# Church Membership Vows versus Private vows with God



## Nicholas Perella (May 14, 2015)

[I am sorry moderators if this is not the correct forum to post this thread]

I have somebody specifically in mind who is a member of a PC(USA). What I am specifically going to ask about easily would fit for a member of a Roman Catholic Church as well, which has also come to my conversations from time to time. 

I am wondering at what point(s) might membership vows conflict with ones conscience in regards to God and His Word. I know all churches are not perfect, but it seems to me, which is little since I did not attend church for most of my life, that Confessional churches though in practice may differ there is still an accord in the membership vows to allow for a Christian to find no conflict of conscience between their vows and God's Word. In other words, when might the honoring of membership vows and all the attachments that a Church may add to their constitution or statements over the years come into conflict? Do not membership vows declare that the church member adheres to all that the church may confess? When might privy thoughts matter no more because the public confession in the membership vows really state what a member believes?

Since this is understandably a case by case basis in approach, I am going to use the following conversation template to point out what I am driving at specifically as follows:

Person A: I think it is wrong that our church holds Doctrine Z.
Person B: You are a member of that church so your vows support Doctrine Z.
Person A: My vows, though to the church, are first and foremost vows to God, so yes, my church adheres to Doctrine Z but that does not mean that I adhere to Doctrine Z.
Person B: Your church membership vows mean you do adhere to Doctrine Z because that is what your church confesses and your vows are still with the church unless you are not honoring your church membership vows.
Person A: As I said, I do not have to believe everything in our church in order to remain honorable to my membership vows because God's covenant with me trumps church membership Doctrines and vows.

In what way might this scenario be true, not true, in part or whole?

Maybe there is a case to made that somebody could hold to doctrines completely opposite to the church doctrines and as long as church disciple allows the person to remain in the church that person could stay within that church. Yet, could a person truly say they are upholding membership vows and to use the example above that though they say they do not believe in Doctrine Z their membership vows do declare they hold to Doctrine Z no matter what they might privately think?

Thank You.
Any links to previous threads, articles, books, or any other valid postulating on the subject will be gratefully welcomed!


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 14, 2015)

Maybe other ways to state my question:

When do church membership vows mean anything in terms of holding the church member to public compliance even if their private compliance differs?

Do they only mean anything if the church body upholds by disciple that the membership vows mean anything?

Or is there a case to made on a moral level that even if the church does not disciple their private confession, morally their membership vows (public confession) trump their private confession before God?


----------



## Edward (May 14, 2015)

Can you post the PCUSA vows so we can comment more intelligently?


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

Edward said:


> Can you post the PCUSA vows so we can comment more intelligently?



Their Book of Order is free, but when I found it I had to order it through the PCUSA website and download it as a PDF.



Taken from their Book of Order




> G-1.0303 Entry into Membership
> Persons may enter into active church membership in the following ways:
> a. Public profession of faith, made after careful examination by the session in
> the meaning and responsibilities of membership; if not already baptized, the person making
> ...




I bolded above which to me entails their membership vows include all that their church declares, thus all in their "Book of Confessions" and "Book of Order".

My question is when does the public vow of church membership trump private vows? How long or under what biblical standard might a person renounce their public membership vows in the name of their own private vows? I understand God is above all human ignorance and thus sin and man is not submit to man but God, but without church disciple how long could an individual person interpret their church practice privately without the need to adhere to the public confession of church doctrine and practice?

Here is another example: A person may attend Roman Catholic mass and participate. Yet we know Rome's mass is blasphemous before God in their false renewal of the death of Christ each time the mass is performed. Yet could an individual person say "I do not privately think that is what the mass means," and confess a Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper? Private versus Public confession of what it means to be a member of the church. That is what I am driving at.

Thank you for your patience. I do not know if there is something else you are looking for from the PCUSA commitments, but let me know. Apparently they do not have a line item of vows they are to confess with an answer of "yes" the way our church gov't proceeds, but there are promises made as seen in what I quoted above.


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 15, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Maybe other ways to state my question:
> 
> When do church membership vows mean anything in terms of holding the church member to public compliance even if their private compliance differs?
> 
> ...



I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by the public vows trump one's private confession before God. A vow is, first and foremost, made to God rather than the church body and the moment the content of that vow contravenes God's revelation the vow is null and void. If you believe that the vow requires you to hold some doctrine that is false, the vow must be set aside. If it requires you to give even the appearance of calling evil good, putting darkness for light, you cannot fulfill it. In other words, all vows have an implicit "according to the Scriptures" and cannot conflict with that.

Here's a selection from Perkins on when vows are proper and when they are not: (from A Treatise of Conscience)









> Here is another example: A person may attend Roman Catholic mass and participate. Yet we know Rome's mass is blasphemous before God in their false renewal of the death of Christ each time the mass is performed. Yet could an individual person say "I do not privately think that is what the mass means," and confess a Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper? Private versus Public confession of what it means to be a member of the church. That is what I am driving at.



This is precisely the error of the Nicodemites that Calvin condemned. While Calvin did believe that could participate in some aspects of a Roman church if there were no Protestant bodies around (though his first advice was "move") because for him there was still a sense in which it was a church, one could not attend or participate in the mass because it was to approve or at least give the appearance of approving idolatry. I'm trying to find the letter in which he addresses this topic at some length, but I'm failing to, it was one of his anti-Nicodemite letters addressed to a French layman. I'll look a bit more later since I think it might be of interest to you.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 15, 2015)

I'm not sure I understand the issue yet either. As far as the example though, we don't have freedom to take part in idolatry like the mass with some private opinion we think makes it okay. See Calvin vs. the Nicodemites.


----------



## Cymro (May 15, 2015)

Under Presbyterianism the Session has to affirm and comply to the Confession of the church.
But a Baptist may join the church and receive Communion,though still holding his Baptist conviction.
Yet as long as he does not agitate over that doctrine his conscience is respected. Someone else may hold
Post millennial views though a church may teach Amillenialism, as long as he does not disrupt the peace
then his persuasion can be privately held. To take out membership and have serious reservations concerning
the doctrines that bind you is detrimental to your spiritual life, and the health of the receiving church.


----------



## Gforce9 (May 15, 2015)

Cymro said:


> Under Presbyterianism the Session has to affirm and comply to the Confession of the church.
> But a Baptist may join the church and receive Communion,though still holding his Baptist conviction.
> Yet as long as he does not agitate over that doctrine his conscience is respected. Someone else may hold
> Post millennial views though a church may teach Amillenialism, as long as he does not disrupt the peace
> ...



Nicholas,
I, too, can't get my arms around all you are asking. However, as Jeff pointed out well, (Presbyterian) laity are not held to the same level of doctrinal rigor as are the office-bearers. I wonder, though, what a PCUSA session would do with a member who outspokenly held to the WCF and believed in inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture? Maybe they would toss him out........


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Here is another example: A person may attend Roman Catholic mass and participate. Yet we know Rome's mass is blasphemous before God in their false renewal of the death of Christ each time the mass is performed. Yet could an individual person say "I do not privately think that is what the mass means," and confess a Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper? Private versus Public confession of what it means to be a member of the church. That is what I am driving at.





TheOldCourse said:


> This is precisely the error of the Nicodemites that Calvin condemned. While Calvin did believe that could participate in some aspects of a Roman church if there were no Protestant bodies around (though his first advice was "move") because for him there was still a sense in which it was a church, one could not attend or participate in the mass because it was to approve or at least give the appearance of approving idolatry. I'm trying to find the letter in which he addresses this topic at some length, but I'm failing to, it was one of his anti-Nicodemite letters addressed to a French layman. I'll look a bit more later since I think it might be of interest to you.



This is exactly one part of what I am trying to get at. I will have to think more about the membership vow part in a bit. Thank you for your patience --- everybody! -------. I did not know how to explain it, but I have come across people that have voiced this to me. Not often, but in the past and one somewhat recently.

Would this fit into the Nicodemite situation? There was a person I had talked to who I cross paths with from time to time who says he has friends in the Roman Catholic church. He says they are believers and know the gospel. They attend mass, etc..., but they are not that interested in Roman doctrine and since they know the gospel his words I am paraphrasing, 'I do not see a problem for they do not see a problem'.

I have a (biological) family relative who has talked to me a couple or so years ago about this and from what I understand has not differed in opinion. This person grew up in the Roman Catholic church and still holds close at heart to them, though does not attend church now and is a big Joel Osteen fan now. Other siblings on their death bed home call Roman priests to come, to perform mass in the house, and talk to them, etc.... and this person most likely will end up doing the same. This person did not know that the Roman priests sacramentally, falsely, were changing the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ really (transubstantiation). I explained this to that person and they said, 'Well, I never saw it that way and since I do not believe that, what they believe does not matter, it is what I think it means.' This person, at least at the time, would not have had trouble accepting Roman mass because the person's private understanding meant more than the Roman confession (doctrine).

There are sometimes people who say, 'I think believers are to be found in all churches', but this approach may go further in which their private understanding of scripture is held in higher esteem by themselves than what the church they attend confesses.

I have to come back to membership vows and think on that. I thought it might fit in with this situation somewhere, maybe it does not. I think what Jeff 'O Neil said might be it, but how would what he said fit into the Nicodemite situation or how might it not?

From what I understand it is the importance of individual self being regarded so highly by some that Church confession is null and void in their own mind while they practice or are members of the church.


Thank you!!


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

Cymro said:


> To take out membership and have serious reservations concerning
> the doctrines that bind you is detrimental to your spiritual life, and the health of the receiving church.



This may be the other part (Nicodemites being the other).

Let us use this example. (I know of a possible local church that is in this situation.)

A PCUSA local body is against same-sex marriage. They are still within the larger church polity. Are there membership vows that come into conflict in terms of what the larger church polity confesses in opposition to what the local body confesses? Aside from the larger church polity taking steps of disciple against the local body, do the membership vows of the local body in which they are to support the larger church constitutional authority in question? The membership vows are to God and not to man, but as I bolded from the "Book of Order" since the membership vows are to accord with the forms of church government, thus their confessions and church order, do the membership vows mean anything? The local body is not in accord with the higher assemblies action. Yet do the membership vows of the individuals in the local body put them in a position in which they are somehow giving validity to all that the denomination constitutionally confesses? Yes "validity" is defined by God's truth, but are not the local members in their public confession (membership vows) saying one thing but privately saying another? Is there the sin of hypocrisy taking place on behalf of the local church due to their public membership being different from their private (or local church) confession?

I also know members of the session who are against the same-sex marriage. Does this put them into a position of hypocrisy? Publicly supporting one thing, but privately saying another? Or is this just not how church polity works?

I might be going at this all wrong, which is why I ask. So even my questions here might not be approaching the reality of what is happening.


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 15, 2015)

Found the letter I was talking about. It's republished in Calvin's collected tracts as "On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly", or, alternately, "The Sinfulness of Outward Conformity to Romish Rites". Here's an online version of it: JOHN CALVIN TRACTS & LETTERS - ON SHUNNING THE UNLAWFUL RITES OF THE UNGODLY (NB: the site looks a bit questionable, but as far as I can tell the text there is the same as what I have in Calvin's collected tracts)

Reading that may hopefully give you some perspective on the situation you ask about.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> Found the letter I was talking about. It's republished in Calvin's collected tracts as "On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly", or, alternately, "The Sinfulness of Outward Conformity to Romish Rites". Here's an online version of it: JOHN CALVIN TRACTS & LETTERS - ON SHUNNING THE UNLAWFUL RITES OF THE UNGODLY (NB: the site looks a bit questionable, but as far as I can tell the text there is the same as what I have in Calvin's collected tracts)
> 
> Reading that may hopefully give you some perspective on the situation you ask about.



Thank you very much! 

God Bless


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 16, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> Found the letter I was talking about. It's republished in Calvin's collected tracts as "On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly", or, alternately, "The Sinfulness of Outward Conformity to Romish Rites". Here's an online version of it: JOHN CALVIN TRACTS & LETTERS - ON SHUNNING THE UNLAWFUL RITES OF THE UNGODLY (NB: the site looks a bit questionable, but as far as I can tell the text there is the same as what I have in Calvin's collected tracts)
> 
> Reading that may hopefully give you some perspective on the situation you ask about.



From Calvin's letter you linked:



> Next, he deprives them of all handle for quibbling when he anticipates the objection which they might take — that an Idol is nothing, and therefore the flesh offered to Idols differs in no respect from common flesh.






> Ultimately he concludes his exhortation thus — “Do we challenge God? Are we stronger than he?” ( 1 Corinthians 10:22.)
> 
> Such is the force of this appeal, that he could not have more bitterly (I had almost said tragically) assailed any criminal act than he has assailed that fictitious Superstition, which many in our days regard as the most trivial of faults.



This is exactly the attitude I was referring to: 'Idols are nothing, meat but common flesh, trivializing'. I have not finished reading the letter, and my query concerning membership vows and the duty these vows require before God is what I was trying to connect to just such attitudes. The letter is helping me understand and think this through better. Just wanted to post some quotes that, of course, converse Calvin's obvious talent in being to write so clearly with wonderful depth and relevance.


----------

