Question on Ecclesiastical Power and Interpreting WCF 31.3

[Masvisvi]

(To preface, I'm new here and I'm a Reformed Baptist. I am asking out of curiosity, not to start a Dutch‑vs‑Westminster polity debate.)

A few Presbyterian Elders I know of are starting a new denomination here in the United Kingdom, and they've released a paper on behalf of the denomination titled "Principles of Session-led Presbyterianism" (see doc attached). For a church to join the denomination, it must agree to subscribe to the Westminster standards -- expected. But they also advertise themselves as wanting to promote a "church life and ministry that is rooted in a Continental Reformed expression of the Westminster Confession."

I read the document, and it argues against Scottish-style hierarchical Presbyterianism, where ministers belong primarily to presbyteries and higher courts and are treated as possessing superior authority. The paper regards the Scottish model as carrying remnants of "clericalism", whereas a more continental Reformed model, especially as reflected in Dort, better protects the equality of elders and the integrity of the local church. In their framework, sessions rule and broader assemblies counsel and coordinate, and any binding force they have rests on prior, voluntary covenant commitments churches make - not judicial power.

That made me wonder how they interpret WCF 31.3, as they don't subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. Well, the author cites WCF 31.3 (“It belongeth to synods and councils…”), including the clause that their decrees “are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made…”. He notes that some continental Reformed writers are uneasy with the phrase “for the power whereby they are made,” because the 1656 Latin version rendered “power” as potestas, implying official ruling power. He argues that this translation is not binding, because the Confession’s official text is English, not Latin, and “power” there need not be read as potestas (inherent jurisdiction) but can be understood as auctoritas (ministerial, persuasive authority). On that reading, it seems that synods and councils are limited to exercising advisory and coordinating authority; higher courts, therefore, do not inherently have judicial authority over sessions, as it is the sessions which are the "first subject" of power.

My questions are:
(a) Is this how Westminster Assembly members and other Westminster adherents in later generations read WCF 31.3?
(b) Does this amount to adopting a Dutch‑Reformed style of church government while re‑interpreting WCF 31.3 to stay loyal to the Westminster standards?
c) Am I missing the mark in how I’ve described his position or my questions about it?

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to answer.

 

[MW]

Short answer: No. The Assembly clearly envisaged real judicial authority with graded courts, power to bind and loose, and the right to issue binding decisions and to discipline ministers and congregations. The Scottish Church adopted the Confession so readily because it matched their existing Presbyterian polity. Synods can "determine controversies of faith" and their decrees are to be received "with reverence and submission." All of this is within ministerial authority, declaring the mind of the Head of the Church.

Even where churches separate under this system, they do so by secession, protesting an unlawful use of authority. They do not deny the authority of higher courts.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Synods can "determine controversies of faith" and their decrees are to be received "with reverence and submission."

In response, I would argue that the Synod of Dort affirms this principle, but only insofar as such decrees accord with the Word of God and the established church order (see article 31). Where they do not, ministers and elders are not merely permitted but obliged to refuse compliance, since obedience in such cases would constitute sin against God.
The real question, then, is what follows when a local session refuses to abide by the decisions of the broader assemblies. Does a general assembly possess the authority and power to subject a minister and session to church discipline? Or is its authority limited to rejecting their credentials, thereby effectively placing the entire congregation outside the federation? This is where in my opinion the difference lie between a hierarchical church polity and the Doleantie church polity.

The document states: “No particular church is forced to enter into such a covenant, and no congregation can be prevented from leaving such a covenanted body. But if it has undertaken to abide by the terms of the covenant, yet fails to honour what it has promised, then it is a covenant breaker and, if this breach cannot be remedied, it must separate from the denomination, or must be separated from it.”
I find this language unsatisfactory. When the Church Order of Dort was formulated, it did not operate within a framework of vague denominationalism. Rather, failure to submit to the lawful decisions of the broader assemblies renders such a congregation guilty of perjury and schism.

 

[MW]

In response, I would argue that the Synod of Dort affirms this principle, but only insofar as such decrees accord with the Word of God and the established church order (see article 31). Where they do not, ministers and elders are not merely permitted but obliged to refuse compliance, since obedience in such cases would constitute sin against God.

I'm not sure what you are responding to. I said, "Even where churches separate under this system, they do so by secession, protesting an unlawful use of authority." There is no claim to absolute authority.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I don't know anything about this new denomination in the UK, but I read the document you posted including this comment:

"Congregational Presbyterianism (=Reformed Church polity) – power immediately from Christ to the elders of the particular church, acting jointly in government and severally in the Word and sacraments. To broader assemblies by delegation and by agreement on a covenantal, federal basis."

That is a good summary of the Congregationalism of the 1648 Cambridge Platform. I think many Dutch Reformed will agree, and it seems pretty clearly intended to describe the polity of the Dutch Reformed. A lot of things in that article cite the Church Order of Dordt and its semi-official interpretations by key Dutch Reformed professors in the better days of the GKN and the CRC, as well as more recent work by the Canadian Reformed.

I'll leave it to the Reformed Baptists to indicate whether this describes what they'd like to see, i.e., rule by elders in local churches that voluntarily associate themselves for counsel and mutual admonition. The Reformed Baptists have a problem in the United States that it has been a lot harder to organize confessionally Reformed associations of Reformed Baptists than it has been to organize group like the Founders Conference. I don't know how things are with Baptists in the UK.

My opinion, after reading the entire paper? I like a lot of what I read, but these people may be redefining Presbyterianism to the point that it is no longer is Presbyterian but something else. Any paper on church government that I like and largely agree with isn't Presbyterianism in a form that John Knox or the Scottish Commissioners to Westminster would recognize.

These people who are organizing a new denomination probably should call up the URCNA and/or the Canadian Reformed, have some serious discussions, and consider adopting some version of the Church Order of Dordt. Or go read Martyn Lloyd-Jones and ask if what they really are is Reformed Congregationalists with a high view of the role of associations or what the Dutch would call "broader assemblies."

It's not relevant to the main point, but I do find it fascinating that the paper cites the work of Dr. Polly Ha, a Korean American historian with both British and American dual citizenship who grew up in Los Angeles, has a doctorate in history from the University of Cambridge, and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. She teaches now at Duke, but previously taught at Cambridge and East Anglia. There are points on which I certainly would not agree with Dr. Ha, but it says a lot that one of the major young professors who is teaching on the history and theology of Reformation-era England is a Korean woman who grew up in Los Angeles! I suspect that if I sat down with Dr. Ha and talked very long, we'd find a lot of differences, but you do NOT get a doctorate from Cambridge if you don't know your stuff.

John Knox and Oliver Cromwell would be amazed that a woman whose ancestors were from a country they probably never knew existed is now teaching the history of their work to reform the church in England and Scotland. I'm pretty sure I know what Knox would say about blasts of trumpets against women. Cromwell's views, interestingly enough, were surprisingly tolerant of people with whom he disagreed as long as they weren't Catholic or prelatical, and even more so with John Owen, and I think those two men might listen to what Dr. Ha had to say. Obviously they wouldn't agree with Dr. Ha teaching mixed classes of men and women at Cambridge, but they might actually support Dr. Ha teaching Reformed history to other women. Whether they would agree with some of her content is a different question.

 

[Brandon M.]

but these people may be redefining Presbyterianism to the point that it is no longer is Presbyterian but something else.

My exact thoughts, Darrell. Sounds like they're rather explicit about it, too, from what is quoted in the OP:

But they also advertise themselves as wanting to promote a "church life and ministry that is rooted in a Continental Reformed expression of the Westminster Confession."

That does raise the question of why they would not instead link up (or at least consult) with an existing confessionally Reformed body.

For what it's worth, I know that here in the States, the ministers in the RPCNA hold their membership in the congregation they serve rather than in the presbytery. If this group truly intends to subscribe to the Westminster Standards while 'modifying' traditional Presbyterian polity, our RP brothers might at least be worth consulting.