On confessional independency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Herald

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
The impetus for this thread comes from the John Piper/Doug Wilson discussion. In that thread Rich appropriately (from the Presbyterian confessional position) criticized the dangers of congregational churches. A congregational vs. hierarchal form of church government debate is not going to be solved in short order. That's not the purpose of this thread. I want to discuss the dynamic between confessionalism and independency (for the purpose of discussion independency and congregational will be used synonomously).

Over the past year my church has been teaching the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in Sunday School. The elders are in agreement that we want to propose to the church that we adopt the 1689 LBC as our doctrinal statement. We have also discussed the posibility of ARBCA membership after we adopt the 1689 LBC. In our study and discussions we have seen the benefits of strict and/or full confessional subscription. Our doctrine is grounded in a mutually agreed upon confession that accurately interprets scripture, as far as finite man is able to do such a thing. We've found it impossible to separate confessional orthodoxy from confessional orthopraxy. In short the change in our church's doctrine has had a pronounced impact on what we do. Our approach to worship has changed dramatically over the past few years. But I digress.

I believe that voluntary cooperation, and identification, with a group of like-minded churches provides strength to each member church. Shared theological views create this atmosphere of cooperation. The mutual accountability between churches discourages an individual church from straying off the theological farm. Such cooperation does not negate local church autonomy. Instead it strenthens it by providing safeguards against heresy.

For those of you who oppose independent churches I am not expecting you to have an epiphany. I still expect you to oppose it. I am interested in opinions and observations regarding independency and confessional subscription.
 
Confessional subscription is a little bit of a guard against heresy in independent churches. That said, we have recently been looking at changing our church's 'subscription' and when asked for legal advice we were told that precedent here in the UK is that it is ok to change your documents if it is agreed by all and is 'what the church has believed for at least five years'.

Nonetheless I believe it is a help, because it takes away devious mens' wriggle-room if erroneous teachings or practice are challenged promptly. Our church has been credo-baptist for 80 years or so. We are hence no longer obliged to 'receive the westminster confession'. I'd rather we received the 1689 than no confession at all, hence the investigations.
 
It seems the presbyterian system is in between the congregational and hierarchical basis of polity.

The key is accountability and mutual cooperation. In practice, a confession with enforcement beyond the local church works well and is needed. Individuals and church majorities, even whole groups of churches can go off. Idolatry is a most basic human sin and we can tend to develop a "cult of personality" around leaders or ourselves.

Mutual cooperation means that there is a network of churches with real purpose to assist one another, including their individual accountability.

It's always a balance because there is no perfect way to check sin. In Acts we see a pattern where theological problems were resolved by going to counsels, groups of churches away from the individual church were an issue arises.

I heard Dr. J. Vernon McGee on his radio program recently define an independent church as one that answers to our Lord, rather than the denomination. I suppose that represents one view particularly in the face of churches separating from mainline churches that are falling away from Christian faith and practice.

But there is an inter-related aspect here too in Scripture. God did not make us to "go it alone." Christ's church does not exist in a vacuum and that must be reflected somewhat in real, practical ways.
 
As a missionary who desires that the church universal expand, I long for greater "connectionalism" among churches. Sometimes I see churches which mistake independancy for isolationism.

Yet, having said this, I see nothing in Scripture that places one church body or one person over another church except for the big A Apostles.

Each local church had leaders who "had the rule over them" and yet all things were done with the consent of the whole church.

I laugh everytime the Presbyterians talk about the dangers of independancy because the greatest errors propogated today are from hierarchal churches, of whom many are confessional.

God, indeed, does not make us to go it alone...there is cooperation and mutual aid and assistance between churches. But this comes from the desires of the churches themselves rather than from the top down.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 01:23:27 EST-----

P.s. I think many on the board will caricaturize independancy as democracy in the church. This is not true. The biblical injunctions to obey those that rule over you is still in effect and to be independant does not mean that we advocate going it alone nor does it mean that we advocate the rule by committee that sometimes happens in baptist churches that have a weak doctrine of Biblical eldership.
 
Says you. The episcopalians are hierarchal...they are mostly in error. The Presbyterians are hierarchal and many of them are also in error. Confessions have not safeguarded either of these two groups. Confessionalism and hierarchical church govt' are not silver bullets.
 
Perg, Further, I would call you out simply on your assertion that the biggest errors come from non-Independent churches. That's a bold statement which is probably pretty hard to back up.

Plus, I could turn the statement around and cry out, "Imagine how quickly the PC(USA) would have drifted away if not for its confession and presbyterian government." It's an equally unverifiable and unback-up-able statement.
 
Independant churches often make their own statements of faith and hold to them. This operates the same as confessionalism for many. Also, suppose that I am wrong, there are still many confessional independant churches as well, and that seems to be the thrust of Bill's OP. To be independant does not mean to go forward without a rudder nor does it mean that we are ruld by mobs. As I look around "Christendom" today, the biggest errors are propagated by those who have confessions which lay weak and impotent while gay clergy are ordained and hierarchical councils rule from on high that sin is not sin.
 
The real question is not results or practicality but what saith the scripture.
Or for those of you who can't read Shakespear or old English,

What does Acts 15 teach us.

What was the practice of the church in the time of Christ and did He or the Apostles change it.

Did Paul submit to the Council or did he separate so he could be direct with God and not have to tell Gentiles to not eat strangled things and meat offered to idols?

The same is true of his commisions to mission trips. They came from the General Assembly.

This is not about two like minded independent pastors calling each other to run their ideas by each other, this is about higher councils or courts making real decisions the pastors and churches abide by for the sake of unity and purity.

To be out form under authority and direct with God is not the wise choice. It is not a from a concern for the safety of your flock, it is self serving only.
Being under headship is preferable and safer.

It would be more likely to take a work of the Spirit to change a large group of devout men's minds than one to come up with a novel idea to help him sell more books or increase the offering and increase his numbers in the audience.

Where do we see examples of independent congregations in the Bible?
 
1. Regarding error found in "independent" and "hierarchical" church bodies... As I survey the ecclesiastical landscape my observation is this: Indpendent/congregational/populist bodies can very rapidly fall into error, but due to the volatility of their structure, they can also rapdily correct that error. Hierarchical bodies take longer for error to get in, but once it does, oftentimes the only way to correct it is for the dissenting group to break away and form a new body. Which group has produced graver error? I don't know... Is there really any significant difference between the wickedness of the UCC or the PCUSA or the ELCA or the ECUS or the countless Joel Osteenesque ministers? I'm not so sure there is...

2. Regarding confessionalism in indpendent bodies. Within the independent ethos there is the value of autonomy. Within the Reformed culture value is seen in confessionalism. When a reformed leaning independent (individual, church, or denomination) desires to be confessional, there will always be an internal struggle. The value of autonomy naturally wants to express itself in a "you can't tell me what to do" type of way, while the confessional value requires a degree of conformity. This balance can be maintained by some, but as Greg Wills pointed out, at least in Baptist circles, usually - given man's sinful nature - the desire for autonomy ultimately wins out in larger church life. So in that regard I compare confessional independents with the example of a bad marriage. The bad marriage can be maintained and can "work" because of sheer will power and determination to not throw in the towel... but eventually someone is likely to say "it's not worth it" and give up. So you can be both confessional and independent, and so can your church, and so can your small band of likeminded churches... but eventually I think history shows that the desire to be autonomous will override the desire to have constraints.

And then you'll become "confessional" like much of the PCA is. Oops. Did that just slip out?
 
Prufrock said:
Perg, Further, I would call you out simply on your assertion that the biggest errors come from non-Independent churches. That's a bold statement which is probably pretty hard to back up.

Plus, I could turn the statement around and cry out, "Imagine how quickly the PC(USA) would have drifted away if not for its confession and presbyterian government." It's an equally unverifiable and unback-up-able statement.
Click to expand...

Maybe the PCUSA would have drifted away sooner, who can tell. I have no way to verify or deny this statement.

If you take issues of gay clergy, liberalism, etc, these errors were largely advanced by hierarchical churches. Many of the independants in turn, in reaction, seem to have turned towards fundementalism and even confessional groups had to split from their church bodies to avoid the infection that was rotting them from the top down. This was the reason for the OPC splitting right? They had to escape out from under a corrupt body and "do their own thing".... I would say that liberalism infected hierarchical churches to a greater degree than independants. However, many of these independants turned more towards Fundyism which is also bad.
 
Pergamum said:
As I look around "Christendom" today, the biggest errors are propagated by those who have confessions which lay weak and impotent while gay clergy are ordained and hierarchical councils rule from on high that sin is not sin.
Click to expand...

That is the fault of the men who have left the faith not their old Confessions.

As I wrote above, devout men,
the system is only as good as those operating it.

But having "no system", is of no value at all.

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes. How is this even trying for unity?

And there are independent churches that have as serious errors as loose non-Biblical hierarchial churches.
 
Joshua said:
Pergamum said:
As I look around "Christendom" today, the biggest errors are propagated by those who have confessions which lay weak and impotent while gay clergy are ordained and hierarchical councils rule from on high that sin is not sin.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so like I noted, they're not Confessional. To be Confessional means to practice and adhere and discipline with said Confession. If a denomination is not doing that, regardless of how much they scream that they're Confessional, well, they're not.
Click to expand...

I think confessional versus non confessional is not in Bill's OP.

Let's stick to independancy versus hierarchicalism.

A church can be independant and still confessional, like Bill's. I don't want to run away from the main thrust of his OP, which is independancy and not confessionalism.
 
PeaceMaker said:
Pergamum said:
As I look around "Christendom" today, the biggest errors are propagated by those who have confessions which lay weak and impotent while gay clergy are ordained and hierarchical councils rule from on high that sin is not sin.
Click to expand...

That is the fault of the men who have left the faith not their old Confessions.

As I wrote above, devout men,
the system is only as good as those operating it.

But no system is of no value at all.

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes. How is this even trying for unity?
Click to expand...

To say of Independants that "Everyone does what is right in their eyes" and that we independants have no system of gov't is a smear. I hope you were not saying these things. We also try to be faithful to Christ.
 
If you want to talk about error in churches, let's talk about mainstream fluffy-puff evangelicalism. There are many kinds of dangerous errors. But again, this is not entirely germane -- historical circumstance does not dictate rightness or wrongness. If it did, we could just as easily argue that Willow Creak methods bring more people into the church than any other strategy: therefore, it works! While I doubt any here would make that argument, it is the same species of argumentation.

But again, this is all off-topic of Bill's original question, so I apologize.
 
Joshua said:
Pergamum said:
Joshua said:
Yeah, so like I noted, they're not Confessional. To be Confessional means to practice and adhere and discipline with said Confession. If a denomination is not doing that, regardless of how much they scream that they're Confessional, well, they're not.
Click to expand...

I think confessional versus non confessional is not in Bill's OP.

Let's stick to independancy versus hierarchicalism.

A church can be independant and still confessional, like Bill's. I don't want to run away from the main thrust of his OP, which is independancy and not confessionalism.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I'm simply responding to your assertions. So, respectfully, if you'd like to stick to the OP don't make assertions that require a deviation from the subject of the OP. :)
Click to expand...

You gotcherself a deal and a handshake brother! :D
 
Prufrock said:
If you want to talk about error in churches, let's talk about mainstream fluffy-puff evangelicalism. There are many kinds of dangerous errors. But again, this is not entirely germane -- historical circumstance does not dictate rightness or wrongness. If it did, we could just as easily argue that Willow Creak methods bring more people into the church than any other strategy: therefore, it works! While I doubt any here would make that argument, it is the same species of argumentation.

But again, this is all off-topic of Bill's original question, so I apologize.
Click to expand...

If you want to compare the average evangelical church (independant) with the average episcopalian, or Presbyterian church (including the PCUSA and ALL of the Presbyterian bodies, i.e., all those churches that use a polity that is somehow hierarchical) then I am game. We don't even need to count the hierarchical Catholics.
 
PeaceMaker said:
The real question is not results or practicality but what saith the scripture.
Or for those of you who can't read Shakespear or old English,

What does Acts 15 teach us.

What was the practice of the church in the time of Christ and did He or the Apostles change it.

Did Paul submit to the Council or did he separate so he could be direct with God and not have to tell Gentiles to not eat strangled things and meat offered to idols?

The same is true of his commisions to mission trips. They came from the General Assembly.

This is not about two like minded independent pastors calling each other to run their ideas by each other, this is about higher councils or courts making real decisions the pastors and churches abide by for the sake of unity and purity.

To be out form under authority and direct with God is not the wise choice. It is not a from a concern for the safety of your flock, it is self serving only.
Being under headship is preferable and safer.

It would be more likely to take a work of the Spirit to change a large group of devout men's minds than one to come up with a novel idea to help him sell more books or increase the offering and increase his numbers in the audience.

Where do we see examples of independent congregations in the Bible?
Click to expand...

There is some ambiguity now that Big A Apostles have left the seen about polity. The NT does not give a detailed outline of how churches should be run after the apostolic age.

And remember, in Acts 15, the whole church in one accord agreed with all the speakers.

In the NT I see local autonomous churches that were in one accord on major decisions such that when major decisions were made, it was the whole church that is said to have made this decision or agreed with it.

Of course, I also see Paul and his missionary band helping out and laboring in these churches in some sort of leadership role.
 
Pergamum said:
If you want to compare the average evangelical church (independant) with the average episcopalian, or Presbyterian church (including the PCUSA and ALL of the Presbyterian bodies, i.e., all those churches that use a polity that is somehow hierarchical) then I am game. We don't even need to count the hierarchical Catholics.
Click to expand...

I think it would be an impossible (also fruitless) task. But again, it wouldn't be in keeping with Bill's OP anyway.
 
Folks, I am on the road and posting via my iPhone, so it's taking me out of real time in the discussion.

The purpose of the OP was not to compare the two systems of governance, but to discuss how confessional subscription in independent churches can strenthen independency, especially if a church is a member of an association such as ARBCA.

Ben, I can see how a church or denomination can start out confessional in practice and then devolve to in name only. That is a risk of all true churches. I am more concerned with the right steps now, not the fear of future generations falling away.

Don, I am not going to debate the two systems. I believe the case for independency is made plain in scripture. My dear Presbyterian brethren are convinced otherwise. That debate can be taken up in another thread.
 
Church Polity, or, The Kingodm of Christ, J.L. Reynolds | The Reformed Reader


We are to be elder led, and congregational ruled. Elders lead the congregants, which give or refuse to give consent, such that there are leaders and yet their decisions "please the whole church":


In Acts 6, when men were selected for the distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows at the recommendation of the apostles, it says, “And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas...."

Acts 15:22 states, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church....",


Matthew 18 speaks of bringing a matter to the whole church....



Any church gov't that forgets this phrase "it pleased the whole church" needs to reconsider itself. Leaders are to lead, but some decisions lie with the consent of the whole church. This is why I believe in multiple elder-led congregationalism, i.e., independancy.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 02:20:38 EST-----



[putting the brakes on.........]






Okay Bill. I just saw your post. Sorry for running off with it while you were on the road.....






Yes, I agree that some sort of connectionalism is needed among independants and FIRE and ARBCA provide good opportunities for such connectionalim within certain doctrinal safeguards.

The doctrinal safeguards (whether they be big C Confessional or small c confessional) are vital, and having such a common forum in which independant churches may fellowship can greatly aid major efforts such as publication, schooling and evangelism both at home and abroad.

I know with FIRE, being a member of FIRE does not make one sacrifice the independancy of the local church, and yet some churches have been removed from the fellowship due to doctrines deemed outside the norm of our boundsof fellowship. The meetings provide calvy baptist men an opportunity to fellowship and also becomes a platform to support god schooling, the support of missionaries and publication.


Please check out FIRE...I think you will be pleased.
 
My sister is in a conservative PCUSA presbytery. Most of their churches are horrified at what's going on. But they are stuck. If the churches tried to leave their property would be confiscated.

At least if you are independent (like a Baptist) You can leave the denom when things get to bad. Don't forget the conservatives in the LCMS and SBC were able to save their denoms from liberalism The UCC, Methodist and PCUSA ( sorry sister) are all lost causes. All the biblical people can do is vote with their feet.
 
It is a bit hard to say separate the idea of confession from govt.

Unless you mean the one man run church has a one man made confession, as many do. I do not see how this adds any protection to the autocrat.

Even if it has plurality of elders and they make a confession this si still limited.

Whereas if the "whole church" which in many cases means all the churches not one church, make a confession al all the elders and churches agree to hold to it then you have something stabilizing and protective for the flock.

When a minister answers to no one but his own confession and his congregation there is a greater chance for him to do less or to deviate from scripture or change his confession.

Whereas when they have to answer to the other ministers of the whole church he is also under authority and the flock is protected.

So a confession apart from a presbytery is not much help.

The two necessarily go together for the protection of the churches. This is why seminaries should be under authority of the church and its confession as well and not independent teach in opposition to the confession of the church.

So all of those, whole church, teachings prove my point on govt. They support the idea of all the churches taking a collection for one prject.

The idea of a council is not apostolic. The fact the apostles also submitted to the council shows this. They did not see themselves as above the council and whole church but subject to it.
If anyone had a right to say, I will do my own thing and not submit to the council or whole church it would have been divinely inspired apostles.

The fact they were sent out by councils proves it is wrong to be independent.

The churches do best when all working together in unified efforts.

So an independent with or without a confession can be sound or unsound.
And a hierarchial with or without creed can be sound or unsound.

So as Josh pointed out, the real issue is the men disciplining and demanding subscription to the confession of the whole church, by all the churches and their officers.

The health of the church is directly related to how well the men in power do this.

But no where in scripture do we see the sheep voting democratically to tell the shepherds what to do.

This is how you get men like J Edwards wrongly fired from a church in spite of elders seeing he was right.

Sheep follow, shepherds lead.
And a mutual submission to a group of ministers is safest. Only where the ministers fail to uphold total subscription to the confessions do we see the church slipping weaker and weaker.

Anything less than full subscription is not subscription. How can you discipline one if there is no need to subscribe they can simply take exemption??

Then only those articles they will not allow an exemption to is actually the confession.
 
Don, can we start another thread about this. I don't want to hijack Bill's points (like I did earlier). The issue is not a one-man-show versus the wisdom of the whole church..., let's discuss this elsewhere.
 
Herald said:
Folks, I am on the road and posting via my iPhone, so it's taking me out of real time in the discussion.

The purpose of the OP was not to compare the two systems of governance, but to discuss how confessional subscription in independent churches can strenthen independency, especially if a church is a member of an association such as ARBCA.
Click to expand...

Bill, speaking as a congregationalist confessional Baptist, I think confessional subscription makes for a strong church, and only a strong church can function at all as an independent. Independent churches need internal cohesion far more than a Presbyterian or Erastian church would. Because an independent church's ecclessiology is congregational, it requires not only the elders to subscibe, but the members themselves to understand and subscribe.

Following your lead in not discussing the merits of either (and I'm staunch in my adherence to the congregational approach), I think teaching and holding to the Confession is even more important for an independent church--simply because it is the members of that church that will ultimately determine whether the preaching, teaching, and form of worship is sound.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Differences of Independency & Congregationalism ?
Replies
6
Views
5K
Mayflower
M
Cotton Mather
  • Locked
Confessional Subscription...
Replies
3
Views
2K
Cotton Mather
Cotton Mather
Dearly Bought
  • Locked
Confessional Membership?
Replies
18
Views
5K
greenbaggins
greenbaggins
Casey
  • Locked
Confessional Churches & Klineanism
Replies
7
Views
3K
greenbaggins
greenbaggins
Prufrock
  • Locked
Defend Confessional Membership
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
Hippo
Hippo
Back
Top