Full Confessional Subscription for Membership

[Abeard]

Wondering what are your thoughts on full confessional subscription being required for membership. Is it lawful for this to be a pre-requisite for church membership, or is it only necessary for church officers?

The reason I ask is because our Presbytery will be deciding on this issue in the next year.

 

[Kevin]

It is only required for officers in Presbyterianism. The CanARP's have been heading this direction for years. I pray that it does not pass.

 

[py3ak]

Wondering what are your thoughts on full confessional subscription being required for membership. Is it lawful for this to be a pre-requisite for church membership, or is it only necessary for church officers?

The reason I ask is because our Presbytery will be deciding on this issue in the next year.

In any organization there must be unity of government in order to preserve institutional identity. So requiring confessional subscription for all members is understandable in a setting of congregational church government.
The problem, of course, is that there some among Christ's sheep who have not reached that place in their development. If only those who are "officer material" are allowed in, it is quite possible that many who would flourish and grow as members will be excluded out of hand.
It would be wonderful if all Christians held firmly and intelligently one of the Reformed confessions as a genuine expression of their understanding of the Scriptures and public profession to the world. But shepherds are called upon to feed the sheep actually extant, not hold out for some idealized version of them to materialize.

 

[Herald]

Ditto to Ruben's comments. Not everyone is of one understanding on every point of doctrine and practice. While ministers of the Gospel are rightly held to a higher standard, charity must be extended to the sheep of the fold. If not we run the risk of being culpable in exposing them to falsehood.

 

[Abeard]

My understanding of fully subscribing is first a willingness to subject oneself to the doctrines upheld in the Confession. Yes, understanding why we submit to it is important, but if we think we have to fully understand the doctrines in the confession before we submit to it, this would be counter productive.

Take the Trinity for example, there is no way any of us can fully comprehend this doctrine which is the reason why we subscribe to a confession which clearly articulates what we believe.

Another example is a Husband/wife relationship. Does a wife submit only to her husband when she understands his decisions/convictions? Or, should she submit because she trust his judgment?

 

[au5t1n]

My understanding of fully subscribing is first a willingness to subject oneself to the doctrines upheld in the Confession.

That is not what full subscription means. Full subscription means that one believes in all the statements in the Standards, having been persuaded that each one is taught in Scripture.

Does a wife submit only to her husband when she understands his decisions/convictions?

When we talk about subscription, we are talking about beliefs, not actions. A wife should never believe a doctrine merely because her husband does without being persuaded herself by Scripture. Anyone who believes that she should cannot be a full subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards because the Confession explicitly prohibits this "implicit faith" in the chapter on Liberty of Conscience. On the other hand, she can practice something she does not consider necessary because her husband does, as long as doing so does not violate her conscience. This is not full subscription either.

 

[Abeard]

Thanks for the reply!

My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?

 

[Edward]

Sounds like some potential church planting opportunities for the PCA. Would current members who can't fully subscribe be purged?

 

[au5t1n]

My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?

Do you want an Elder in your church to "subscribe" the statements in the confession via a form of belief that does not include having a thorough enough understanding and study of them to affirm that they are "the Confession of my faith"? If you acknowledge that this kind of "subscription" or belief is not enough for Church officers, then you have conceded the issue that the same criteria ought not be applied to Church members and Church officers.

 

[Abeard]

My question is, what is the difference between understanding the doctrines in the confession and believing? I think this is crucial, correct me if i'm wrong but sometimes I think we feel we have to understand something fully to believe it. Would it be wrong to believe something you don't fully understand?

Do you want an Elder in your church to "subscribe" the statements in the confession via a form of belief that does not include having a thorough enough understanding and study of them to affirm that they are "the Confession of my faith"? If you acknowledge that this kind of "subscription" or belief is not enough for Church officers, then you have conceded the issue that the same criteria ought not be applied to Church members and Church officers.

I think the key is believing that the doctrines spelled out in the confession are biblical. Both elder and member can believe the confession is biblical. i agree that the elder should have a more comprehensive understanding of the confession in order to rule with diligence. I believe subsciption requires a belief of the teachings contained in the confession even in the understandings vary. There are many minister's who understand the confession but take exceptions to it.

 

[Jack K]

If we have a high view of church membership, then we want all believers to be church members. This means we must not set the requirements for church membership higher than the requirements for being recognized as a believer.

To be recognized as a believer, it is not necessary to subscribe fully to Presbyterian confessions. Therefore, this should not be necessary for church membership. The Bible makes it clear that church officers, however, are held to a higher standard than other members. So it's appropriate for them to have to subscribe to the confessions.

 

[Abeard]

Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.

 

[Unoriginalname]

If we have a high view of church membership, then we want all believers to be church members. This means we must not set the requirements for church membership higher than the requirements for being recognized as a believer.

To be recognized as a believer, it is not necessary to subscribe fully to Presbyterian confessions. Therefore, this should not be necessary for church membership. The Bible makes it clear that church officers, however, are held to a higher standard than other members. So it's appropriate for them to have to subscribe to the confessions.

I agree with this, I also find that requiring full confessional subscription for membership opens the door for implicit faith among the laity who have to subscribe to the confessions in order to be a member.

 

[Andres]

Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.

I don't know of any of the major Presbyterian denominations that do require it. Hopefully you recognize from this thread some excellent reasons why this is the case.

 

[DMcFadden]

Historically, some groups differentiated subscription by the terms quia and quatenus. Quia subscription involves accepting confessional affirmations BECAUSE they are believed to be biblical. Quatenus subscription equivocates on the the meaning of "subscribe." It suggests that one believes confessional affirmations INSOFAR as they are biblical. Groups which permit quatenus subscription (certainly what some groups designate as "loose subscription" and maybe even "full subscription") soon discover that once you start admitting "exceptions" for reasons of "conscience," it becomes almost impossible to hold to any meaningful confessional boundaries. Look at both the PCUSA and the ELCA for American examples of the outcome of such dithering.

When we are dealing with strict subscription, good faith subscription, and loose subscription in Presbyterian and Reformed bodies, permission to hold your confesion according to the Burger King motto, "have it your way," will almost certainly result in progressive latitudinarianism and loosening of standards over time.

If pastors and officers do not hold to the confessions completely, there is little chance that the congregations will. Allowing congregational members a bit of liberty to grow in their understanding of their confessions, however, is a somewhat different matter. Pastoral discretion may be involved in working with a person who has doubts, questions, or comes from a background that requires a bit more time before embracing full subscription.

 

[Scott1]

When God converts a sinner, he likely knows little doctrine, especially systematic biblical doctrine. (Not to say none, the Spirit giving faith is already some). But, at the point he is a (new) Christian, he needs to be under the tender care of the church, and recognized as part of it.

One could not expect comprehensive knowledge of, let alone agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in, e.g. the Westminster Standards by a baby Christian.

Officers can, and ought be qualified with such, e.g. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.


Maybe,
Full for officers (very limited, minor exceptions); no subscription for members (only vow to peaceably study); ministry group leaders (something in between as determined by pastoral care)

 

[Kevin]

Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.

As far as I know, no Presbyterian church holds to it. It is contrary to our history and our doctrine. It's origins seem to be some of the Dutch reformed sects.

It is a very divisive practice and it can destroy churches.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Thanks for the responses! I didn't realize full subscription for members was so uncommon in the reformed church.

As far as I know, no Presbyterian church holds to it. It is contrary to our history and our doctrine. It's origins seem to be some of the Dutch reformed sects.

It is a very divisive practice and it can destroy churches.

Don't you think that "Dutch Reformed sects" is incredibly uncharitable language?...

 

[Dearly Bought]

Since there seems to be a chorus against "full confessional subscription being required for membership," allow me to add a dissenting voice with some qualifications.

On the one hand, I don't know that I've talked to anyone who believes that subscription for officers should be equivalent to what is required of members, at least in regards to the sort of "comprehensive understanding" which has been mentioned. I guess, technically, I would not actually advocate for a "subscription" by members to the church's standards. Again, I don't know that I've ever met anyone (aside from Baptists) who has advocated for actual "subscription" on the part of unordained church members. I am a firm believer that the church is the proper context for discipleship. Church members don't need to have the same grasp of every fine point of the standards as is necessary for church officers.

On the other hand, I am very concerned that anything other than a "confessional membership" is damaging to the church. What does it do to the discipline of a church if the description of sin and obedience in her subordinate standards is set aside for something undefined? Practically speaking, we tend to see this particularly in the area of Sabbath-keeping where even the surrounding Christian culture grates against God's Law. Presbyterian churches often feel free to set aside the 4th commandment in regards to church members because we are told that "church members do not subscribe the confession." What does it do to the teaching of the church if doctrinal opposition is freely tolerated in regards to any confessional teaching? May a church member argue in a Christian Education class against the confession because "they don't subscribe"?

There may be a long and difficult debate about the validity of a person privately holding an opinion contrary to the confession. Pastoral practice in regards to members who stray in practice or doctrine is also a difficult matter for discussion. However, the fundamental principle is quite clear to me: the subordinate standards of the church should be understood to govern the public practice and speech of church members. I will therefore contend for "confessional membership" on those grounds.

 

[One Little Nail]

having been influenced by a strict covenanter stream (still waters steelites) in the first decade of my christian profession soon after having come to an understanding of the Reformed faith, i did hold to it thinking it was the way,that is full subscription membership, it seemed to be right, how could not a required profession of the truth be wrong, it was an idealistic & romanticised view of Church membership, even perfectionist, i do still hold to many Reformed Presbyterian doctrinal istinctives.

the problem with full subscription membership is, chiefly & firstly, that God or the Scriptures don't make it a criteria for Church Membership, a person with a credible profession of faith or the seed of believers have the right or entitlement to receive membership in a Church as they are allready considered members thereof, & as a consequence of their standing or position are entitled to the covenant sign of Baptism, which is also a sign for admission into the membership of a particular Church or Congregation, not vice versa.

the Reformed Churches teach that there is a two fold membership of the Church, there is the membership just spoken of admission into the Body of the external professing Church & there is communicant membership, which is the admission of
a member of the Church into privelage of partaking of The Lord's Supper or Table, this according to Paul was only for such members who could discern the Lord's Body, which would definitely discriminate against infants & young children, new born babes
&/or immature in Christ & the mentally deranged, not to mention sinning believers or those under discipline.

To sum up, the Elders or Bishops of the Church alone , there you go Sola No 6,ought to be required to partake of Full Confessional Subscription, as they bear rule & particularly the Pastors & Teachers of the Churches who not only rule
but unto them it is given to teach the whole council of God to the flock

 

[Herald]

I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree en toto with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area.

As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree en toto with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area.

As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.

What does it mean to "agree to be taught from it"? I'm against creating some crazily high standard of cognition necessary for church membership. Discipleship should occur within the church after basic catechesis. Yet again, I ask where Scripture permits a church to define sin and duty and then say, "oh, that isn't required of church members." Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

 

[Edward]

Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

No, it isn't.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

No, it isn't.

Would you care to advance the discussion with some explanation or engagement with what I've advocated?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture).

I would add to this that they agree to keep the peace by not advocating contrary to the confessional basis.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

I wonder about this. Yes, it is one of the sins described, but so are the ten commandments. Can this discussion solely be about the sabbath and baptism? Are you effectively advocating that members be required to not sin? Would this not be the logical conclusion?

 

[Jake]

As I have thought about this recently, and then read this thread, I have a related question that has come up. Bear with me, for it probably shows a serious misunderstanding. Is it for belief and/or practice that one is/can be disciplined?

The reason why I ask is because of how this would play out. Using Bryan's two issues to illustrate scenarios might make this clear:

Couple A: An elderly couple not convinced of paedo-baptism, but wishing to join a Presbyterian church. They are willing to receive the teaching of the church, and have no children around and in their household that need to be baptized.
Couple B: A young couple with a child that has recently been born not convinced of paedo-baptism, but wishing to join a Presbyterian church. They would refuse to submit their children for baptism until they had made a profession of faith.

Person A: This man is not convinced of the teaching on the fourth commandment regarding recreation. However, he still abstains from recreating on the Lord's Day for unrelated reasons (e.g., he spends all day in communion with the saints at church and so doesn't have time to recreate generally and so abstains).
Person B: This man is not convinced of the teaching on the fourth commandment regarding recreation. Thus, he freely goes out to a ballgame after church.

In the A cases above, the belief is wrong and known to be wrong, but there is not a wrong action to accompany it, per se. In the B cases above, the belief means that the person(s) in question are sinning in action. I think it's obvious that the A cases should involve disciplinary action, but I'm not sure if the B cases should or do.

This obviously impacts church membership. Can one join and then immediately be put under discipline? Can Couple A join but not Couple B because A is not going to face discipline for not baptizing their children?

I hope that my questions are clear and that someone can help to clear up my concerns.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

I wonder about this. Yes, it is one of the sins described, but so are the ten commandments. Can this discussion solely be about the sabbath and baptism? Are you effectively advocating that members be required to not sin? Would this not be the logical conclusion?

I'm using this for a bit of rhetorical effect here. Obviously other issues come up, but these seem to be the battle ground. I am not advocating that "members be required not to sin." I am saying that the standard for evaluating public scandal, etc. should be what is found in the confessional standards of the church.

 

[Edward]

Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

No, it isn't.

Would you care to advance the discussion with some explanation or engagement with what I've advocated?

Your comment bears no real relationship to the question under discussion, which deals with whether full subscription should be required for membership. (You have misconstrued it as a question of discipline for members, not the bar that must be hurdled for membership).

A better re-casting of the original question would be 'Should professed believers in Christ be denied the benefits of church membership, including fellowship and and the sacraments, if they do not yet have a complete understanding of, and complete subscription to, the Standards of the Church?'

I haven't seen an answer to my question up thread as to whether the adoption of such a rule would bring with it a purge of the current membership rolls. It would certainly seem unfair not to re-examine the entire current membership and excommunicate any that don't meet the new standard.

 

[Herald]

I have read in this thread of pragmatic reasons for confessional church membership, but where is the biblical warrant? Some people may be concerned about purity of doctrine, keeping the unity of the body, and protecting the flock from falsehood. All good intentions, but good intentions cannot exceed scripture. The prerequisite for local church membership is belief and baptism. My Presbyterian brethren would generally agree, except for their view of baptized infants also being part of the visible church. That point of difference aside, where does scripture require a potential member to agree en toto with a confession? I think it is perfectly permissible to tell a potential new member that our church is confessional and explain what that means. It is also permissible to tell them that, while they are not required to fully subscribe to the confession before membership, that they do agree to taught from it (in essence they are being taught by scripture since we believe the confession is a faithful exposition of scripture). This is what we do in our church. It is the responsibility of the elders to maintain church order in this area.

As Kevin Rodgers pointed out, requiring confessional subscription for membership can destroy churches. I will drill down on that one level deeper; it can destroy people. It creates an unbiblical roadblock to membership which may result in prospective members joining a different church that teaches dangerous doctrine. It also reeks of Classism.

What does it mean to "agree to be taught from it"? I'm against creating some crazily high standard of cognition necessary for church membership. Discipleship should occur within the church after basic catechesis. Yet again, I ask where Scripture permits a church to define sin and duty and then say, "oh, that isn't required of church members." Really, this conversation is all about whether contemporary Presbyterian churches should actually require their members to keep the Sabbath and present their children for baptism. That's what it generally boils down to.

To "be taught from it" means that the doctrine contained in the confession will be the presupposition by which the local church approaches scripture. It is not necessary to each the confession itself during corporate worship; rather the theological position of the confession is representative of what the church believes. So, if Joe joins the church he understands that the confession accurately summarizes the doctrinal position of the church and agrees to submit himself to those teachings. Whether he submit by adopting those positions as his own is a separate matter.