Confessionalism and Subscriptionism
(I love big words!)
The "Keep your opinions to yourself" post attracted some intelligent comments. And by a quirky co-incidence, we were talking about this very thing in Ministry Formation class today.
My denomination is confessional, (we hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith), and subscriptional - all ministers and elders promise to assert maintain and defend the WCF. This system has many advantages - indeed, one lady in our class recounted a bad church experience she had in a (Baptist) church: a contributing factor was that they didn't have a confession of faith. We are, on the whole, unified in doctrine.
But there are also drawbacks associated with making everyone subscribe to the WCF, and the_blacke points out some of these very well. It can prevent the church from constantly reforming. It is always a bad idea for an organisation to silence contrary opinions, and that is a particular danger for us.
There is also the temptation of elevating the WCF to the same status of Scripture, and One confused Presbyter asks what to do in when you are exegeting Scripture and perceive a contradiction between it and the WCF. I still don't think your vows allow you to teach contrary to the Confession, and so you have two options:
i) Give a less-than-full exposition of the Bible. Which of course is what we always do - we never say everything stated or implied in a given passage.
ii) Just allow your congregation to make up their own mind. I know, it sounds pretty radical - but presumably we'd be dealing with peripheral matters, things not part of the WCF's system of doctrine.
Then again, there is a mechanism for changing the doctrine of the church - it may be long, arduous and likely to end in fruitlessness - but it's there. Indeed, I have a couple of things that I want to change when I become a minister - though admittedly they are matters of practice rather than doctrine, and thus are a lot easier to change.
It is a difficult situation. Sure, the WCF is mostly dealing with the central doctrines of the faith - which don't change anyway - but we do have to be open to the possibility of being wrong. We can always believe that we're right, without believing that we're always right.
(Post a new comment)
 |
(Anonymous)
2005-04-28 03:58
(link) |
John, you are man of firm convictions and that is a blessing to see.
In 1521 when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and was called upon to recant, after hours of thought, prayer and meditation, he replied:
"My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I stand. God help me. Amen."
My question is simple as an elder of the Presbyterian Church is conscience bound to any Confession or to the Word of God?
(Reply to this) (Thread) |
| 
(Anonymous)
2005-04-28 18:41
(link) |
If you are an elder in a confessional church and you can no longer support that confession, I feel the best course would be to resign your eldership. But probably discuss it with the other elders first.
I'd be interested to hear which parts of the WCF you have concerns about?(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-05-15 18:09
(link) |
Mikey Lynch here (elder/home missionary at Xrds Hobart). John, I would really appreciate to tease this out further, for I really want to conduct myself conscionably within the Pres. Church.
First, I did not understand there to be a difference between liberty of opinion and liberty of expression, and I wonder whether that distinction was in the mind of those who framed the 1901 DS or whether that is subsequent thinkers? After all, my vow was to maintain and uphold the WCF as read in the light of the 1901 DS... which means I am vowing to defend and uphold the WCF in a way that recognises that it contains non-essential things. By the by, even without the 1901 DS I would consider this freedom of opinion and expression to also be implicit in the acceptance of the WCF as the sub-ord. standard.
Second, I think it would be of great help to the unity of the church and protect people from accusations of abusing the 1901 DS if the church worked at defining what actually are the non-essentials to some extent. This seems to me to be one of the greatest needs of denominations today.
Third, do you think it would be better if more power resided in the Presbytery, powers such as power to change doctrine or power to ordain? This would make things much easier to change. Rather than GAA having the sole positive power in these areas, it would instead operate as the higher court, RE-acting to abberrations ('guard against the abuse of this liberty'). This would avoid the awkward situation of a minister changing his mind on something and being stuck for 3 years or more in a difficult position of - 'should i stay or should i go?' What do you think?
Fourth, I agree with you that there are times when it is appropriate to remain silent on a doctrine or to air the options and allow the congregation to decide. Presumably, if you are happy to remain in the church you are content that these issues are non-essential and hence feel no compulsion to disprove them. But as I say above, I think there are many issues where the WCF allegiance is not compromised by expressing your disagreements, provided that it is signposted as being a departure from the WCF.
Eager to hear your thoughts.(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| 
 dekker
2005-05-15 19:45
(link) |
Thanks heaps for your response, Mikey. I appreciate your feedback.
Firstly, the interpretation of liberty of opinion rather than liberty of expression comes from the late F. Maxwell Bradshaw, who was the great legal guru in the in the PCA. I guess, though, that he's just taking the words as they are written.
What is very clear is that 'non-essential' means non-essential to the system of doctrine articulated in the WCF, not 'non-essential to salvation'. Interestingly enough, the DS was based on a similar statement approved by the Victorian Assembly in 1882. That statement, however, gave an example of a non-essential doctrine - 6 day creation. So the framers of the 1901 Basis of Union must have decided that they didn't want to be too specific. The 1994 Assembly, (I think it was), decided, however, that the so-called 5 points of Calvinism constituted essential doctrine - essential, that is, to the doctrine of the WCF.
Presbyterian denominations in America have the same sort of issues, of course, and a debate has raged over "strict" vs. "system" subscription. They also seem to give a lot more power to presbyteries than we do.
Even without the 1901 DS I would consider this freedom of opinion and expression to also be implicit in the acceptance of the WCF as the sub-ord. standard
But the wording of the vow is strong - "own and accept", "assert, maintain and defend"... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-05-02 00:24
(link) |
The Westmister Confession - written and inspired by the Devil
The Nicene Creed - the only true form of Credd to describe Christs Church as governed by his apostles not some man-made sect that sprung up in the 16th century
(Reply to this) (Thread) |
(Post a new comment)
|
