Defend Confessional Membership

[SolaScriptura]

Scott -

I understand what you're saying.

But I still disagree.

I know far too many people who are members in good standing of PCA churches whose elders are all very confessional - and have been for many many years - and yet these members have beliefs on some key issues that are at complete variance with the Standards.

I don't buy the "oh, let them join and they'll eventually come along" argument.

Being Presbyterian we put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the elders. But elders are elected by the people. Pastors are chosen by the people. There is a lot of talk on this Board about all the unconfessional pastors running around denegrating the Standards... but we should take a step back and ask the question, "Why is there a "market" for these men in our denomination?" It is because many of the people don't believe the Standards themselves, so they hire a man in line with their convictions.

I'd rather see smaller membership rolls and yet have people who actually believe the confession.

 

[Scott1]

Let me also add something I believe acknowleges the very legitimate concerns expressed here about informed church participation and membership.

After this kind of membership (examination of credible profession of faith, public profession of faith and vow to walk obediently, to support and submit to the church and to peaceably learn her doctrine), there needs to be an effort to disciple members in church-life skills and the doctrinal standards of the church.

This needs to be:

1)pro-active,
2)systematic
3)regular as a part of the life of the church.

This is the privilege, calling and responsibility of church leadership (Elders and Deacons).

From my understanding, this is the basic biblical pattern of polity and protects all the vital interests.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Let me also add something I believe acknowleges the very legitimate concerns expressed here about informed church participation and membership.

After this kind of membership (examination of credible profession of faith, public profession of faith and vow to walk obediently, to support and submit to the church and to peaceably learn her doctrine), there needs to be an effort to disciple members in church-life skills and the doctrinal standards of the church.

This needs to be:

1)pro-active,
2)systematic
3)regular as a part of the life of the church.

This is the privilege, calling and responsibility of church leadership (Elders and Deacons).

From my understanding, this is the basic biblical pattern of polity and protects all the vital interests.

So what do you do when they won't budge from their Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc.? You try your best, but they're still convinced that the Bible doesn't teach the confessional doctrine. Do you discipline them now even though you accepted them into membership on different grounds?

 

[Prufrock]

So what do you do when they won't budge from their Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc.? You try your best, but they're still convinced that the Bible doesn't teach the confessional doctrine. Do you discipline them now even though you accepted them into membership on different grounds?

I think this captures the most fundamental problem (that I can see so far) with subscription not being necessary for members. How far do you let things go?

There are two problems I can see with this critique, however:

1.) Is there a difference between resisting the church's teachings and holding forth your own on the one hand, and not being convinced of something while still humbly and meekly learning on the other?

2.) If I am an elder and there is a member of my church, a brother in Christ for whom I have been charged to care, who holds to certain aspects of dispensational teaching, do I really want to discipline him and drive him to the dispensational church where his foundation in these teachings will be solidified? Or do I want to keep him under our ministerial feeding so that he will be nurtured in the truth?

Just some questions I think ought to be answered.

 

[Dearly Bought]

1.) Is there a difference between resisting the church's teachings and holding forth your own on the one hand, and not being convinced of something while still humbly and meekly learning on the other?

There is a difference between a.) holding a conviction on some matter and b.) not knowing enough to hold a conviction on some matter. Church membership classes should give the knowledge necessary to be convicted of the truth (or error) of the doctrines in the Reformed confessions. I think that if we're honest, we have to admit that a little bit of knowledge about a matter leaves "neutrality" impossible.

2.) If I am an elder and there is a member of my church, a brother in Christ for whom I have been charged to care, who holds to certain aspects of dispensational teaching, do I really want to discipline him and drive him to the dispensational church where his foundation in these teachings will be solidified? Or do I want to keep him under our ministerial feeding so that he will be nurtured in the truth?

Talking about specifics of discipline will need a little more background than this.

If I'm an elder in a confessional church that holds its members to the confessions, then this member has obviously changed his convictions from when he took his membership vows. How I address it will probably be determined in part by how his change of convictions came to my attention. It does need to be addressed, although in a pastoral manner.

However, it could also be that I'm an elder in a church that has changed the standards for membership and his convictions were permissible when he took his vows. The waters here would be much more murky.

That being said, I don't think that driving him to a dispensational church would weigh heavily on my mind. One could make the same argument for almost any doctrine: e.g., if we hold members to paedobaptism, we'll drive them to a Baptist church.

If we're talking about people who are looking to become members of our congregation, then it is important to note that denying membership to Arminians or Dispensationalists doesn't prevent them from further conversing with the consistory/session and hearing the public preaching of the Word.

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

So what do you do when they won't budge from their Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc.? You try your best, but they're still convinced that the Bible doesn't teach the confessional doctrine. Do you discipline them now even though you accepted them into membership on different grounds?

The PCA vows, anyway, in what seems to strike a balance that protects all the vital biblical interests requires a member to:

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

These require peaceable obedience to the church, learning of her doctrine, and abiding her discipline and government.

I really can't see a basis for disciplining a member because, for example, they are struggling with accepting the "L" of TULIP (limited atonment). Now, that person cannot openly defy the church on this point, cannot teach it authoritatively to others, etc. but that is a very different thing than requiring their comprehensive knowledge of and belief in a most profound systematic confessional theology.

Moral issues are covered in the vows in that open scandalous sin is under the discipline of the church. Teaching wrong doctrine is under the authority and responsiblity of church officers. An insolent, defiant or strife-ridden attitude toward the church could also be under discipline of the church.

But, as I reflect on this now, I'm not seeing a biblical pattern or principle for making visible church membership difficult.

Church teachers, officers and leaders are held to a much higher standard (cf James 3:1) but for an ordinary believer, membership tends to confirm a reality- people whom God has chosen to save who agree to learn the church's doctrine peaceably, serve her peaceably for God's Honor and Glory, and submit to her discipline and governance.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I really can't see a basis for disciplining a member because, for example, they are struggling with accepting the "L" of TULIP (limited atonment). Now, that person cannot openly defy the church on this point, cannot teach it authoritatively to others, etc. but that is a very different thing than requiring their comprehensive knowledge of and belief in a most profound systematic confessional theology.

So... would teaching it authoritatively to others include their children?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

pp. 179-80:

George Knight observes [as noted by Tim Keller] that the practice of the American Presbyterian church has 'always' been to distinguish between 'what was required in a confession of faith... for salvation and church membership and what was required in a confession of faith' for ordination to special ecclesiastical office. As a matter of history this seems to be the case in modern times, but it is also true that it has not always been the case. It is not obvious that establishing two levels of subscription, one for laity and another for ordained officers, is either biblical or consistent with the Reformation. From where in Scripture [or the Confessional documents] would one deduce that God expects one level of subscription for officers and another for laity? Certainly it is possible for one to be a Christian without affirming every proposition in the Reformed confession, but that is beside the point. On that rationale, why should we bother establishing Reformed congregations at all? If the Reformed confession defines what it is to be Reformed, then establishing two distinct relations to the same constitutional document would seem to be a recipe for confusion and effectively two churches within one.

...From 1647 to the beginning of the ambiguity in the American Presbyterian church in 1729 [and arguably even beyond that, into the 1890s in many congregations and presbyteries], the Westminster Confession was subscribed 'because' it is biblical [as opposed to only affirmed 'in so far as' it may be biblical]... in the European [continental] Reformed tradition, ministers and members alike have been expected to subscribe the confessions in the same way... Why should a church [hypocritically] adopt a 'confession' that some or even most of the church believes to be at least partly unbiblical? "

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

 

[Scott1]

Mr Clark,

Your book sounds great, and well worth reading!

Thanks.

It is not obvious that establishing two levels of subscription, one for laity and another for ordained officers, is either biblical or consistent with the Reformation.

My thoughts here are a couple:

1) What is our biblical basis for requiring comprehensive knowledge of and assent to every proposition and statement before someone can be "recognized" as a part of Christ's Body? Where do we see this in Scripture?

2) By setting so high a bar for (visible) church membership, aren't we also creating "two tiers"- one group of regular attendars who will continue indefinately because they are discouraged from joining due to lack of comprehensive knowledge or confidence in good faith assent to every statement or proposition?

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 05:28:45 EST-----

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

So... would teaching it authoritatively to others include their children?

Children go through training at church, including catechism class in order to become "communing members" (at least in the PCA) and have exposure to the doctrinal standards through church life in many ways.

If you are asking whether a father or mother at home is required to teach through the standards at home- no I don't think a father or mother should be disciplined for not teaching the "L" of TULIP to their children at home. I'm not going to be totally dismissive and say "it doesn't matter what the parents teach at home" because that's not really the point.

Remember, I'm starting with the assumption that new member parents do NOT have comprehensive knowledge of doctrinal standards, far less are they in a position to give good faith assent to every statement or proposition of all the standards. You are starting with the opposite assumption:

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.

The example I was giving was that someone who does not accept the "L" of TULIP would not teach a Sunday School class on that point. The church's teaching is under responsibility and authority of the church officers, who are held to much higher knowledge standard by their vow.

 

[Dearly Bought]

If you are asking whether a father or mother at home is required to teach through the standards at home- no I don't think a father or mother should be disciplined for not teaching the "L" of TULIP to their children at home. I'm not going to be totally dismissive and say "it doesn't matter what the parents teach at home" because that's not really the point.

Remember, I'm starting with the assumption that new member parents do NOT have comprehensive knowledge of doctrinal standards, far less are they in a position to give good faith assent to every statement or proposition of all the standards. You are starting with the opposite assumption:

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.

The example I was giving was that someone who does not accept the "L" of TULIP would not teach a Sunday School class on that point. The church's teaching is under responsibility and authority of the church officers, who are held to much higher knowledge standard by their vow.

This is why I fail to see how non-confessional membership functions consistently. If you have a parent teaching their children doctrine contrary to the church's confessions, then a church member is authoritatively teaching another church member contrary to the church's confessions. Why would the standard of doctrinal fidelity be lessened for teaching in the family?

 

[Scott1]

Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

This is why I fail to see how non-confessional membership functions consistently. If you have a parent teaching their children doctrine contrary to the church's confessions, then a church member is authoritatively teaching another church member contrary to the church's confessions. Why would the standard of doctrinal fidelity be lessened for teaching in the family?

Remember, I'm starting with the assumption that new member parents do NOT have comprehensive knowledge of doctrinal standards, far less are they in a position to give good faith assent to every statement or proposition of all the standards. You are starting with the opposite assumption:

You assume that every member household has comprehensive knowledge of their doctrinal standards and believes every statement or proposition, no(!) exceptions and is able to precisely articulate them to his children and in turn, to evaluate their understanding and agreement with them (all of them, including all 196 larger catechism and the more than 1,000 Scripture proofs).

I'm assuming that in most cases, the head of household does not have comprehensive knowledge and agreement of every statement or proposition of those standards. In most of those cases, the children are not being taught the "five points" systematically at home (or their antithesis) because the parent has not yet aquired understanding of the "five points" or their counter-arguments.

At that point, it is the job of the church to teach him, and his job is to peaceably learn the doctrine.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Scott,

We should question your starting point. It assumes a set of democratic/American values that probably aren't biblical and certainly don't have much in common with historic and confessional Reformed Christianity.

What has fundamentally changed in the ability of human beings to learn the the faith of the early church, during which catechesis could last for 3 years? What about our ability to learn the Reformed faith since the 17th century? Nothing. We have changed. We're impatient and we assume that everyone has a "right" to join a Reformed congregation. They don't and we shouldn't assume that they do.

If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to assume that it is a great and unreasonable burden to require members (laity) to learn the Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism before joining a congregation. I doubt that premise.

People are capable of learning a great deal, especially when they value what they are learning. I see people learning how to operate computers, how to navigate complicated cable TV systems, how to operate all manner of technology. They read manuals. They learn stuff for work. They learn stuff for their children. Why not for church?

What exactly in the WSC is disposable? According to the Reformed faith, nothing! Certainly limited atonement is not disposable. If someone doesn't like the doctrine that God the Son became incarnate to obey for and die for his elect in order to fulfill the eternal covenant with the Father and secure their redemption (rather than simply make it possible) I understand but they must understand when we exclude them from our communions until they come to confess our faith.

When our churches confessed the faith and summarized it in catechisms, they did not do so in order that those simple summaries should be for the elite few, for the gifted, or for the elders and ministers, but they did so with the understanding that all the people should learn them, believe them, and confess them.

We can fix this problem by repenting of our laziness as churches and families and by requiring our children to memorize the catechism again. They can do it. I see it done all the time. If we start at 3-4 with a little bit each Sabbath our children can memorize the entire HC or WSC in a few years. Will they kick and yell? Sure, but we don't let that keep us from taking them to the hospital, neither should we let it keep us from teaching the catechism. It can be fun. Make it "candychism" (HT: Leonard Coppes). When they get it right, give them a piece of candy. We did it. It worked.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Remember, I'm starting with the assumption that new member parents do NOT have comprehensive knowledge of doctrinal standards, far less are they in a position to give good faith assent to every statement or proposition of all the standards.

I am certainly aware of this.

You are starting with the opposite assumption:

You assume that every member household has comprehensive knowledge of their doctrinal standards and believes every statement or proposition, no(!) exceptions and is able to precisely articulate them to his children and in turn, to evaluate their understanding and agreement with them (all of them, including all 196 larger catechism and the more than 1,000 Scripture proofs.

No, that's a bit of a caricature of my position. I'm not saying that you have to have the confessions memorized before you become a member. I'm stating that you should affirm them. As I stated earlier,

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.

I'm assuming that in most cases, the head of household does not have comprehensive knowledge and agreement of every statement or proposition of those standards. In most of those cases, the children are not being taught the "five points" systematically at home (or their antithesis) because the parent has not yet aquired understanding of the "five points" or their counter-arguments.

At that point, it is the job of the church to teach him, and his job is to peaceably learn the doctrine.

Why can't we teach them about the five points in membership courses?

Furthermore, the question I've really been trying to pin down is:

What do you do when doctrine contrary to the confessions is taught in the home?

 

[Scott1]

R. Scott Clark
Puritanboard Junior

Thanks Dr. Clark.

I don't doubt or dispute most of what you say, and particularly do not doubt the concern underlying it. The narrow issue here is church membership, what specifically we require new people to do, to understand, and to assent to before they can be called "members" of a local church and participate in its life.

Like you, I have a very high regard for the confessional standards and believe they need to be protected, defended and taught. Indeed, in reformed theology unity of the church is based on doctrinal agreement. The question is what is the best approach overall to do that.

What has fundamentally changed in the ability of human beings to learn the the faith of the early church, during which catechesis could last for 3 years?

Thanks also for the good historical research here. I was not aware there was a three year catechism required in some reformed churches before membership was granted.

I am not against that per se, but have a question:

1) Where in Scripture do we see this kind of rigorous examination and requirement for Christians to be acknowledged as "members" of the body of Christ?

Practically, I think three years is unecessary and unreasonable and would unwittingly discourage some new believers from joining and receiving the benefits of being a member of the church. However, there are some approaches that get at the same thing with, for example, the PCA's system on this:

1) Children of believers do need to take a catechism class and be evaluated for a credible profession of faith (not a comprehensive knowledge and assent to the standards- and not three years) before they become communing members.

2) Classes of various lengths are required before members can join (not three years though, and not comprehenisve knowledge and assent to all the standards).

3) Doctrinal classes are offered and doctrine is pro-actively taught through shepharding groups, small groups, and small classes (but, again these are not required for membership).

[We can fix this problem by repenting of our laziness as churches and families and by requiring our children to memorize the catechism again. They can do it. I see it done all the time. If we start at 3-4 with a little bit each Sabbath our children can memorize the entire HC or WSC in a few years./QUOTE]

I agree with your sentiments here. We are in this generation, as in generations past, a wicked, self seeking, lazy and rebellious people who do not prioritize our worship of the one true God. However, I don't think all this is necessary for membership. There are more effective ways of encouraging Christian maturity over the long run.

I too believe the problem can be "fixed" also with good, solid exposition of the Word of God and systematic teaching of the standards.

What exactly in the WSC is disposable? According to the Reformed faith, nothing!

For officers of the church, who have the privilege and responsibility to rightly teach the Word, nothing (except I do support allowing power to grant minor peer-reviewed scruples as presbyterianism has historically has- but that would be another topic).

Officers are called and specifically gifted for such and are held to a much higher standard (cf James 3:1). This is not true of laymen, laymen as best I can tell.

Please understand that many of the points I sense from your book sound valid and well researched and suspect I will agree with most of them. But please consider there is more than "one way to skin a cat," that is to protect the standards, practically.

Preserving the reformed church will rise and fall on many things, but three year pre-membership catechism is not one of them.

Respectfully.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I don't doubt or dispute most of what you say, and particularly do not doubt the concern underlying it. The narrow issue here is church membership, what specifically we require new people to do, to understand, and to assent to before they can be called "members" of a local church and participate in its life.

When we receive folk into membership we are not "making" them members, we are acting ministerially. We are recognizing the state of affairs. We're also defining what it means to be a Reformed church. If we allow members who deny cardinal doctrines (e.g. the atonement or baptism) then we're really saying that one may be "Reformed" and yet deny our teaching on those things. We're saying that they're not essential to being Reformed. The two-tier approach to membership assumes a lowest-common denominator standard for membership.

What has fundamentally changed in the ability of human beings to learn the the faith of the early church, during which catechesis could last for 3 years?

Thanks also for the good historical research here. I was not aware there was a three year catechism required in some reformed churches before membership was granted.

Let me clarify. The 3-year period was in the Patristic period, not in the Reformation/post-Reformation period. The Reformed churches required, however, memorization of the catechism and public assent to the confession of the churches.

1) Where in Scripture do we see this kind of rigorous examination and requirement for Christians to be acknowledged as "members" of the body of Christ?

Let me reply by asking this: To which of the apostolic doctrines, summarized in the confessions, were first-century Christians allowed to dissent? May we imagine that someone in the Corinthian congregation was allowed to deny Paul's doctrine of imputation? What if someone denied Paul's doctrine of predestination in the Roman congregation? Which of Peter's doctrines or John's doctrines to the churches in Asia Minor were non-essential? I don't get the impression from any of the NT that the apostles or members of the apostolic company (assuming Paul didn't write Hebrews) that they regarded any of the official doctrine, promulgated in epistles, to be negotiable.

1) Children of believers do need to take a catechism class and be evaluated for a credible profession of faith (not a comprehensive knowledge and assent to the standards- and not three years) before they become communing members.

There are three stages of learning, per Dorothy Sayers and 1000 years of Christian catechesis: parrot, pert, and poet. Memorization of the catechism belongs to the parrot stage. Explanation of the catechism belongs to the pert stage, and confession and communion belongs to the poet stage.

 

[Scott1]

To which of the apostolic doctrines, summarized in the confessions, were first-century Christians allowed to dissent?

Do we really know what each Christian layman understood, believed and confessed on a point-by-point basis and what happened to them if they disagreed with one point? I'm not a theologian but did they 100% agree on no sabbath recreation and did they all agree alike on what that was (arguments for "light" recreation and "heavy" recreation amongst some of the Puritans notwithstanding).

 

[R. Scott Clark]

To which of the apostolic doctrines, summarized in the confessions, were first-century Christians allowed to dissent?

Do we really know what each Christian layman understood, believed and confessed on a point-by-point basis and what happened to them if they disagreed with one point? I'm not a theologian but did they 100% agree on no sabbath recreation and did they all agree alike on what that was (arguments for "light" recreation and "heavy" recreation amongst some of the Puritans notwithstanding).

Scott,

My question doesn't presume that we know that. It's a question of principle. My problem is with the principle that there is a confession within the confession or that there are places in the confession/catechism that the laity are not expected to believe. In such a case we have as many different confessions as there are sessions enforcing them. Thus, in a "confessional" congregation there is a larger confession and a higher expectation for laity but in a "church growth" oriented congregation there are, presumably and by experience, rather lower expectations. Who gets to decide? Whatever the set of doctrines were promulgated in the apostolic church, of which we have considerable evidence in the NT, what were the optional doctrines? I don't see any. If that's the case, now we have a principled place from which to begin.

In the particular case you raise, the confessions bind us all to the same basic doctrine and ethics. We're not bound to anyone's private opinion about the Sabbath. We're bound to what we, as churches, publicly, authoritatively, confess the Word to teach. The doctrine of the sabbath in the Westminster Standards can be made onerous, of course, but it isn't necessarily so.

If someone has a scruple or a dissent from this or that point, they can bring that to the session and, if needs be, to presbytery for adjudication but at least now we're operating on the basis of a common, public understanding of God's Word and not a million subjective, private understandings.

 

[Scott1]

R. Scott Clark
Puritanboard Junior

If someone has a scruple or a dissent from this or that point, they can bring that to the session and, if needs be, to presbytery for adjudication but at least now we're operating on the basis of a common, public understanding of God's Word and not a million subjective, private understandings.

I realize that doctrinal subscription is not the topic of this thread. However, I have made clear that subscription means a good faith comprehensive knowledge of the standards (all 33 Chapters of the Westminster Confession, 196 Larger Catechism Questions, 107 Shorter Catechism Questions, and several thousand scripture proofs) and agreement to every statement or proposition.

This is what I have understood you to be arguing for as a requirement for new members. This is what has been argued for here in this thread (along with no(!) doctrinal exceptions for members):

Quote:

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.

Confessional membership entails no exceptions. There certainly would be a detailed membership interview.

Now, you are allowing for scruples (which I agree with as a system) and suspect has been in your understanding all along. But, it is precisely because the standards are so highly viewed that the good faith subscription taken by officers is evaluated so carefully.

As I have stated, I see no biblical case to require this for new members though we are in much agreement about the need to build unity of the church upon doctrinal agreement. The polity through which this is done done will vary from denomination-to-denomination.

Church membership is not quite an elite special club that only those who pass extensive hurdles can get in. It is an acknowledgement of what a sovereign God has already done in the lives of undeserving sinners. That should be recognized sooner, rather than later so that the gracious benefits and privileges of membership can freely flow to new members, new Christians. I see no reason to unduly delay them once the key biblical interests have been secured:

1) credible profession of faith
2) vow to walk obediently to Christ
3) vow to support the church
4) vow to submit to the church's discipline
5) vow to peaceably learn the church's doctrine

A vow to do all these things protects all the vital biblical elements we are concerned about and I think will produce more church members, and more mature members over the long run.

So far, no one has given a biblical basis for making so high a bar for new members.

The arguments so far have been that new members must have comprehensive knowledge and agreement with every statement and proposition except:
1) they don't have to understand them in the same way (or at the same level)
2) the first century christians all agreed about everything in the confessions (which we do not know)
3) "scruples" don't count

I think the more expedient course is for church leadership is to make sure the Word and reformed doctrines are taught and that there is a proactive approach to discipling members in it. I have faith God's Word will bear fruit, in time.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 07:21:45 EST-----

R. Scott Clark
Puritanboard Junior

My problem is with the principle that there is a confession within the confession or that there are places in the confession/catechism that the laity are not expected to believe. In such a case we have as many different confessions as there are sessions enforcing them.

I agree with your concerns here. But the expectation of the laity to believe is a problem of leadership. The "tone from the top" sets that expectation.

Church leaders must in good faith affirm the doctrinal standards, all of them, unless granted an exception for non-essential doctrine, and then are responsible to disciple church members toward comprehensive Biblical knowledge and systematic understanding of the church's doctrine. This seems to me to be the best approach to "confessional membership."

 

[Pergamum]

During Augustine's day one's long catechism process also included a visit by an exorcist who blew on you and commanded the devil to depart from you.... tradition is fine, but let's not make it normative for uis without good cause.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Scott,

If you press me then I would rather not allow exceptions, certainly not in re ministers and elders.

I argue this at length in RRC. I stand by what I wrote there and would rather let that stand as the best expression of my views.

I only mention exceptions as a way of saying that, having established the standards as the baseline for members and officers/office-bearers, a body might hear scruples - these would be exceptions to the norm. E.g. I know of a body that admitted a woman, well past child bearing years, who promised, should she deliver a child, nevertheless to baptize it even though she held baptist convictions.

My principle of subscription is quia, (because it's biblical) not quatenus (insofar as it's biblical). In that scheme there's really no room for "exceptions."

We might be using the word in different senses.

Perg,

I only mention the 3-year catechesis as a way of illustrating that the church, in different times and places, hasn't shared American, post-Jacksonian, democratic/egalitarian assumptions about membership etc.

 

[Theoretical]

Scott,

If you press me then I would rather not allow exceptions, certainly not in re ministers and elders.

I argue this at length in RRC. I stand by what I wrote there and would rather let that stand as the best expression of my views.

I only mention exceptions as a way of saying that, having established the standards as the baseline for members and officers/office-bearers, a body might hear scruples - these would be exceptions to the norm. E.g. I know of a body that admitted a woman, well past child bearing years, who promised, should she deliver a child, nevertheless to baptize it even though she held baptist convictions.

My principle of subscription is quia, (because it's biblical) not quatenus (insofar as it's biblical). In that scheme there's really no room for "exceptions."

We might be using the word in different senses.

Perg,

I only mention the 3-year catechesis as a way of illustrating that the church, in different times and places, hasn't shared American, post-Jacksonian, democratic/egalitarian assumptions about membership etc.

Dr. Clark, how would a "scruple" differ both in theory and in practice from an "exception"?

 

[Pergamum]

Scott,

If you press me then I would rather not allow exceptions, certainly not in re ministers and elders.

I argue this at length in RRC. I stand by what I wrote there and would rather let that stand as the best expression of my views.

I only mention exceptions as a way of saying that, having established the standards as the baseline for members and officers/office-bearers, a body might hear scruples - these would be exceptions to the norm. E.g. I know of a body that admitted a woman, well past child bearing years, who promised, should she deliver a child, nevertheless to baptize it even though she held baptist convictions.

My principle of subscription is quia, (because it's biblical) not quatenus (insofar as it's biblical). In that scheme there's really no room for "exceptions."

We might be using the word in different senses.

Perg,

I only mention the 3-year catechesis as a way of illustrating that the church, in different times and places, hasn't shared American, post-Jacksonian, democratic/egalitarian assumptions about membership etc.

Dr Clark:


If you could design and have all the reformed follow your system of assimiliating new members or confirming the children of believers, what would that process look like and how long would it take?

For one who travels much, what would church membership look like?

 

[Hippo]

I am reformed because I believe that being reformed is what it means to be a Christian, in that it is the best expression of Christianity there is.

I believe that every Christian should be a Church member and be under the discipline of their Church. This is not an option but a requirement.

If you are not going to allow Chirstians to join because they do not agree with the details of the Confession then I fail to see how the two underpinning notions comport with each other (i.e. reformed is Christianity and Christians should join their Church).