# "Ours is not a confessional age" - yes or no? And why or why not?



## Pergamum (Nov 20, 2011)

Is it or isn't it?


Why or why not?

What would need to happen to change your answers?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 20, 2011)

What is a "confessional age." Contemporary (western) culture is largely relativistic - is that what you're driving at? If so and you mean confessional as in the WCF, the answer is no. I think that is what I think.


----------



## Herald (Nov 20, 2011)

If by "confessional age" you mean confessions such as the 1689 LBC and the WCF, no. I base my answer on the whole of Christendom today. What can/must be done in order for that to change? I don't believe anything can be done that would move the minority position into the majority. Confessionalism would require a complete theological transformation throughout the Church. Confessional churches can expand their influence by replication; plant churches locally and support missionary efforts in other nations. That seems to be the best way In my humble opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2011)

Modernism has happened. We naturally think like Modernists. The men at the time of the Reformation and those who wrote the Confessions did not think this way.

We naturally think there's nothing unusual when a man arrives at personal convictions that vary drastically from others concerning Scripture. We're comfortable when a minister who is being examined presents a new theory about why Moses wrote Gen 1-2, which completely contradicts the Confession he claims to confess. We can make the words fit because we're modernists.

Whether you think it is good or bad that men are comfortable "being their own person" and default to the idea that their minds are the organs by which facts are transformed into truth is immaterial to the answer to the question.

The reason why men wrote Confessions in the past is because they believed that the Church could confess _together_ what the Scriptures principally teach. They thought that the Scriptures were perspicuous and that Churchmen could declare with unity what the Scriptures taught by a right use of means and reason. They were not suspicious of the outcome. They didn't naturally think there was something wrong with a person who sought to conform his understanding with the Confession. The people who were respected in those days were those who sought to understand what the Church had confessed and did not presume to easily cast aside a common confession.

We prize trailblazers. We prize men who are their own men. We are suspicious of consensus. We assume that a variety of opinions about eternal matters is a sign of health. We enjoy the novelty of reading someone we assume must have a flash of brilliance in his new theory because those who came before were followers. We're not like them. We're thought leaders. We're modernists.

We're moderns. We redefine words to permit us the freedom to veer from what the Confessions teach when we're required to say we confess them. We make our Constitutions and our Confessions living documents because we refuse to be bound by what came before us.

We're modernists. We don't need Confessions.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 20, 2011)

As the center of Christianity moves to Asia and a more communal spirit evolves, should we expect Asian-forged confessions within the next 200 years?



Also, in 200 years from now will the Church look at things such as the Lausanne Covenant as the modern-day equivalent of a confession of faith?


----------



## kodos (Nov 20, 2011)

I'd never heard of the Lausanne Covenant until you brought it up Pergamum. If people held that up as a Confession of Faith, they would essentially think that the sole purpose of the church were to evangelize. I do not find it a replacement (functionally) for the Historic Confessions which tell us Objectively what to believe (and primarily talk about God's works, not our own).


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2011)

As a point of historiography, "The Confessional Age" is regularly used by historians for the period 1517-1648. A socio-theological study of that period and a comparison with our times would indicate numerous dynamic dissimilarities. One obvious dissimilarity would be the dynamic of "magisterial reformation." The Confessions were produced by national movements and reflected the faith of national churches. Their lasting influence is at least partly attributable to this fact. Because the Confession is connected with a "golden era" of the Reformation it exhibits "reformation attainments" which impose upon those in historical continuity with the reformation an obligation to maintain them. Another obvious dissimilarity is the dynamic of coherence. Those who produced the Confessions worked by and large from the same presuppositions and with much the same methodology. Because of this coherence the Confession represents a starting point, like the trunk of a tree. The modern churches have developed out of this coherence and produced unique characteristics which are related to the trunk but are not the same as each other. The confessions of the past provide a starting point for unity amidst diversity whereas any new confession would be idiosyncratic in its own nature and represent a diversity rather than an unity of the faith. These are but two dynamics. There ar many more but I think these suffice to show why this present time should not be considered a confessional age in the sense that term is used to mark the years 1517-1684.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 20, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> As the center of Christianity moves to Asia and a more communal spirit evolves, should we expect Asian-forged confessions within the next 200 years?



It's hard to know how God might move His people.

It is possible they will discover the historic Confessions as faithful summaries of the doctrine of Scripture to which they speak, and have fewer inhibitions toward freely confessing them as the basis of unity and accountability for their communions.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2011)

Every age is confessional in the sense that the use and promotion of sound confessions is vital in every age.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 20, 2011)

I am in the disillusioned with confessional people category. By that I don't mean to criticize the confessions, or anybody here specifically, but since they don't mention anything about gender roles, evolution, self esteem psychological theories, and various other subjects, just because somebody says they hold to one doesn't do much for me anymore. Wives go back to work to have the gorgeous home and leave the babies with sitters, Adam evolved from primates, my real problem is not sin but my low self esteem, and yes they are confessional. I think there are all sorts of things the confessions never touched that for me would be essential to join a church. 

So no, we are not in a confessional age. Should we be? I don't know anymore. I'd rather have a Calvinist creationist pastor in a non confessional church, than a PCA confessional pastor groveling at the wisdom of Pete Enns.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 21, 2011)

As an aside regarding doctrinal development, do you realize that Calvin wrote his first edition of his _Institutes_ in 1536, just 19 years (less than a generation) after Luther posted his 95 theses (1517)? That's rather remarkably quick theological development, don't you think?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2011)

lynnie said:


> I am in the disillusioned with confessional people category. By that I don't mean to criticize the confessions, or anybody here specifically, but since they don't mention anything about gender roles, evolution, self esteem psychological theories, and various other subjects, just because somebody says they hold to one doesn't do much for me anymore. Wives go back to work to have the gorgeous home and leave the babies with sitters, Adam evolved from primates, my real problem is not sin but my low self esteem, and yes they are confessional. I think there are all sorts of things the confessions never touched that for me would be essential to join a church.
> 
> So no, we are not in a confessional age. Should we be? I don't know anymore. I'd rather have a Calvinist creationist pastor in a non confessional church, than a PCA confessional pastor groveling at the wisdom of Pete Enns.



I have oft thought this same thing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2011)

lynnie said:


> I am in the disillusioned with confessional people category. By that I don't mean to criticize the confessions, or anybody here specifically, but since they don't mention anything about gender roles, evolution, self esteem psychological theories, and various other subjects, just because somebody says they hold to one doesn't do much for me anymore. Wives go back to work to have the gorgeous home and leave the babies with sitters, Adam evolved from primates, my real problem is not sin but my low self esteem, and yes they are confessional. I think there are all sorts of things the confessions never touched that for me would be essential to join a church.
> 
> So no, we are not in a confessional age. Should we be? I don't know anymore. I'd rather have a Calvinist creationist pastor in a non confessional church, than a PCA confessional pastor groveling at the wisdom of Pete Enns.



Let me ask you a question and I don't mean to pick on you but how do you know that it is right or wrong? Why are you lamenting gender roles, evolution, self-esteem, and psychological theories? The Confessions say nothing about them (according to you) so how are you supposed to know what to think about them? How are you able to lament them as problematic? There is apparently no GNC from what the Scriptures principally teach (according to how you read the WCF, WSC, and WLC) which lead you by GNC to conclude that any of the above are problematic. Are all of these somehow unconnected?

I'm saying this because you seem to imply that if we simply had a clear statement in a Confession then the problems would disappear.

I would also add that the Confessions _do_ say something about roles among people in the WLC Q&A on the 5th Commandment. The problems we often have with gender or superior/inferior roles stem from a root loss of superior/inferior/peer distinctions rather than any given symptom of the same.

the Confessions speak to evolution but, as I said previously, the problem is not the clarity of expression in the WCF but modernity's ability to deconstruct texts and Churchmen's willingness to allow compromise on the meanings of words as authors intended.

They speak to the therapeutic Gospel in the sense that the contrary (the real Gospel) and man's real problem is explicated with great precision.

I find your statement about a "Confessional" pastor groveling at the wisdom of Peter Enns to be self-contradictory. Once again, the problem is never the clarity of a Confessional document nor the original hermeneutics that governed them. Those are a matter of public record. The problem is the willingness of men to abide by them and the non-Confessional creationist pastor is no escape from the sinfulness of men in this fallen world.

I remember Justice Scalia speaking at my Command and Staff College class in 2004. He was speaking of the U.S. Constitution and its brevity. He noted that he was asked to consult on the EU constitution and the document was a multi-hundred page monstrosity that sought to include everything under the sun that moderns believed was necessary to include. When you have no absolute principles then everything has to be spelled out in particulars. Men who are grounded in the right use of the Scriptures and reason do not default back to the "make everything Constitutional" principle because the broader principles about how to use the Scriptures don't necessitate it to begin with. Your call to speak to every social ill in a Constitutional document belies an approach to Constitutions that is more akin to those who deny universal principles and default to particulars to deal with every problem the sinful human heart invents.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 21, 2011)

If the confessions to which the church holds are based upon the correct understanding of Scriptural doctrine, then EVERY age should be a confessional age. John Stott correctly pointed out that the church needs to be a counterculture in the sense that the different movements and ages we pass through should not be altering the core of who we are.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2011)

There is no need for a confession to speak to "every social ill" - but most social and theological ills clump around several categories of error which can be addressed somehow (life issues, creation issues, missions/outreach issues, etc). If a confession can name the Antichrist with confessional certainty, it can at least hint as to which forms of killing or just and which are unjust and how the Church should respond (war, abortion, life issues, capital punishment, stem cells).


----------



## FCC (Nov 21, 2011)

It is a sad commentary on the Christian condition when this questions must be asked, at least in my thoughts. We should be confessional as a body of Christians. Having a confessional church and leadership, who abide by the actual text and meaning of the confessions they subscribe to, would do much to strengthen the church. I would agree with those Lynnie, who doubts the sincerity of many of those who claim to be confessional, however they are falsely making that claim, which is obvious from their denial of the truths in the confessions they claim to hold to. I would also agree that the confessions are not meant to deal with every possible situation, however the principles they espouse can be utilized to provide clear and applicable answers to the problems in both personal and corporate lives. Give me that old time Westminster!


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2011)

FCC said:


> It is a sad commentary on the Christian condition when this questions must be asked, at least in my thoughts. We should be confessional as a body of Christians. Having a confessional church and leadership, who abide by the actual text and meaning of the confessions they subscribe to, would do much to strengthen the church. I would agree with those Lynnie, who doubts the sincerity of many of those who claim to be confessional, however they are falsely making that claim, which is obvious from their denial of the truths in the confessions they claim to hold to. I would also agree that the confessions are not meant to deal with every possible situation, however the principles they espouse can be utilized to provide clear and applicable answers to the problems in both personal and corporate lives. Give me that old time Westminster!



Do you believe in singing hymns or in exclusive psalmodry only? And if both sides claim to be confessional while holding these divergent views, who is falsely making that claim?


----------



## FCC (Nov 21, 2011)

That is an interesting question Pergamum. I hold to exclusive psalmody and belief that to be truly confessional you would have to hold to that position as well. I know many will disagree with this view, but I hold to the original Westminster Confession of Faith and associated documents which teach and hold to exclusive Psalmody. At the same time I love my hymn singing brothers and sisters, yet I believe they stray in this area.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2011)

FCC said:


> That is an interesting question Pergamum. I hold to exclusive psalmody and belief that to be truly confessional you would have to hold to that position as well. I know many will disagree with this view, but I hold to the original Westminster Confession of Faith and associated documents which teach and hold to exclusive Psalmody. At the same time I love my hymn singing brothers and sisters, yet I believe they stray in this area.



Thanks for your response. Many people use the word "confessional" and seem to fight over this ground and over who may rightly occupy it. Can someone who is not EP be considered "Confessional" or do they fall short? And what about the entire denominations of presbyterians who use the 1788 American revision, are they all fooling themselves as to the condition of their "confessionality" or do we allow them also the use of the moniker of "confessional" as well?

If we define "confessional" loosely there is much room for improvement, yes. But if we further define "Confessional" in this narrower sense, then WOW, even what I would consider very solid churches and denominations are still very far from being "Confessional" in this stricter use of the word and I myself and many members on this board are not Confessional (with a big C) though we are confessional. ....Hence, the reasoning behind my questions. Thanks.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 21, 2011)

Well, Perg, you sure stirred things up. I suspect it was my quote of my former pastor that provided the title to this thread. 

I couldn't respond until now, but the quote was meant in the way Matthew Winzer explained above: I do not think men in our day are capable of writing confessions in the same manner as back then. We are too scattered, to focused on what makes us unique, and too little grounded in doctrine and experimental faith.

Almost every man I've come across who has studied the drafting of the Confessions in-depth have expressed some variation of this conclusion: "Those men were spiritual giants, we are but pitiful worms."


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 21, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If we define "confessional" loosely there is much room for improvement, yes. But if we further define "Confessional" in this narrower sense, then WOW, even what I would consider very solid churches and denominations are still very far from being "Confessional" in this stricter use of the word



I think of Confessional as one aspect of what reformed theology is. A Confession of Faith is necessary to form the basis of unity for community, which is its doctrine, what it "confesses." The Confession is binding and accountable unless examined exceptions or scruples are granted by the system. Having one or two of those does not make one non-confessional.

Even if someone agrees with 98% of their confession, they are still bound by it for accountability, unless and until it is changed. So, if the Confession requires exclusive psalms one is not free to agitate or to teach (if they are an officer) against it. That's part of how we all submit to authority; authority is not by its nature conditional. This goes also for the Kingdom of God.

The opposite of "confessional" is having a loose association of consenting adults who self evaluate every doctrine based on their thinking at a moment of time. Commitment is conditional, in every sense on how the person feels at a given moment of time. 

A step-down version of this is having a minimalist Statement of Beliefs.

Neither of these is confessional.

Neither of these is reformed.

They might be leaning toward or even heading toward reformed theology, but they are not there yet.

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------

What the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) does in this regard is perfectly in line with this.

New members are not called to even understand, far less assent to every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards (officers are, but not new members).

But they do submit to it as authority, and agree to peaceably study it, which is the peace and purity of the church.



> 5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?



That is reformed, and it is confessional.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 21, 2011)

Rich, FCC.....I don't disagree with you that people who say they are confessional really are not. But what is the point of saying you are a confessional church then? 

I have been in two PCA churches that had elders who took various exceptions to the confession. I might have taken the same ones so no criticism there. But what is even the point of a confession if you can take exceptions? Where do you stop? Why is it a summary of the true faith if you can take exceptions? 

Its great that you don't want elders to be FV and demand that they hold to the confession on justification.....but how do you decide where you stick to it and where you don't? And like I said, I see people who get it right on justification, but Adam nursed at the hairy breast of his Momma who perhaps died before the fall, whatever the fall was supposed to be for them. And yes, maybe they are not being true to the confession, but once you allow exceptions, all sorts of modern ideas and practices seem to be acceptable.

I admit I am thinking this through, and I don't know where I will end up. But I am disillusioned- not with the text of the confessions, but with the whole claim to be confessional as I see it lived out in my narrow experience.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> Well, Perg, you sure stirred things up. I suspect it was my quote of my former pastor that provided the title to this thread.
> 
> I couldn't respond until now, but the quote was meant in the way Matthew Winzer explained above: I do not think men in our day are capable of writing confessions in the same manner as back then. We are too scattered, to focused on what makes us unique, and too little grounded in doctrine and experimental faith.
> 
> Almost every man I've come across who has studied the drafting of the Confessions in-depth have expressed some variation of this conclusion: "Those men were spiritual giants, we are but pitiful worms."



Yes, it was your quote that made me want to start the thread. Thanks..it was very thought-provoking.

Do you really think our current scholars are worms compared to the old Puritans? I think some of the very best commentaries seem to have been written in the past 15 years or so....a flood of really good and NEW stuff.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If we define "confessional" loosely there is much room for improvement, yes. But if we further define "Confessional" in this narrower sense, then WOW, even what I would consider very solid churches and denominations are still very far from being "Confessional" in this stricter use of the word
> ...



Thank you, that is very helpful.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 21, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Do you really think our current scholars are worms compared to the old Puritans? I think some of the very best commentaries seem to have been written in the past 15 years or so....a flood of really good and NEW stuff.



In terms of understanding the mindset and purpose of a confession as applicable to our era, yes, I do. And I suspect most of those scholars would agree if they gave it much thought.

I think Rich's analogy to the Constitution is quite apt. The document itself does not guarantee any sort of perfection or harmony. Even Ben Franklin, at the time, acknowledged that with his answer to the woman who asked him what sort of government they had come up with: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

The efficacy of the Confessions depends upon people understanding the principles behind it and the context in which it was drafted. Now I'll be first to acknowledge that many of the dangers the drafters of the confessions were addressing are still present today. That is why confessions are important for our time. And I will also acknowledge that many of the issues seem less pressing today, but that doesn't mean they are not important--they are just quiescent. 

But our day is different in a real way from 400 years ago. In our day, the primary spirit is "what can I get away with?" No doubt in the Puritan's day that spirit was present, but the mindset was primarily "what is it that unifies us against enemies of the Gospel?"

Today, for the most part (with notable exceptions) we Protestants are in no danger of loss of life or liberty. We enjoy peace and comfort that gives us the luxury of picking and choosing what we like and don't like from the wisdom of the those in the past. But we ought to acknowledge that this complacency works to blind us about fundamental things. The act of picking and choosing what we like and don't like itself shows that we have some other standard for measuring what is proper doctrine.

Which is fair enough, if we know what we are doing. The problem of our era and our culture, as I see it, is that we don't really know what we are doing. Overall, we lack good understanding of the context behind articulated principles and are very apt to toss out what, on a superficial glance, looks unimportant. 

The choice is pretty straightforward: If we consciously adopt a confession, and yet don't fully understand the implications or reasons for its principles, then we should work to understand why such provisions are put into it. If we don't like what we find, of course we are free to say we no longer hold to that confession. But in so doing, we ought to readily acknowledge that we are applying a different standard to our decision and that we cannot honestly call ourselves confessional.

And, yes, one could draft up his own "new and improved" confession, picking and choosing what he thinks is best. Historical experience shows that modern attempts at this approach result in either a very long and nit-picky document (like modern constitutions that practically regulate traffic behavior), or become so broad as to be meaningless. Or both.


----------

