Defend Confessional Membership

[Prufrock]

I'd be willing to discuss (and defend) the view. I do believe there are biblical foundations for this practice.

Why not, Bryan (Dearly Bought)? I'll bite. Could be an interesting topic.

So here it is: Defend confessional membership.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am still confused (it must be the late hours), but are we talking membership only or communion as well?

 

[Dearly Bought]

I am still confused (it must be the late hours), but are we talking membership only or communion as well?

Well, I'd argue that confessional membership should be inextricably linked to the manner in which you guard the table, but I'll stick to defending confessional membership for right now. I know that a number of churches which practice confessional membership will open the table to an evangelical Baptist visitor, even though I think it is inconsistent.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I'll have to preface this by stating that I'm not going to try and write out a long defense, at least not tonight. I'm also pretty new to Reformed ecclesiology. However here's a starting point for discussion:

The basis of a Reformed church's fellowship is not an undefined list of essentials, but what we confess in our confessions. The Apostle Paul writes,

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10, ESV)

Luke records of the early disciples,

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42, ESV)

Our ecclesiastical unity is based in common confession. Since this explicitly a confessional board, I trust this isn't in dispute. So how do we claim a common confession if it really isn't a common confession of the church membership? I guess I'm just as confused by non-confessional church membership as some are by my view.

Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet? (Amos 3:3, ESV)

 

[Dearly Bought]

Taken from other thread:

If you are a Christian who is in good standing and not under church discipline yet believe that it is silly to announce that the Pope is the Antichrist, would one of these churches then bar that Christian in good standing from the Lord's Table for disagreement on this minor and secondary issue in the Confessions?

Let me give you an example of how one Reformed pastor understands it.

Summaries of the Christian Faith in creeds and confessions also provide an object standard by which the Church is to discipline those in error, whether doctrinal or ethical. This is eminently practical in our day in which too many churches have sprung up from a person's desire to be a pastor and in which people flock to a church based on feelings, preferences, and "successful" ministries. What happens in these types of churches is that the pastor is a pope and there is no accountability structure except "what the pastor says, goes." Thus people are excommunicated, disfellowshipped, and shunned without any biblical steps of reconciliation, simply because of personal differences or not agreeing with the Pastor.
In a Reformed church this is not so. For example, if a member should stray from the truth, other members and the elders have a way of objectively identifying their error. Since everyone says, "I believe the Bible," the creeds and confessions give a summary of the Word as well as an explanation on difficult points of doctrine. For the welfare of the wayward believer as well as the entire congregation, the elders are given the ability to hold an erring believer accountable. The same holds true for ethical error within the church. Church discipline, then is not a case of the pastor versus someone teaching contrary to his doctrine, of a person who sins being immediately kicked out, but it is a loving process, clearly delineating between truth and error (Rom. 16:17).

From Daniel Hyde's article, "...And taught in this Christian Church" Christian Renewal (May 31, 2006): 26.

Your question particularly pertains to a certain group of Presbyterian churches. Obviously Continental Reformed churches would not have such an issue due to the absence of this statement from their confessions. I guess that if a) a Presbyterian church held to a version of the WCF that contained the original version of this clause and b) this church interpreted the clause as an identification of the papacy with the antichrist as opposed to an antichrist, then there would be justification for lovingly confronting members who began to confess otherwise. I don't know that anyone advocates immediate excommunication for a member who begins to confess something contrary to a church's confession, just as ethical error doesn't necessitate immediate excommunication either. Hopefully there will be a gentle shepherding of erring sheep before anything so extreme.

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

Yes, we're talking complete assent to confessions as far as the person is conscious of it.

Your statement reflects part of the difficulty with the phrase, as far as the person is conscious of it. On the one hand subscription would require complete knowledge. On the other complete knowledge is not required or even expected.

I don't know that subscription requires "complete knowledge." Certainly the church needs to do its job in teaching the contents of the confessions to new members. I doubt that most Reformed elders have a full understanding of every word in their confessions. But they have sworn to uphold these confessions and should rightfully take the appropriate actions if they come to the conviction that some point of doctrine in their confessions is contrary to the Word of God.

 

[Prufrock]

Bryan,

It sounds like what you're making the case for is more that "not advocating things contrary to the confession is necessary for remaining in good standing after your error has been made known to you by the minister from the confession;" not, "you must assent to everything in the confession before you can be made a member." There is a big difference between the two.

Which one do you want to defend?

Thanks for going ahead and doing this thread, by the way. I hope it's interesting.

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman


I doubt that most Reformed elders have a full understanding of every word in their confessions. But they have sworn to uphold these confessions and should rightfully take the appropriate actions if they come to the conviction that some point of doctrine in their confessions is contrary to the Word of God.

It almost certainly is true that every Elder does not have full understanding of their Confession. But, in the PCA at least, it's a little more complicated than that. The vow requires that he

"state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions."

This emphasizes that every statement and proposition must be considered and if any cannot be affirmed in good conscience, they must be disclosed and evaluated by a jury of spiritual peers (presbytery).

This would be a lot to ask of a new believer who wants to peaceably learn, study and reflect on the teachings of the church.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Bryan,

It sounds like what you're making the case for is more that "not advocating things contrary to the confession is necessary for remaining in good standing after your error has been made known to you by the minister from the confession;" not, "you must assent to everything in the confession before you can be made a member." There is a big difference between the two.

Which one do you want to defend?

Thanks for going ahead and doing this thread, by the way. I hope it's interesting.

Well, I think that part of the reasoning behind confessional membership is that it is impossible to refrain from advocating false doctrine without assenting to true doctrine. So I really don't see a big difference between the two. Perhaps you're thinking that a person could vow to refrain from "publicly" advocating things contrary to a confession but still "privately" hold to them. I don't really understand how that works in practice.

 

[Dearly Bought]

It almost certainly is true that every Elder does not have full understanding of their Confession. But, in the PCA at least, it's a little more complicated than that. The vow requires that he

"state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions."

This emphasizes that every statement and proposition must be considered and if any cannot be affirmed in good conscience, they must be disclosed and evaluated by a jury of spiritual peers (presbytery).

This would be a lot to ask of a new believer who wants to peaceably learn, study and reflect on the teachings of the church.

Not necessarily. Let's look at it this way. Chapter II of the WCF states that God is "incomprehensible." A new believer doesn't have to be familiar with the Clark/Van Til debate over our knowledge of God to affirm this. An elder, however, should have a little more ability to comprehend and teach regarding the details of this one word.

So, yes, a confessional church should take a while to go through the confessions in their membership courses. A member should be told what he will be confessing. Are they willing to state that God is "incomprehensible" and learn more about the intricacies of what that means from the church's officers? Then no problem.

I don't think it is a problem to require a new member should have heard/read every proposition of the confessions and agree to them. People are faced with much lengthier (and harder to understand) documents in regards to their finances every day. They still sign off on those contracts. Why such a hesitancy to require some careful consideration on the part of church members?

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

So, yes, a confessional church should take a while to go through the confessions in their membership courses. A member should be told what he will be confessing. Are they willing to state that God is "incomprehensible" and learn more about the intricacies of what that means from the church's officers? Then no problem.

It sounds like you are saying new members should be "familiar" with the confession of faith and that would be good, but that's not the same thing as understanding and receiving every statement or proposition which, in my understanding is what subscription requires (unless a conscience-based exception is granted).

 

[Dearly Bought]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

So, yes, a confessional church should take a while to go through the confessions in their membership courses. A member should be told what he will be confessing. Are they willing to state that God is "incomprehensible" and learn more about the intricacies of what that means from the church's officers? Then no problem.

It sounds like you are saying new members should be "familiar" with the confession of faith and that would be good, but that's not the same thing as understanding and receiving every statement or proposition which, in my understanding is what subscription requires (unless a conscience-based exception is granted).

They should receive every statement or proposition. I think their understanding of those statements may be at varying levels of comprehension. They need to be able to say they agree with each statement. They don't need to be able teach every statement to a class.

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

They should receive every statement or proposition. I think their understanding of those statements may be at varying levels of comprehension. They need to be able to say they agree with each statement. They don't need to be able teach every statement to a class.

This would set a very high bar for membership indeed.

Much time, energy and effort would be required to evaluate every member on every statement or proposition and then evaluate every exception.

The weak, uncertain, unlearned, skeptical, inarticulate, people with language barriers, would have a very difficult time ever becoming (communing) members under these circumstances. Some, I suppose, would never aspire to join- maybe only continue indefinately as regular attenders.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I recently listened to a sermon by Piper on church membership and he believes that a church cannot properly teach or discipline a believer without that believer being a member of the church. Thus at Bethlehem (I recognize it isn't confessional) the only requirement is a viable profession of faith. Once a member, then the training of their theological belief system begins. Now to be elder is a different story. They have their doctrinal statements which are apparently quite lengthy and each new elder has to adhere to all of it.

 

[Dearly Bought]

This would set a very high bar for membership indeed.

Much time, energy and effort would be required to evaluate every member on every statement or proposition and then evaluate every exception.

Confessional membership entails no exceptions. There certainly would be a detailed membership interview. I don't know that you need to require examination on every word or phrase of the confessions. They just need to affirm that they do confess them and demonstrate that they do understand what they confess.

The weak, uncertain, unlearned, skeptical, inarticulate, people with language barriers, would have a very difficult time ever becoming (communing) members under these circumstances. Some, I suppose, would never aspire to join- maybe only continue indefinately as regular attenders.

As I've tried to emphasize, I'm not saying that new members need to be as articulate as the members of the Westminster Assembly or Synod of Dordt. The church needs to be committed to communicating the content of the confessions at whatever level of comprehension new members are able to understand. If someone does not have the mental capacity or knowledge base to deal with a detailed discussion of the regulative principle, circumstances, and elements of worship, then they don't have to have such a level of understanding. They just need to know that we only worship God in the way that He commands us to.

I think you're making exhaustive knowledge of a statement an unnecessary qualification for assenting to it. If all human knowledge of God is ultimately analogical, then it is easier to understand how two people can truly confess a doctrine yet with different levels of understanding.

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

If someone does not have the mental capacity or knowledge base to deal with a detailed discussion of the regulative principle, circumstances, and elements of worship, then they don't have to have such a level of understanding. They just need to know that we only worship God in the way that He commands us to.

The Confessions are much more specific than this, though.

If all human knowledge of God is ultimately analogical, then it is easier to understand how two people can truly confess a doctrine yet with different levels of understanding.

On the one hand this is saying, one must subscribe to every statement or proposition, no(!) exceptions to be a member, on the other, nobody has to understand them the same way.

As described, this is a very high barrier for membership, one I'm not sure is a biblical one, or in the way described here- a practical one for operation of the visible church.

 

[Dearly Bought]

On the one hand this is saying, one must subscribe to every statement or proposition, no(!) exceptions to be a member, on the other, nobody has to understand them the same way.

As described, this is a very high barrier for membership, one I'm not sure is a biblical one, or in the way you describe it here- a practical one.

Again, I'm not speaking of contrary understandings of the confessions. I'm saying that a statement such as "God is incomprehensible" can be truly understood at varying levels of mental comprehension. In fact, the statement that "God is incomprehensible" can never be exhaustively comprehended because all of our knowledge is analogical.

Consider the following:

We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good. (Belgic Confession, Article 1)

Stephen Charnock managed to write an incredibly voluminous tome on the truths expressed in this article (not that I mean to say that he was specifically referring to the Belgic, mind you). However, one doesn't need to have Charnock's level of comprehension of God's immutability to be able to truly confess that God doesn't change.

 

[Dearly Bought]

If someone does not have the mental capacity or knowledge base to deal with a detailed discussion of the regulative principle, circumstances, and elements of worship, then they don't have to have such a level of understanding. They just need to know that we only worship God in the way that He commands us to.

The Confessions are much more specific than this, though.

I was considering such an example in the context of the Three Forms of Unity, which don't use terms such as "regulative principle," "circumstances," or "elements." However, the regulative principle is present in the Three Forms. I'm just emphasizing that we can explain the concepts present in the confessions without getting incredibly technical in our explanations.

 

[Prufrock]

I think it can be a valuable practice when practice prudently and with care and moderation.

I admire the balance that many churches used to take (maybe still do?) wherein after basic instruction in evangelical truth, newcomers were baptized and made apart of the church, but remained catechumens of sorts until further instruction had been given.

What do you think about that approach?

 

[Dearly Bought]

I think it can be a valuable practice when practice prudently and with care and moderation.

I admire the balance that many churches used to take (maybe still do?) wherein after basic instruction in evangelical truth, newcomers were baptized and made apart of the church, but remained catechumens of sorts until further instruction had been given.

What do you think about that approach?

It's better than just leaving them with "basic instruction in evangelical truth", but still has problems. What is the rush to add them to the membership rolls?

 

[Prufrock]

Does anyone else have any further thoughts on this? (Especially pastors and elders?) Why do you think it a valuable/commanded practice to either not require subscription to a confession as a condition for initial membership, or to do so?

I think I've just always tacitly assumed it not necessary; I'm curious to hear more pros and cons.

 

[charliejunfan]

I agree with you 100% Paul, we should defend confessional membership, In trying to practice meekness we have developed weakness in the church. The same happened to the Puritan church, they were so cautious about not being too picky about theological arguments that they allowed Unitarianism to creep in and break apart and abolish what was once sacred.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Does anyone else have any further thoughts on this? (Especially pastors and elders?) Why do you think it a valuable/commanded practice to either not require subscription to a confession as a condition for initial membership, or to do so?

I think I've just always tacitly assumed it not necessary; I'm curious to hear more pros and cons.

Do we want to have a two-tiered congregation? Tier 1: those who actually affirm the confession of faith and Tier 2: those who are not required to affirm and confess the same faith?

Do we want a Reformed congregation or merely a Reformed session/consistory?

See ch. 5 of RRC.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I, personally, don't understand the logic behind NOT requiring some level of subscription on the part of church members. These are, after all, people who have a say in some potentially significant situations in the life of the church... it would be a shame to think that some of these people are making decisions (i.e., should a given man be our pastor) and yet themselves not believe what the church supposedly believes. Additionally, I've often wondered how we actually administer real discipline and uphold certain standards if the member in question can simply say, "Well, that isn't what I believe..."

It may seem inefficient and cumbersome for a church to require (some level of) confessional subscription, but in my mind it makes a lot of sense to do so.

 

[Scott1]

Book of Church Order
Presbyterian Church in America
Chapter 57

profession of faith, are to assent to the following declarations and
promises, by which you enter into a solemn covenant with God
and His Church.

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?[/

I think this hits a good balance.

New members are not expected to fully comprehend let alone fully comprehend and agree with every statement or proposition of doctrine in their standards. They do however:

1) profess Christ publically
2) vow to walk obediently
3) support the church
4) submit to the church
5) agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine

I think that's quite a bit to ask a new member, enough.

Officers take the next step, which is a big one, and vow that they have comprehensive knowledge of their doctrine as contained in their standards and that they agree with each proposition or statement unless they are granted a "peer reviewed" exception which is recorded and made known to the congregation which in turn votes to confirm them.

This governing basis to me seems to protect well the biblical polity of the visible church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

But Scott - nothing about the PCA's barebones requirement requires anything distinctly Reformed.

These vows are good succinct summaries for public profession, but I don't think they should be used as what you seem to imply, that is, as some sort of bare bones creed.

 

[Scott1]

But Scott - nothing about the PCA's barebones requirement requires anything distinctly Reformed.

These vows are good succinct summaries for public profession, but I don't think they should be used as what you seem to imply, that is, as some sort of bare bones creed.

Actually, I think points 3-5 do implicitly involve Reformed polity and doctrine:

3) support the church (further her reformed identity by support)
4) submit to the church (discipline)
5) agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine (Bible, standards)

Granted, there is no vow before God, witnessed by men, as to comprehensive knowledge of and agreement with the system of doctrine. There is however a receiving of polity and agreement to submit to studying the Church's doctrine in peace.

Practically (not arguing this biblical imperative or even clear in Scripture), this probably produces more informed (doctrinal) membership in the long run.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

However none of the three you have highlighted Scott give any sense of requiring agreement or even minimal ascent to the Standards of the Church. I could be an Amaryldian or an Arminian and agree in good conscience to those three without any trouble. That I think is a real problem when considering people for Church membership.

 

[Scott1]

However none of the three you have highlighted Scott give any sense of requiring agreement or even minimal ascent to the Standards of the Church. I could be an Amaryldian or an Arminian and agree in good conscience to those three without any trouble. That I think is a real problem when considering people for Church membership.

And you are correct, Benjamin.

The consequence of this type of system is that probably the large majority of new members will know little (or even nothing) of the Reformed doctrine initially.

That was certainly true of me. I understood and believed the doctrines we have in common with the rest of the evangelical (non-reformed) church (e.g. justification by faith alone), but little of Reformed doctrine (the "5 points," covenant theology, the Confession and Catechisms).

It took me almost two years to "get up to speed" with the doctrinal standards. It was a shock coming to grips with baptising infants but over time, God granted me understanding that the children of believers are part of the visible church too.

Only recently has the covenant theology, particularly eschatologically, come to make sense.

I think the vows the PCA requires new members set a high bar for membership in the visible church, but not too high. This approach, I think, even encourages more informed membership over the long run.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As others have noted why the rush to church membership? Why should the teachiong of the faith and therefore the "real teaching of the confessions" come after membership and not before?

 

[Scott1]

As others have noted why the rush to church membership? Why should the teachiong of the faith and therefore the "real teaching of the confessions" come after membership and not before?

It seems that true believers in Christ need the discipline, discipleship, participation, privileges and accountability that membership provides. The sooner the better.

Once they have been examined, publically profess Christ and vow to follow Him obediently, agreed to submit to and support the church and to peaceably learn her doctrine, they have, by God's grace done a lot. Their recognition as members of the body of Christ and the particular church should not be unduly withheld.