Membership and subscription

[J Andrew Deane]

I am coming to understand that different churches require different levels of subscription to a church's doctrinal standards for church membership.

I come from a background of joining the OPC as a postmillenial theonomist arminian who eventually "saw the light" regarding God's sovereignty.

The point is that I was allowed to join on the basis of a credible profession of faith (that was, admittedly, quite inconsistent).

Now I have some friends who go to churches and they are different in that one must adhere to the church's doctrinal standards.

As I understand now, Dutch Reformed denominations such as the CRC would not allow one to join without holding to paedobaptism, and the inverse is true in many Baptist congregations.

As I understand it, the basis for such strict subscription is church unity.
Conversely, the basis for a standard of a credible profession is that one's basis for admission into the visible church is if one can infer one's membership in the invisible church.

My question for you all is, where do you stand? Do you think full adherence to church doctrine or "just" a credible profession is the sine qua non of church membership?

Take Care,

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There are, since the 18th century, two traditions of church membership in the American Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

Those holding the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic, Heidelberg, Dort) follow the Church Order of the Synod of Dort and require full subscription not only by officers but also by laity. This practice is rooted in our conviction (among those still taking the confessions seriously) that we subscribe them because (*quia*) they are biblical. If something in them is shown to be unbiblical, then we are committed to revising them according to Scripture. Thus, when require subscription by members, we're only requiring them to believe and confess what Scripture teaches as a condition of membership. We don't think there are any extraneous doctrines in Scripture or our confessions.

American Presbyterians, however, have since the Adopting Act of 1729 made a distinction between what Scripture teaches and what the confessions teach by requiring subscription "insofar as" (*quatenus*) the confession is biblical. The assumption being that the relations between Scripture and confession are not as close as the Three Forms churches believe. This disjunction did not exist much in the 17th century, as far as I can tell, but is widely held today by even the most ardent "strict" subscriptionists in Presbyterianism.

Hence, Presbyterian churches typically do not require subscription by laity. Their argument is that the "doors of the church should be as wide as the gates of the kingdom."

Presbyterians criticize the Dort order by saying that it makes membership too difficult and narrow.

Having lived in both worlds, I guess I'm happier being in a church where we're all on the same page from the beginning. I don't think we should confess things we do not believe with a sufficient degree of conviction such that they're not obligatory for membership. Frankly, I can't see what there is about the WCF that, given the American revisions in 1729 and 1789, folks should not be asked to susbcribe. [BTW: We subscribe confessions, we do not subscribe TO them. Thank you very much. We actually sign the document when we subscribe].

From my pov, the danger, of course, is that a Presbyterian church might admit enough members who substantially deviate from its confession so as to cease being Presbyterian in anything but government. This is what has happened in the PCUSA. They are presbyterial in government, but since 1929 and 1967 especially, the WCF has been quite marginal in their theology, piety, and practice.

In practice, however, at least some Presbyterian congregations function like Three-Forms churches by requiring implicitly subscription by members and officers and other Presbyterian and Reformed churches, in practice, do not seem to require genuine subscription by anyone!

In fact, this latter problem extends across the Reformed world. The confessions have become less than secondary in many of our churches. Many of us define ourselves no longer by our common confessions but by our peculiarities (we're THIS kind of a Presbyterian/Reformed church; we're THAT kind of a Presbyterian/Reformed church) and the concerns and emphases of the confessions go by the boards.

rsc

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Our Church requires that communicant members covenant to submit to the Confession and Testimony of the RPCNA (Westminster Standards included), but you don't necessarily have to agree with it 100%. You agree to submit to the Session on Confessional matters when necessary.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Our Church requires that communicant members covenant to submit to the Confession and Testimony of the RPCNA (Westminster Standards included), but you don't necessarily have to agree with it 100%. You agree to submit to the Session on Confessional matters when necessary.

I was not required to become aPaedo when I became a member of an RPCNA Church. And I was not required to become one as a Member of the PCA church that I am a member of now.

 

[JKLeoPCA]

I remember reading somewhere that Reformation era Lutherans required "prospective members" were required to attend catechism classes for at least a year before membership vows were entertained. This way the candidate would be fully aware of what they were joining, and the doctrines they could expect to be taught, and expected to know and teach.

In our day, a person seeking membership is rarely withheld by such standards. A person can claim membership and join by profession, unchallenged. I recall a previous church I attended where an individual who had joined was suddenly approved to teach an adult Sunday school class, and yet taught from a NPP perspective.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Our Church requires that communicant members covenant to submit to the Confession and Testimony of the RPCNA (Westminster Standards included), but you don't necessarily have to agree with it 100%. You agree to submit to the Session on Confessional matters when necessary.

I was not required to become aPaedo when I became a member of an RPCNA Church. And I was not required to become one as a Member of the PCA church that I am a member of now.

Right, you wouldn't be required to become one, but you have to submit to the Church's confessional beliefs. I believe if you had a new child, you would have to have it baptized as a communicant member of the Church.. I could be wrong.

 

[J Andrew Deane]

Surely no one is suggesting that the PCUSA went liberal due to the lay people?
It was clearly a top-down departure from Reformed Churches, at least, in my opinion.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Our Church requires that communicant members covenant to submit to the Confession and Testimony of the RPCNA (Westminster Standards included), but you don't necessarily have to agree with it 100%. You agree to submit to the Session on Confessional matters when necessary.

I was not required to become aPaedo when I became a member of an RPCNA Church. And I was not required to become one as a Member of the PCA church that I am a member of now.

Right, you wouldn't be required to become one, but you have to submit to the Church's confessional beliefs. I believe if you had a new child, you would have to have it baptized as a communicant member of the Church.. I could be wrong.

You would think so based upon the language used in the confession (the neglect being seen as a "great sin"), but the way the PCA is going, who knows what they would do. Even though the churches are part of a governemnt they have a level of autonomy that is frightening.

 

[rgrove]

Before I found out there was a 1689 LBC confessional church in Portland I looked into Evergreen PCA right by our home. The pastor told me I could become a member even though I was credobaptist. If I recall correctly (it's been quite a while now) I wouldn't be allowed to teach or hold leadership. I was surprised I would be admitted to membership so the restrictions weren't a problem for me. They already had some credobaptist members he told me.

 

[SRoper]

"Surely no one is suggesting that the PCUSA went liberal due to the lay people?
It was clearly a top-down departure from Reformed Churches, at least, in my opinion."

That was my understanding as well.

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by SRoper
"Surely no one is suggesting that the PCUSA went liberal due to the lay people?
It was clearly a top-down departure from Reformed Churches, at least, in my opinion."

That was my understanding as well.

This is why I was asking in a Federal Vision thread if there was anything in place in the PCA to prevent what happened at the turn of the last century. I think it was Fred that mentioned that there were presbyteries that were known to be lax. Or is there no real way to prevent it in Presbyterian polity? Just curious. I'd hate to see it happen all over again by 2045...