# Question re: ARPC Vows for Communicant Membership



## Kaalvenist (Dec 7, 2010)

My question is for the ARPs on the Board, especially ministers and elders.

In the vows for communicant membership in the ARPC (Standards of the ARPC, Form of Government, p. 192), we read:

"(5) Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?"

I know that the ARPC formerly maintained the Westminster Standards, Directory for Worship, and Form of Church Government as terms of communion. This query seems to echo that former specific commitment, in more general terminology.

Does this carry the same weight as the old requirement of commitment to the Confession, Catechisms, etc.?
Are individuals expected to read the Standards beforehand, to know what they are affirming?
Would the discipline of the church be brought against communicants who publicly oppose the Standards, as violating this vow?
Basically, how does this practically play out?


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 7, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> I know that the ARPC formerly maintained the Westminster Standards, Directory for Worship, and Form of Church Government as terms of communion. This query seems to echo that former specific commitment, in more general terminology.



I'm not sure this is quite correct, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the ARP ever adopted the Westminster Directory for Public Worship (and Chris Coldwell is the one who informed me of this, I believe). The ARP actually uses it's own DPW, adopted a few years ago, replacing the older one that existed when I came into the ARP about a decade ago. However, I don't think that is necessarily germane to your post.



> Does this carry the same weight as the old requirement of commitment to the Confession, Catechisms, etc.?
> Are individuals expected to read the Standards beforehand, to know what they are affirming?
> Would the discipline of the church be brought against communicants who publicly oppose the Standards, as violating this vow?
> Basically, how does this practically play out?



I'm not sure about your first question. Could you be more specific?

Individuals are expected to know what the Standards teach. This is handled in different ways (new members classes, meetings with pastor, etc.).

Yes, church disciple would/could be brought against an individual if a session chose to do so. But remember that church discipline begins with admonishment and rebuke.

How it plays out would be different in different churches. You are always going to have folks who might be confused on particular aspects of doctrine, which is why the "so far as you understand them" phrase is present. Not every new member is going to be an expert on Reformed dogmatics. Also, there is a formal difference recognized between the membership questions and questions for ordination (for elders and deacons). In the latter case, the individual has to affirm that the WCF is a statement of his own faith.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I don't think the ARP ever adopted the Westminster Directory for Public Worship (and Chris Coldwell is the one who informed me of this, I believe).


Correct; they drafted their own (first published in 1799) as part of a book of order and discipline attached to their constitution which included the primary doctrinal documents. The 1799 chapter on psalm singing is actually quite more explicitly EP than the original Westminster directory and addresses other practices such as inappropriate tunes, prohibits choruses and musical instruments.


----------



## goodnews (Dec 7, 2010)

Sean- Thanks for the question. The short answers to your questions are sort of, yes, and yes. My guess is that this plays out a little differently among the various churches though. Since I'm still pastoring my first church, and only attended one ARP church beforehand, I can't speak intelligently regarding other ARP churches. At Hopewell we expect them to be able to genuinely affirm the entirety of our Standards. However, since most of my members are coming from non-Reformed backgrounds we don't require them to understand them with the same depth that former ARP churches did. They are required to "read through" the Standards and I'll spend some time with them, in their homes, in an effort to ascertain a general knowledge of the Standards. But, I know for a fact that in the 19th century the elders of our church required more than we do today. To be honest, I'm at least as concerned about their being able to answer, in the affirmative, questions 1-4, 6,7, as I am #5. I've found the reality is that today's church attender has very little understanding of the Scriptures, much less of any confessional documents. My guess is #5 allows a little bit of "wiggle room" for those reasons. So for us there is required a general commitment to the distinctives of our Standards, with a commitment, after communicant membership, toward a deeper understanding.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 7, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the ARPC formerly maintained the Westminster Standards, Directory for Worship, and Form of Church Government as terms of communion. This query seems to echo that former specific commitment, in more general terminology.
> ...


Sorry, I wasn't more clear. I know that the ARPs adopted a different Directory for Worship and Form of Church Government (substantially based upon Westminster, however).


MarrowMan said:


> > Does this carry the same weight as the old requirement of commitment to the Confession, Catechisms, etc.?
> > Are individuals expected to read the Standards beforehand, to know what they are affirming?
> > Would the discipline of the church be brought against communicants who publicly oppose the Standards, as violating this vow?
> > Basically, how does this practically play out?
> ...


1. I guess my question would be: Although the phrasing of the current vow uses more general terminology, would it be understood as the individual vowing their agreement (as far as they understand them) with the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Westminster Shorter Catechism; and at least the general principles of Presbyterian worship, government, and discipline, if not specifically the directories employed in the ARPC?

2. I know that in other churches that require such agreement from their members (adherence to the subordinate standards, rather than an imaginary list of "essentials"), they ask if the candidate has at least read through the standards being affirmed. Of course, the other means you mentioned can be quite effective as well.

3. Agreed.

4. I guess I was more meaning, how is this practiced by different sessions? Do some allow a significant amount of "leeway" on doctrinal confusion or ignorance that would not be allowed by other sessions? What about if someone is adamantly opposed to some principle of the church -- for example, a decided Congregationalist or Baptist who agrees with the Standards on most other things? I know that our (RPCNA) Directory for Church Government forbids admitting to membership those who are in opposition to the principles of the church (Chapter 1, Section 4); but practically, this is rarely enforced, as most seem to think we can now allow anyone who won't actively and publicly oppose our principles.

Just curious as to how my fellow dissenting Presbyterian brethren carry this out.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 7, 2010)

In practice, in the majority of churches the phrase "so far as you understand them" lets in all those that have a clear profession of faith & are baptised. These normally fall into two categories, the Reformed Baptist & those that simply do not know the difference.

A (very) small minority are trying to require that members declare exceptions to the standards at the time of membership. This effort is meeting signifigant opposition from fellow presbyters when it is openly promoted at the presbytery level. So I excpect it will stay a congregational level foible of a few sessions for the time being.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 7, 2010)

1. Yes, I think this would be a correct way of putting it.

4. Once again, this is a matter of encouragement and "leeway" by individual sessions. One of the things being guarded against is expressed by something in the form of gov't, found at the end of the section on the membership questions -- there will be no additional requirements for membership. The idea is a profession of faith in Christ, a general agreement (as best as the individual understands) with the principles of the denomination, a willingness to submit to the governance of the church, etc. A more stringent requirement would be for elders of the church. There was actually a lengthy discussion on this in my presbytery some years ago; a pastor wanted a "lesser" confessional requirement for membership (something like merely affirming the Apostles' Creed, as a reformed confession was too restrictive in his thinking). Thankfully that was defeated, since it had zero traction.

It would be possible for someone to become a member w/o being in complete agreement with the standards, but this would be left up to individual sessions. And it might differ on circumstances. A person might affirm that presbyterianism is biblical, but prefer congregationalism. A sixty year old man with adult children and who is not a paedo-baptist might be permitted to be a member; he could not speak or teach against the doctrine, and he could not be an elder, though. OTOH, a young family might not be allowed membership if they were anti-paedo, since they would not be bringing their children to be baptized.

Interestingly, just this morning, a friend of mine on Facebook (another ARP pastor who has a Ph.D.) sent me this message. Perhaps it has something to bear on this:



> It is interesting that the very idea of subscription within the [Scottish Presbyterian] tradition included church membership as well as ministers and elders. In order to participate in the Lord's Supper, subscription to the WCF, National Covenants (and according to some, 'The Sum of Saving Knowledge', the anonymous work was always appended to the WCF). Subscription was understood and practiced as a part of worship, prior to the Communion season.


----------



## sastark (Dec 7, 2010)

Sean, I can only tell you what we do in our congregation. We have a "new members class" which seeks to familiarize potential members with who our church is and why we do the things we do. Doctrinal issues are raised, but we don't require new members to be as familiar with the Standards as an elder or minister would be. That being said, if a member were to publicly teach contrary to the Standards, the Session would first approach the brother or sister and attempt to properly instruct him/her. If said member was not willing to learn or continued to openly oppose the Standards of our Church, I do believe that would be grounds for initiating discipline. Thankfully, that has not been an issue at my church since I've been here.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 7, 2010)

Kevin said:


> In practice, in the majority of churches the phrase "so far as you understand them" lets in all those that have a clear profession of faith & are baptised. These normally fall into two categories, the Reformed Baptist & those that simply do not know the difference.
> 
> A (very) small minority are trying to require that members declare exceptions to the standards at the time of membership. This effort is meeting signifigant opposition from fellow presbyters when it is openly promoted at the presbytery level. So I excpect it will stay a congregational level foible of a few sessions for the time being.


 
I wish this were required.

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------




> There was actually a lengthy discussion on this in my presbytery some years ago; a pastor wanted a "lesser" confessional requirement for membership (something like merely affirming the Apostles' Creed, as a reformed confession was too restrictive in his thinking). Thankfully that was defeated, since it had zero traction.



What's the point? I've seen people admitted as members who I don't think know what Westminster is.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 7, 2010)

Zenas said:


> What's the point? I've seen people admitted as members who I don't think know what Westminster is.



Well, that sort of thing can only be rectified at the local level.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 7, 2010)

That's assuming the people at the local level know what Westminster is.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 7, 2010)

Zenas said:


> That's assuming the people at the local level know what Westminster is.


 
Sure they do. It's a town in western South Carolina. Near Clemson.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 8, 2010)

So what I'm hearing is (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Individuals are expected to be in basic agreement with the principles of the church (as expressed in the subordinate standards).
2. They are not held to such as strictly or stringently as church officers would be (which is to be expected).
3. Different sessions might be more or less strict in ensuring that individuals are in agreement (or at least not in disagreement) with the subordinate standards.
4. Consequently, different sessions will treat "difficult" cases differently -- one session might accept an elderly single Reformed Baptist who will never have children, another session might not accept him for membership (because of his Independent ecclesiology and Baptistic sacramentology).
5. Some sessions (call them "liberal" if you please) are not really following this, and are probably admitting individuals contrary to this requirement, in allowing individuals to become members who are ignorant of the standards; while others go to the other "extreme" (not too extreme, in my book), and would require members not only to read through the standards, and declare a general agreement with them, but declare any exceptions they might take to them.

Would individuals (probably especially the conservatives) defend this as biblical -- that is, requiring candidates for membership to agree with the subordinate standards, rather than some make-believe list of "essentials?"

On a side note, does the ARPC practice open communion (PCA, OPC) or restricted communion (RPCNA)? That is, do individuals who are not members of that church have to be admitted to communion by the church session? If so, are they admitted on this same basis (i.e., agreement with the subordinate standards)?


----------



## Kevin (Dec 8, 2010)

Sean, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. Most ARP churches receive members based on a "good faith" profession of faith & evidence of Christian Baptism. Period.

Some ARPers have tried to shift this practice toward the minority position of "confessional membership". This has not worked out, so far.

Your use of "liberal" & "conservative" in this context is not helpful.

---------- Post added at 05:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 AM ----------

BTW, every ARP congregation that I have even heard of, allows all Baptised members of ANY Evangelical Church to participate in the supper.


----------



## sastark (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin: I agree with you about participation in the Supper (at least, that is how we practice it at Communion ARP); however, I'm not sure a simple "good faith" profession plus baptism would be enough to let someone join our church. If someone wanted to join and said "I believe in Jesus and that my baptism saves me" the Session would want to educate that person before allowing them to join. If there is a known issue, membership will be delayed/denied. That is part of the point of membership classes and meeting with the Elders prior to being received into membership. 

Now, if someone has a very simple faith (they can affirm the basics of the Apostle's Creed, for example) and does not hold to some proposition in conflict with our Standards, then, yes, I believe that person would be admitted. But, the elders have the duty to find out what a person believes prior to receiving them into membership.


----------



## goodnews (Dec 8, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> So what I'm hearing is (correct me if I'm wrong):
> 
> 1. Individuals are expected to be in basic agreement with the principles of the church (as expressed in the subordinate standards).
> 2. They are not held to such as strictly or stringently as church officers would be (which is to be expected).
> ...



I think you are pretty close to the reality with 1-4. I'm not sure #5 is as accurate though. I don't know of any ARP church that would allow someone church membership who is ignorant of our Standards and/or who was in disagreement with much of it. On the other hand I know that some Sessions (I doubt there are that many anymore though) would require a deeper understanding of them and require that exceptions be stated. 

I'm not sure of what you mean in your statement regarding "essentials." If you are asking whether we have a list of "essentials" and "non-essentials" in the same vein that the EPC does, then the answer is no (I'm not trying to grieve my EPC brothers, just making a statement). 

Finally, I think I can say with a fair amount of certainty that most ARP church practice open communion much in the same way the PCA does.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 8, 2010)

Seth, I think we mean the same thing. By "good faith" I meant, clear and personal profession. Not a "simple" profession i.e. I believe in Jesus.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 8, 2010)

Sean,

Here are my practical experiences which are very limited:

Members have been accepted based on profession of faith before the Session alone. No one has been required to learn about or explore the Westminster Standards and I have seen many admitted who are not familiar with them. The Lord's supper is not fenced and anyone in attendance is permitted to partake, but a warning is given beforehand to those without a credible profession. Reformed Baptists have not only been accepted as members, but have also served on the diaconate-and they have been vastly more helpful that their counter-parts with little to no theological conviction. In greener seasons, I would oppose thise practice, but it is necessary at the moment. 

Note: These practices are not the result of the convictions of everyone involved.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------




Kevin said:


> Sean, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. Most ARP churches receive members based on a "good faith" profession of faith & evidence of Christian Baptism. Period.
> 
> Some ARPers have tried to shift this practice toward the minority position of "confessional membership". This has not worked out, so far.
> 
> ...


 
This is consistent with my expeirences, albeit mine might be a bit more extreme than that cited. I wish it were the opposite.


----------



## sastark (Dec 8, 2010)

Kevin said:


> Seth, I think we mean the same thing. By "good faith" I meant, clear and personal profession. Not a "simple" profession i.e. I believe in Jesus.


 
Thanks for that clarification!


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 6, 2011)

I know it's been a little while since this was last discussed... but a question or two more, if you gentlemen would be so kind:

1. I know that the actual practice can vary from session to session; especially as the questions undergo alterations, going from more specific (Westminster Standards, etc.) to more general (doctrines and principles of the ARPC). Does anyone know the history of this change, i.e. when vows or questions for membership underwent these sorts of alterations?

2. Does anyone know when the ARPC stopped practicing close communion, i.e. requiring individuals to be members of the ARPC (or at least of like faith and practice with the ARPC) in order to be received to the Lord's Supper?

3. Are there ministers and/or sessions who still favor the "older" positions on these points? For that matter, are sessions required to practice open communion? I know that our denomination identifies itself as maintaining "restricted communion" or "session-controlled communion," rather than our former "close communion" (we've never held "open communion"); but I also know officers and members who believe our former position, and there is nothing in our Constitution which would require a session to administer either sacrament to a non-Covenanter.


----------

