example: ... ... The point of this example is to show that regardless of whether the inclusion of Gentiles is at issue, a NT-era church would have needed to somehow be designated as genuine and apostolic so that it could be numbered as a congregation in the one visible church.

    With this example as clarification of the “more” that you had in mind above, I don’t dispute your point. The “somehow” to which you refer is, of course, an “external leadership structure” that is able to certify the genuine and apostolic identity of the congregation. So now we need to identify the defining traits of that “external leadership structure” without which there is no visible unity between congregations.
    ReplyDelete
  75. On my example ... How much doctrinal affinity does there need to be? ...

    Jason, perhaps you’re seeing my point. In your lead post, you defined visible unity in terms of sacrament and doctrine, and you made a plea for a more concise doctrinal standard, which requires some measure of doctrinal affinity. Beyond saying “less [than we currently say],” however, you didn't tell us how much doctrinal affinity there needs to be for us to say “Yes, we have visible unity.” We haven’t yet defined the terms to which we're asking others to agree.

    My point is ... In order for there to be visible unity, there needs to be some sort of external leadership structure that we mutually submit to. ... .

    Since you argued in your lead post for doctrinal agreement (albeit with the qualifier “less”) I take it that you mean to say here that doctrinal agreement is necessary, but not sufficient for visible unity. We need an external authority structure as well as doctrinal agreement. I don’t disagree with this. What we need now is a definition of the unity of that “external leadership structure.”

    Concerning your answer to my question about why the apostles had to be sent to officially validate a work of the Spirit ... don't you think there was more to it than that?

    As you might guess, that all depends on what you think the “more” was. We all come to Scripture seeking answers to questions that were not part of the human authors’ agenda in writing, but this is not to say that Scripture doesn't answer our questions. Still, as I understand it, Luke’s concern is to document the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, from the Jews to the Gentiles, through the ministry of the apostles and their associates, all with God’s authorization.

    Take this example: ... ... The point of this example is to show that regardless of whether the inclusion of Gentiles is at issue, a NT-era church would have needed to somehow be designated as genuine and apostolic so that it could be numbered as a congregation in the one visible church.

    With this example as clarification of the “more” that you had in mind above, I don’t dispute your point. The “somehow” to which you refer is, of course, an “external leadership structure” that is able to certify the genuine and apostolic identity of the congregation. So now we need to identify the defining traits of that “external leadership structure” without which there is no visible unity between congregations.
    ReplyDelete
  76. I gotta say that I'm not so keen on an OPC/PCA merger in the wake of a PCA denomination that seems to be making a huge push away from reformed distinction. To say nothing of what can only be described as an hostile attitude toward those of us who are desiring a confessional, purposely reformed, and liturgically oriented church. The PCA and OPC don't look like the kissing cousins they once were.
    ReplyDelete
  77. Early in this thread, Andrew McCallum wrote:

    Of course we do want more visible unity but that cannot be sacrificed to true confessional unity as is the case in the RCC where everyone from the extreme left to the extreme right are all in "sacramental communion." Reformed denominations go through the sorts of debates that you are reading here because we hold that unity is more than just institutional. Now I know that conceptually you would agree that there should be something more, but the practicality of the matter is that in the RCC those who affirm Christ and those reject Him are all sacramentally unified.

    The first thing to note here is that, in any church of significant size, there are those who affirm Christ and his doctrine and those who, either in their hearts or in terms of the logical consequences of their beliefs, reject him. For that matter, there are some who affirm Christ who are not formally members of the Church. St. Augustine said in the early 5th century: "There are some whom God has whom the Church has not, and there are some whom the Church has whom God has not." So the mere fact that the Catholic Church is not a church only of those whom Christ has is irrelevant. The same can be said of any church of significant size.

    Second, the fact that the Catholic Church (I do not say 'Roman Catholic Church' because not all Catholics belong to the Latin Church) includes people of the "extreme right" and the "extreme left" is also irrelevant. Plenty of people, regardless of their ecclesial affiliation, are materially heretical but not formally excommunicate. The fact that Catholic bishops do not formally excommunicate everybody, or even most people, whose beliefs are incompatible with the definitive teaching of the Church does not show that she buys "sacramental unity" at the price of doctrinal integrity. All it shows is that she is patient--some would say to a fault. But the question what counts as her definitive teaching remains unaffected.
    ReplyDelete
  78. I confess that I skimmed the 2nd half of the comments briefly, so this point may have already come up, but my question is as follows:

    If unity within the Church, as you say correctly, does hold a certain significance, why is this discussion limited to the creation of a confession between the OPC and PCA? Are we really willing to say that these two denominations are the only legitimate institutions of the catholic Church?

    In my study of church history this thought has been rolling around in my head for some time - that the early church fathers, and certainly the apostles, did in no way forsee the post-reformation splintering of church that has occurred in reaction to the gross twisting of absolute authority held within Roman Catholic Church. Would it not be a worthwhile endeavor to seek unification within orthodox Christianity?

    A public re-submission to the creeds among evangelical Christianity would accomplish the following:

    1) A visible, public strike against the 'us vs. them' mentality among denominations

    2) A stated desire to form the basis of unification in action on the desire to spread the glory of God

    3) A visible, public statement against the reputation that Christianity is hopelessly divided amongst itself.

    Problems involved? Certainly. But the unity in the Church, assumed during the age of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, exists no more, and I see little effort currently to regain it.
    ReplyDelete
  79. Forrest,

    If unity within the Church, as you say correctly, does hold a certain significance, why is this discussion limited to the creation of a confession between the OPC and PCA? Are we really willing to say that these two denominations are the only legitimate institutions of the catholic Church?

    Baby steps is all I’m saying. While I do agree that Jesus seemed to intend there to be one visible church, I also admit that I know of no solution that will achieve this to anyone’s satisfaction.

    In my study of church history this thought has been rolling around in my head for some time - that the early church fathers, and certainly the apostles, did in no way forsee the post-reformation splintering of church that has occurred in reaction to the gross twisting of absolute authority held within Roman Catholic Church. Would it not be a worthwhile endeavor to seek unification within orthodox Christianity?

    Of course it would be worthwhile. That’s why I am suggesting we Reformed people take some small steps toward this.

    Problems involved? Certainly. But the unity in the Church, assumed during the age of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, exists no more, and I see little effort currently to regain it.

    Well, I hate to say it, but there seems to be an inherent tension between being Reformed and caring about unity. I mean, it’s not like our soteriology was exactly the mainstream view of the early fathers, right? I mean, if they taught the imputation of alien righteousness through faith alone, I am not aware of it. So we tend to bite the bullet and just say that all who came before us were wrong at best and heretical at worst. But that approach severely limits our efforts at unity doesn’t it?
    ReplyDelete
  80. Jason - hope you're enjoying your time in gay (in the old, classic sense of the word) Paris (with the flair of a French accent).

    OK, I know I've come back to this party late, and everyone's already gone home. In my comments (way) above, I mentioned not reinventing the wheel, and pointed out the comparable "brevity" of the 3 F of U. Here's an additional thought. The RPCNA utilizes a "testimony" alongside the CoF. With this approach, the church can address additional issues which are important, but may not be directly addressed in the original Standards. This approach, it seems, would be a good way to address contemporary issues (NPP and FV for instance), without reinventing the wheel.

    I think the PCA should have done something like this with reference to creation days & Sabbath - rather than bypassing our Standards by way of study reports and / or widely accepted
    "exceptions" to the Standards, etc.

    So, here's my radical proposal: let's go back to the ecumenical creeds and 3 F of U as our fully binding standards, utilize Westminster for its instructive value, and together forge a "testimony" by which our new "mega" Reformed denomination (!) can tackle contemporary issues.
    ReplyDelete
  81. Tony,

    One question I would have concerns the ecclesiastical authority of the "testimony." Is it like an epilogue to the confession that has the same authority?

    I do like your proposal, though. Sure, if this happened there would be a "Westminster Wing" of the Reformed Church, but as long as we are all visibly united, then so what? I guess I'm just at the place where I think visible unity should matter, and while we should never sacrifice truth to achieve it, we should bend over backwards to bring it about nonetheless.
    ReplyDelete
  82. Jason,
    Here is the RPCNA's testimony about its testimony. After affirming the contemporary value of the WCF, it says, "However, changes in the application of truth are needed because of changing situations in each generation. Some current topics of vital importance for the Christian Church were unknown in the 17th century..." Thus, the RPCNA's utilization of a testimony. It later affirms that the testimony has equal constitutional weight, qualified in this way: "...except that where noted, earlier documents are to be interpreted by the later ones."

    I agree, Jason. I think visible unity matters, and the aim of biblical confessionalism should be that we "with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:6). However, to have confessional integrity and true unity of faith, we need to stop the current "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" / every man for himself approach in the PCA.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)