Full Confessional Subscription for Membership

[Herald]

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.

Indeed.

 

[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?

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.

I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers. If I read the OP and the followup clarifications from Alex correctly, he doesn't understand it this way either.

 

[MW]

I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers.

Would that not require "implicit faith," contrary to the Westminster Confession?

 

[Edward]

I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers. If I read the OP and the followup clarifications from Alex correctly, he doesn't understand it this way either.

In the Presbyterian tradition, I've never heard of 'full subscription' having a different meaning depending on who is doing the subscribing. At this point, I'm picturing something along the lines of the definition sections of the Bankruptcy Code (specifically Section 109 - who can be a debtor).

Are there different definitions for different offices/roles, or are there just two definitions of the term 'strict subscription', one for all officers and one for lay members?

 

[Abeard]

Heres another question I have:

If a session allows into membership a person who is a credo-Baptist, won't that, in a sense, compromise their authority over them? Does making an exception to their own standards to bring a person into membership say something about the session's belief in their own standards?

The tricky thing is deciding what members can take exception to in the standards, and how many exceptions. Where is the line drawn?

 

[Kevin]

Alex it is not an "exception to the standards" to allow a credo baptist to be a member. Since all that is necessary for membership is baptism and a credible profession Of faith.

To require any other standard of members is in itself an exception to the standards!

 

[Andres]

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.

What do you do when officers don't even hold to these standards? Now I've never heard of an officer in a Presbyterian church who rejects paedobaptism but I think we all know far too many that take exceptions to the Sabbath.

 

[Kevin]

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not failure to hold to the standards. And many (the majority?) of elders express an interpretation of some part of the language of the confession. These are allowed and should be encouraged because they show a serious examination of the standards. They ought not to be troubling.

 

[Andres]

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not failure to hold to the standards. And many (the majority?) of elders express an interpretation of some part of the language of the confession. These are allowed and should be encouraged because they show a serious examination of the standards. They ought not to be troubling.

Whether it's troubling or not is for another thread, but my point was in response to Bryan's question where he stated, "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." So my question in response to that is essentially, how could/would a church where elders have no problem going out to lunch after service or watching sports on the Lord's Day also forbid a member from doing such. Bryan, do churches that require members to subscribe to the Westminster Standards also allow for exceptions to the standards?

 

[Kevin]

Part of the difficulty in a conversation like this is that a lot of assumptions and baggage get carried along from other discussions.

I think that considering an elder that has a (presumably allowed) exception , or a different interpretation. Of the standards to be in "violation" on a point that you differ is clouding this discussion.

A different interpretation of a part of the standards does not equal abandonment of them.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I've never seen confessional membership understood, at least within the Continental churches I have been a part of, as requiring a complete understanding of the Standards of the Church akin to what is required of officers.

Would that not require "implicit faith," contrary to the Westminster Confession?

Rev. Winzer, respectfully, there are stark distinctions between promotion of “fides implicita” and requiring agreement to the Church’s Standards as founded upon and agreeable to Scripture as a condition of full membership, especially when the standards contain not only the catechism(s) but also scriptural proofs, while not expecting a deep understanding. Requiring agreement in an elementary since is not analogous to the same level of understanding one would hold a Presbyter to especially when they are making an oath to uphold the standards. In the same since the Lay are not examinied to the degree that the Presbyter is. This is not an argument of fides explicita vs fides implicita.

If “the congregation is a divinely instituted and well-defined body of people with reciprocal privileges and duties one towards another” and the scriptures teach that the “means of identifying this body” “is accomplished in terms of membership”, but the agreed confession of the Church is not held by the members and elders as a condition of membership, then how can the Church function in an ordinary and orderly manner? By what standard are any held if not that which is agreed upon by the Church as the Standard? How can one even continue to call them the standards if this is not how the confessions are treated?

Say one is allowed exception to the standards, are they to agree that they are to be held to those standards by the Church anyway? If not, then the standards be no standard at all, or they be standards only for some.

 

[Afterthought]

Say one is allowed exception to the standards, are they to agree that they are to be held to those standards by the Church? If not, then the standards be no standard at all, or they be standards only for some.

I might be misunderstanding the discussion, but it seems to me there is a difference between being held to a standard and being required to personally believe the standard? In the former case, the members of the Church agree to abide by the Church's teaching. By being members, they implicitly submit themselves to its discipline. Their duty is to hear what the Church has to say to them and to not disturb the peace of the Church with respect to its teaching. In doing this, they submit to and abide by the Church's standard, regardless of whether they personally agree with the teaching or not, even as one may abide by a law of one's government without personally agreeing with it. Of course, said discipline would take into account the person's condition and state of knowledge and patiently bear with the person as the Church teaches them. In the latter case of personally believing, they not only are required to submit to it as a matter of external order and hearing and considering what the Church teaches, but they are required to internally believe the doctrines to be true.

 

[MW]

If “the congregation is a divinely instituted and well-defined body of people with reciprocal privileges and duties one towards another” and the scriptures teach that the “means of identifying this body” “is accomplished in terms of membership”, but the agreed confession of the Church is not held by the members and elders as a condition of membership, then how can the Church function in an ordinary and orderly manner? By what standard are any held if not that which is agreed upon by the Church as the Standard? How can one even continue to call them the standards if this is not how the confessions are treated?

Some of those quoted portions sound familiar.

The answer is simple. Subscription to a confession is required for good government. We are Presbyterian, not Congregational; the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation.

 

[Abeard]

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 think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote.

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.

I don't think that would be the case at all. If there were some who could not, in good conscience, subscribe to the confession, the worst thing that would happen is that they would not be able to vote. (This is my own understanding, I could be wrong)

 

[Edward]

I think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote.

The American ARPs seem to have a different rule:

"FORM OF GOVERNMENT
191
Amendment No. 5 effective June 15, 1982 (V, A.3)
CHAPTER V
A.
DEFINITION OF A CHURCH MEMBER

1. The communicant church member is one who has been baptized, who has made public his profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who has submitted his life to His Lordship and to the ministry of the Church. He is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the congregation, including the right to vote in congregational meetings, the right to hold office unless restricted by a minimum age limit set by the session, the right to participate in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the right to present his children for the Sacrament of Baptism."

And from the Directory for Worship:

"Those who have been baptized and have made profession of faith and have entered into communion with Christ in the visible Church shall be invited to participate... Those who are not members of the visible Church and others who should not partake of the sacrament may be invited to remain during the administration of the sacrament."

Perhaps you could point me to the current governing documents of the Canadian church so I might see how they differ.

 

[Abeard]

I think there is a misunderstanding with that. There are churches who do not require membership to partake of the sacraments. We have a couple at our church who aren't members but still take part in the life of the church. The only privilege they don't have is the right to vote.

The American ARPs seem to have a different rule:

"FORM OF GOVERNMENT
191
Amendment No. 5 effective June 15, 1982 (V, A.3)
CHAPTER V
A.
DEFINITION OF A CHURCH MEMBER

1. The communicant church member is one who has been baptized, who has made public his profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who has submitted his life to His Lordship and to the ministry of the Church. He is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the congregation, including the right to vote in congregational meetings, the right to hold office unless restricted by a minimum age limit set by the session, the right to participate in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the right to present his children for the Sacrament of Baptism."

And from the Directory for Worship:

"Those who have been baptized and have made profession of faith and have entered into communion with Christ in the visible Church shall be invited to participate... Those who are not members of the visible Church and others who should not partake of the sacrament may be invited to remain during the administration of the sacrament."

Perhaps you could point me to the current governing documents of the Canadian church so I might see how they differ.

I don't believe they have anything different. When I visited other Presbyterian churches I was able to partake of the sacraments. Not sure how that all works out. Thanks for bringing that up!

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Some of those quoted portions sound familiar.

The answer is simple. Subscription to a confession is required for good government. We are Presbyterian, not Congregational; the government is in the hands of church-officers, not the membership of the congregation.

I had to re-write what you stated in crayon and ponder it last night. I think what you are saying is that you believe the confession is for the government of the church, which is in the hands of the church-officers, therefore they are held to the standard of the Confession of the Church for purposes of governing. The members, being laypersons are not held to this as a condition of membership because the government of the Church is not in their hands. Is that what you are conveying?

 

[MW]

Is that what you are conveying?

Yes, almost. It must be remembered that the ministry and government of the church are authoritative and to be exercising a genuine influence in the discipleship of the members, and that the members should be teachable and submissive. This is obviously not going to appeal to an independent mindset. The principles of Presbyterianism will need to be operative throughout the church.

 

[Edward]

When I visited other Presbyterian churches I was able to partake of the sacraments. Not sure how that all works out.

The PCA has a different formulation, but functionally it probably works out the same - you have to be a member in good standing of a gospel preaching church to take communion if you visiting when the sacrament is served. The problem with the body in the original post is that they would deny membership. So the professing Christian being denied membership would be denied communion both at their home church and at any other Presbyterian denomination which requires membership in the visible church.

 

[Abeard]

The PCA has a different formulation, but functionally it probably works out the same - you have to be a member in good standing of a gospel preaching church to take communion if you visiting when the sacrament is served. The problem with the body in the original post is that they would deny membership. So the professing Christian being denied membership would be denied communion both at their home church and at any other Presbyterian denomination which requires membership in the visible church.[/QUOTE]

I guess it also depends if the Church is open or closed communion (which can be saved for another thread )

 

[Edward]

I guess it also depends if the Church is open or closed communion

No, and I'd refer you to some of the older threads on the meanings of those terms.

 

[au5t1n]

Perhaps off topic a bit, but I'm surprised nobody has voted for partial subscription for members and officers. I had thought a lot of people here believed that some exceptions should be allowed for officers. Interesting result.

 

[Kevin]

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not the same as partial subscription.

 

[Scott1]

Perhaps off topic a bit, but I'm surprised nobody has voted for partial subscription for members and officers. I had thought a lot of people here believed that some exceptions should be allowed for officers. Interesting result.

I would say there is no such thing, really as partial subscription.

It would be saying she is partially pregnant.

The system of doctrine, its statements and/or propositions of doctrine are related to each other and form a logical, reasonable whole both intentionally and in practice. Minor differences (exceptions, scruples) need to be evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers that they indeed are minor and do not have major consequences on other doctrines of the system. E.g. an exception to Chapter I of the WCF that unknown tongues and interpretation continue likely means someone believes extra-biblical revelation ordinarily comes outside of Scripture, which has major implications (which could not be consistent w/ the WCF). A minor difference that might be able to stand alone without impact, e.g. light, unorganized recreation on the Sabbath, which violates one clause of Westminster Chapter XXI. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day ought be thoroughly evaluated, but likely could be an exception (difference, scruple) without significant impact on other doctrine.

From this, you can see why a baby Christian (brand new Christian) could not be expected to know all this. An officer must, substantially know this, because for him it is a qualification God has given for office.

This would all be under what might be called Full, Complete or Strict subscription.

 

[DMcFadden]

Once you admit the possibility of "allowed" exceptions, you have begun to vitiate the very meaning of subscription. What this generation considers acceptable exceptions will become a wider set in the next generation.

Almost all seminaries began with either a required confessional subscription or expected conformity to a doctrinal statement. The change from faithful adherence to rampant unbelief did not occur in singular acts of faithlessness. Rather, individual professors began demurring from this or that "secondary" belief. In time the culture of the institution was transformed from one of its original fidelity to a doctrinal statement or confession to that of proliferated "exceptions," in short, subscribing to the confession/doctrinal statement in name only.

My alma mater moved from its founding with a requirement of inerrancy to non-inerrancy in a mere 20 years! The denomination that originally ordained me now boasts of its "non creedal" freedom to believe just about anything. And, they do. Ordained gay clergy, flirtations with eastern religions, widespread denial of the exclusivity of Christianity, etc.

Confessional subscription is only meaningful if it is done sincerely and without equivocation, variation, or mental reservation.

 

[Abeard]

How thoroughly does an ruling elder need to understand the confession before he can subscribe to it? It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.

 

[Scott1]

How thoroughly does an ruling elder need to understand the confession before he can subscribe to it? It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.

Having gone through the process, deacons and elders go through the same process in the PCA, the standard is thorough, designed to provide confirmation of a call by the congregation, by God and acknowledged by the officer candidate.

It may be useful to thing of the standard as substantial compliance, not perfection. That is, an officer, needs to have comprehensive knowledge and agreement with the system of doctrine. That's part of the test of the call, and what the congregation relies on in choosing those who would rule over them. In the PCA, it is such that if an officer has a difference with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards, it must be declared and evaluated. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Edward]

It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.

That wasn't my experience. A year-long class on the Standards and doctrine, plus a second class focusing on the role of the particular office (Elder and deacon candidates took the first together, and then separated for the second); followed by a comprehensive written exam and a written statement of faith; written exceptions, if any; oral interviews at the beginning and end of the process. This was before they added the required section on English Bible.

 

[Andres]

It seems subjective since there isn't a thorough examination process of an elder.

What's your definition of "thorough"? Like the others, I studied/trained for the office for months and then was examined by my session before they would even consider bringing my name before the congregation to vote. That was in the OPC.

Now myself and some other men are going through elder training at our local RPCNA church. Attached is a list of our training. Personally, I don't think this is a flippant training/examination process. View attachment DRPC Elder Training Schedule.pdf

 

[au5t1n]

Andrew, taking an allowed exception is not the same as partial subscription.

"Almost full" falls under the category of partial, not full. This does not entail a judgment on whether exceptions ought to be allowed for Church officers. It is just the meaning of the words. In any case, the context of the thread is a church considering "full member subscription," and I can guarantee you that any church, now or in the past, which practices full member subscription means to allow no exceptions. If that were not the case, we would not be having this discussion. Most everyone would be saying, "Sure, require full subscription by members. Just let them take a few exceptions." I'm Austin, by the way.