# Unconfessionalism in NAPARC churches?



## ReadBavinck (Oct 21, 2006)

It has been said that there is unconfessional practice and teaching going on in confessional (i.e. NAPARC) churches. 

Some of these confessional churches are requiring, at some level, adherence to non-confessional issues; or the opposite, not requiring adherence to the confession.

I haven't spent a lot of time in confessional churches so I'm trying to draw on the combined experiences of the board. Have you been in a church where you experienced (not just heard about) this yourself?


----------



## ADKing (Oct 21, 2006)

Many denominations in NAPARC do not practice full subscription. That means that when a man is being examined for ordination he may actually claim to disagree with parts of the confession of the church. In each case a presbytery would then decide whether or not they believed his exception violated the "system of doctrine" of confession. If they do not believe it does then they may proceed to ordain him. Theoretically such a man is not at liberty to teach his difference with the confession. However in practice, I have experienced that this is not the case. Furthermore, even if a man faithfully did not teach his exception, he would still not be positively teaching the confessional view which in practice means that in his particular congregation it is much more likely that his parishoners will be ignorant of doctrines the church has thought were important enough to creedalize.

This trend in subscription is very problematic. To beign with, the term "system of doctrine" is very vague. It is practically difficult to get men within NAPARC denominations to agree on what exactly this system within a system is. Secondly this has the effect of making the confession something less than an actual standard (yes, secondary though it is). A church professes to believe doctrine "x" but in fact many of its ministers do NOT believe that doctrine and either teach against it or simply never teach it. 

In my opinion this approach makes discipline very difficult and has negative implications in congregations. Does the layman believe his denomination? his pastor? if there are two pastors, which one? Usually what ends up happening is that the layman chooses to believe what he wants and act on his own interpretations.

All of this does not fulfill what Paul commands us to do in I Corinthians 1.10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment"


----------



## ReadBavinck (Oct 21, 2006)

Thanks Adam. This is a helpful and important point to make, I have a few questions about this though over here. I'd appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## SRoper (Oct 21, 2006)

"Some of these confessional churches are requiring, at some level, adherence to non-confessional issues..."

I would find this surprising. In my experience the ones who are loose on subscription don't require other people to hold their views. Now this can get problematic when RPW is involved, but I personally haven't encountered pressure to go against the confession.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 21, 2006)

Adam is not completely correct.

The PCA and OPC both allow men to take exception (or in the case of the OPC, scruples). In the PCA, we can allow a man to hold and not teach, or allow him to hold and teach. In the OPC, as I understand it, any allowable scruple can be taught.

This is not "system" or "loose" subscription. In the PCA, a candidate states his differences with the confession, and the court determines the allowability of the exceptions. In short, the candidate does not determine what the system is, the court does. In practice, this is done by every confessional denomination of any size. Many differences held by many ministers with confessions fly under the radar screen.

And, the truth is, not everything in the Westminster Standards, for instance, is of equal importance. For instance, the Standards uphold exclusive psalmnody. Very few Presbyterians (excepting, of course, the RPCNA), hold to that position. And, the Westminster Standards indeed contradict themselves, in one place saying that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ, and in another, saying that it is made with believers. That has been a huge debate in Reformed circles, and the confession only adds to the confusion on the matter.

The solution to the subscription problem in the Reformed denominations can never lie with the document itself. It must always lie with the credentialing agency, passing difficult judgment on difficult questions. A denomination can plead that it is a full subscription denomination, and then fail to do due diligence in pressing its candidates on whether they hold to every word of the confession. I think you will find very few ministers with whom that is the case.

NOw, please don't come back and accuse me of being anti-Confessional. I love the Westminster Standards. It is the best and most precise doctrinal document in the world. But, it is a human document, and thus, by definition, must contain flaws. It is not Scripture; it is a subordinate standard, and thus must always be seen that way.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Oct 21, 2006)

SRoper said:


> "Some of these confessional churches are requiring, at some level, adherence to non-confessional issues..."
> 
> I would find this surprising. In my experience the ones who are loose on subscription don't require other people to hold their views. Now this can get problematic when RPW is involved, but I personally haven't encountered pressure to go against the confession.



In this sentence I was distinguishing between _un_confessional and _non_-confessional issues. That is, are there things that a confessional church requires that may not be unbiblical (although they might be) but are not a part of our confessions, for example abstaining for alcohol?


----------



## ReadBavinck (Oct 21, 2006)

KenPierce said:


> Adam is not completely correct.
> 
> The PCA and OPC both allow men to take exception (or in the case of the OPC, scruples). In the PCA, we can allow a man to hold and not teach, or allow him to hold and teach. In the OPC, as I understand it, any allowable scruple can be taught.
> 
> This is not "system" or "loose" subscription. In the PCA, a candidate states his differences with the confession, and the court determines the allowability of the exceptions. In short, the candidate does not determine what the system is, the court does. In practice, this is done by every confessional denomination of any size. Many differences held by many ministers with confessions fly under the radar screen.



Kenneth,

We are discussing the forms of subscription over here. Could you reply in that thread as to whether the OPC and PCA should be considered part of the good faith-subscription category? Thanks!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 22, 2006)

One controversial example. My old friends in the RCUS (where I was a member for 18 years and a minister for 12) _require_ that officers (and members) hold 6/24 creation. I have no trouble with folk holding and teaching 6/24 creation but I can't see how, on the basis of the Three Forms or even on the basis of the Westminster Standards ("in the space of 6 days" is all Presbyterians can really require) they can require "six normal" days. I still don't see what's normal about _ex nihilo_ creation, but that's another discussion.

There have been attempts to make the King James the binding translation. Others have demanded the Majority Text and other such views as conditions of membership. How many of these are denominational standards, I don't know. There are certainly many non- or extra-confessional (and in some cases anti-confessional) movements in our churches.

rsc




CJ_Chelpka said:


> In this sentence I was distinguishing between _un_confessional and _non_-confessional issues. That is, are there things that a confessional church requires that may not be unbiblical (although they might be) but are not a part of our confessions, for example abstaining for alcohol?


----------



## SRoper (Oct 22, 2006)

CJ_Chelpka said:


> In this sentence I was distinguishing between _un_confessional and _non_-confessional issues. That is, are there things that a confessional church requires that may not be unbiblical (although they might be) but are not a part of our confessions, for example abstaining for alcohol?



Ah, I was reading carelessly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 22, 2006)

What's worse is the infection of revivalism among NAPARC churches.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Oct 22, 2006)

CJ_Chelpka said:


> I haven't spent a lot of time in confessional churches so I'm trying to draw on the combined experiences of the board. Have you been in a church where you experienced (not just heard about) this yourself?


 
Oh-yeah. I will not drop specific names here. That being said, prior to coming to the denomination I'm in now, I had numerous experiences where I was set up, argued with, mocked out or otherwise ignored for appealing to Scriptural teachings that are well-articulated in the Westminster Standards. This actually occurred in churches whose denominations belong to NAPARC and claim the Westminster Standards.

I can understand when this type of thing happens when interacting with members of the congregation who do not have specific responsibilities, since (rightly) all that is required of them is a credible profession of faith. But I'm talking about grief that I got from men who held office in the congregation; in at least one case, one who held the teaching office.

When we lived at our former residence in another state, Mrs. Sulzmann and I were commuting 2 1/2 hours one way to what was our home congregation in the Presbyterian Reformed Church, twice a month. For awhile we had attended a NAPARC church 3 miles from our home. The worship service was very entertaining and became increasingly so until we could no longer handle it, even though the preaching wasn't bad. The music aspect was particularly obnoxious. We eventually learned that they encouraged people to bring their easy chairs and goodies to the church's facility on a certain Sunday to watch the Super Bowl on big screen TV! (There was no evening worship). So much for the sanctity of the Lord's Day. 

That congregation proceeded to spawn a daughter congregation in the geographical vicinity. You go to their website, and what you see is typically evanjellyfish, in my opinion. You have to click at least one level down to find any reference to doctrinal standards. We knew the man who took the pastorate of that congregation, having heard him before at the sending congregation, and, I don't even want to go there.


----------

