Should lay members be required to affirm the confession of Faith?
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
thbslawson
Puritan Board Freshman
Every PCA church that I've been a part of requires some sort of new members class where the WCF is explained. But to become a member one need not be confessional. In order to hold an ordained office one must be.
I think this is a Biblical approach. I can't imagine denying membership to the local church for a brother or sister in the Lord who still doesn't have all of his or her theology nailed down completely. If anything, submission to the shepherding of a local session would help guide another believer in his or her understanding. I've been told there are enough Reformed Baptists in PCA churches to start a whole new denomination =)
I think this is a Biblical approach. I can't imagine denying membership to the local church for a brother or sister in the Lord who still doesn't have all of his or her theology nailed down completely. If anything, submission to the shepherding of a local session would help guide another believer in his or her understanding. I've been told there are enough Reformed Baptists in PCA churches to start a whole new denomination =)
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The OPC and the PCA do not. I was speaking in generalities. The principle is valid enough to ask a the question.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
I did not know that about the OPC and the PCA.
Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
This URCNA layman heartily commends confessional membership as the Biblical and better practice. It is vital that the church's confession be just that: the church's confession. You can find some previous discussion with defenses of the practice in the following threads:
- Church Membership, Confessional Adherence, and fencing the table
- Defend Confessional Membership
- Establishment Principle / Confessional Church Membership
Contemporary Presbyterian churches do not typically require that members assent to the church's whole confession when joining a church. You can find a previous survey of which churches practice confessional membership here: Confessional Membership?
thbslawson
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say it's the job of the elders to shepherd the flock. They were patient with me as I worked through the issue. I was thankful for the accountability and guidance. There have even been some occasions where some Presbyterian elders have encouraged their Baptist brethren to start a new congregation and maintain friendly cooperative ties.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
The OPC does NOT require adherence to the Westminster Standards for membership as James mentioned. Officers are required to subscribe, but regular members are not. I agree that it is probably best that way. We want the church to be open to as many Christians as possible. Now with that said, we do explain to prospective members that the Westminster Standards are our denomination's confession and our church's confession. We explain that the doctrine of the Westminster Standards are what will be preached from the pulpit and taught in all our classes. We explain that strict adherence is not required for membership, but we do expect proper submission to the church's authority, so essentially they are agreeing to the Westminster Standards, at least passively. Basically we want them to know that because the WCF, WLC, and WSC are our church's standard, if they actively oppose them, they will either need to humbly submit anyway or this church is probably not best for them. We don't specifically word it like that, but you (and they) get the gist of our expectations.
Here is what is required of a person to affirm to become a member:
From the BCO, Directory for the Public Worship of God, IV.B.2:
If a person can publicly agree to the above five points, then they are welcome to be a member in our church. Again, notice that vow #5 is a vow to, at minimum, passively agree to the Westminster Standards since they are what will be taught in our church.
Here is what is required of a person to affirm to become a member:
From the BCO, Directory for the Public Worship of God, IV.B.2:
If a person can publicly agree to the above five points, then they are welcome to be a member in our church. Again, notice that vow #5 is a vow to, at minimum, passively agree to the Westminster Standards since they are what will be taught in our church.
GulfCoast Presbyterian
Puritan Board Senior
This is true in many PCUSA churches I am familiar with, as well.
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
I don't think church members need to subscribe to the Confessions, but I agree with Andres in that prospective members should know that they are joining a church that believes and teaches the Confessions. I think Membership courses about the Confession of Faith should be done and allow the person to become familiar and ask any questions they might have. However, as was mentioned, I don't think somebody not quite understanding something theologically yet is a good reason to deny them membership.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I agree with Andres. My church was the same, in fact you were required to write down on the forms they gave us where (if at all) you knowingly disagreed with the confession or Reformed theology. I also believe that it is the task of any church who practices this to offer specific classes to teach through the confession and catechisms. On the other hand I like what Bryan said here
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think the Lay should attempt to learn the confession of the Church they are considering to become members of to find places of agreement and possible exceptions, PRIOR to joining a church in membership. It took my wife and I a year to go over the Westminster Standards before we applied for membership. We were not about to join ourselves to a church in membership which had a confession that they adheared to, taught from, and enforced, prior to us comparing it line by line to the scripture. We had never heard of a confession at that time.
What about baptized children professing faith? If they refuse to subscribe to the confession are they expelled or denied communion? I'm just curious.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Anyone seeking to join an ARP congregation is supposed to answer in the affirmative to seven questions, one of which is:
But, to answer your question: I think the ARP question is sufficient.
That is an interesting question that I do not yet have an answer to. Maybe one of our other RPCNA brethren can answer?
Thanks Tim.
From the RPCNA Constitution
The Covenant of Communicant Membership
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
As has been noted, rightly, on this board, there is a distinction in the membership requirements that has prevailed between the churches that come from the Church of Scotland (Free Church, OPC, PCA, etc.) and those that come from the Covenanting and Seceding tradition (RPCNA, ARP, etc.). The former tend not to require "confessional membership," while the latter do (see #21).
This is important to note because the OP might give the impression that the great distinction here is between the confessional continental churches (such as the URCNA) and the churches of the Scottish/American Presbyterian tradition. While covenanting churches (e.g., RPCNA) have been rather stricter, as I understand it, in maintaining confessional membership, continental churches, like the URCNA, have not been as direct in that respect. Specifically, the sort of question asked in the continental tradition upon a public profession of faith touching on this issue is along these lines: Q.2. "Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God...and that the confessions of this church faithfully reflect this revelation?"
The impression given is that in the continental tradition, "confessional membership" prevails and there is little, if any, difference between that which the ordinary member must give in assenting to the Three Forms of Unity and that which the office-bearer must give. But that is not so. Read the continental form of subscription. And take this into account for the OPC. This is the second question at the baptism of an infant: (2) "Do you promise to teach diligently to [name of child] the principles of our holy Christian faith, revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church?"
Thus, that second baptismal vow, together with the fifth membership question, shows that there is not such a great distance with our continental brethren who, at public profession of faith, do not, as such, subcribe the Three Forms of Unity in the same way the Covenanters do the Westminster Standards.
Peace,
Alan
This is important to note because the OP might give the impression that the great distinction here is between the confessional continental churches (such as the URCNA) and the churches of the Scottish/American Presbyterian tradition. While covenanting churches (e.g., RPCNA) have been rather stricter, as I understand it, in maintaining confessional membership, continental churches, like the URCNA, have not been as direct in that respect. Specifically, the sort of question asked in the continental tradition upon a public profession of faith touching on this issue is along these lines: Q.2. "Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God...and that the confessions of this church faithfully reflect this revelation?"
The impression given is that in the continental tradition, "confessional membership" prevails and there is little, if any, difference between that which the ordinary member must give in assenting to the Three Forms of Unity and that which the office-bearer must give. But that is not so. Read the continental form of subscription. And take this into account for the OPC. This is the second question at the baptism of an infant: (2) "Do you promise to teach diligently to [name of child] the principles of our holy Christian faith, revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church?"
Thus, that second baptismal vow, together with the fifth membership question, shows that there is not such a great distance with our continental brethren who, at public profession of faith, do not, as such, subcribe the Three Forms of Unity in the same way the Covenanters do the Westminster Standards.
Peace,
Alan
Are infants members of the church? WCF 25.2 answers, Yes. May infants partake of communion. WCF 29.8 answers, No, on the understanding that infants are included among the ignorant. So, from the outset, confessional churches have a twofold membership. Further, are all communicants placed in the same relation to the church? WCF 30.1-2, answers, No. The government of the church has been placed in the hand of church officers by the King and Head of the church, and to these are committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. On this confessional basis, it is false to assert that the members of the church are the church. It is on the basis of this false assertion that "confessional membership" is maintained. There are clear distinctions within the membership of the church which establishes distinct requirements in each case.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Matthew:
Thanks for your theological exposition. I was thinking about doing something along those lines after posting what I did in #22, which was oriented in terms of history and practice, not so much in terms of what the correct practice is.
I agree entirely with you and believe, biblically and confessionally, the correct practice to be as you note it: There is both a two-fold membership and a distinction to be made between those who exercise the keys and those who do not.
Peace,
Alan
Thanks for your theological exposition. I was thinking about doing something along those lines after posting what I did in #22, which was oriented in terms of history and practice, not so much in terms of what the correct practice is.
I agree entirely with you and believe, biblically and confessionally, the correct practice to be as you note it: There is both a two-fold membership and a distinction to be made between those who exercise the keys and those who do not.
Peace,
Alan
Thankyou, Alan. Do you know if the same distinctions are clearly expressed in the three forms of unity? I've often heard that the Dutch Reformed are broader rather than higher when it comes to church authority. I'm not in a position to evaluate the claim, but if that is the case it might explain the different practice.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Matthew:
As I noted, I think that there's more difference historically between covenanting Presbyterians and mainstream confessional Presbyterians--the former holding to "confessional membership" and the latter construing a credible profession faith as not requiring such--than there is between those more historically mainstream Presbyterians and the Reformed . I think that there's less difference both in tone and practice between the mainstream confessional Presbyterians and the practitioners of the continental tradition, those who hold to the church order from Dordt. What exactly is the URCNA requiring in that second question? Full confessional membership. I don't think so. Opinions differ among those to whom I've spoken, with some men of years seeing the requirements as, practically speaking, not that different than the Presbyterian's.
I would say that the Three Forms of Unity would distinguish both between the baptized, yet unprofessing members, and those who profess their faith, although that distinction is being eroded in the CRCNA, which now permits, if not encourages, paedocommunion. And they would certainly distinguish between members of the congregation and the consistory, the latter only having the keys.
The question of the authority of judicatories beyond the local one (broader/higher) seems to me a different question but I may be missing you on that one.
Peace,
Alan
As I noted, I think that there's more difference historically between covenanting Presbyterians and mainstream confessional Presbyterians--the former holding to "confessional membership" and the latter construing a credible profession faith as not requiring such--than there is between those more historically mainstream Presbyterians and the Reformed . I think that there's less difference both in tone and practice between the mainstream confessional Presbyterians and the practitioners of the continental tradition, those who hold to the church order from Dordt. What exactly is the URCNA requiring in that second question? Full confessional membership. I don't think so. Opinions differ among those to whom I've spoken, with some men of years seeing the requirements as, practically speaking, not that different than the Presbyterian's.
I would say that the Three Forms of Unity would distinguish both between the baptized, yet unprofessing members, and those who profess their faith, although that distinction is being eroded in the CRCNA, which now permits, if not encourages, paedocommunion. And they would certainly distinguish between members of the congregation and the consistory, the latter only having the keys.
The question of the authority of judicatories beyond the local one (broader/higher) seems to me a different question but I may be missing you on that one.
Peace,
Alan
The argument I have been given by Dutch Reformed folk is that their "broader" authority indicates more congregational authority. I'm wondering if "more congregational authority" might require higher standards of membership. I remember the Independents of the 17th century connected together their idea of congregational power with higher qualifications. It could be that something more moderate is happening with the Dutch Reformed system. Again, I'm not in a position to know if "broader authority" is a correct presentation. It is simply the way it has been represented to me by Dutch Reformed folk.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Matthew:
Since the broader/higher distinction usually has to do with judicatories beyond the local (classes and synods for the Reformed), I was unclear as to your meaning. Thanks for the explanation. I get it now.
And I think that the answer to the question of the Refomed giving the congregation more authority is definitely "no." Historic Reformed polity in my estimation accords less to the congregation than does Presbyterianism. It's true in the historic Dordt order and it's even more so in the URCNA.
The URCNA regards any decision by the congregation (the actions, in other words, of congregational meetings) as purely advisory. All authority vests in the local governing body--the Consistory. So much so, in fact, that in the Church Order, Consistory alone is capitalized and classis and synod (not capitalized) have no existence except when meeting. Cornel Venema, in his article in the Godfrey festschrift, rightly points out that the common allegation of "congregationalism" with respect to the URCNA Church Order is incorrect: it's not congregationalism (which has no real power) but "consistorialism." I should hasten to add that this does not play out in the same way in the historic Dordt order (the URCNA Church Order is a truncation of Dordt)--both the CRC and the RCA, e.g., retain a fuller church order.
Peace,
Alan
Since the broader/higher distinction usually has to do with judicatories beyond the local (classes and synods for the Reformed), I was unclear as to your meaning. Thanks for the explanation. I get it now.
And I think that the answer to the question of the Refomed giving the congregation more authority is definitely "no." Historic Reformed polity in my estimation accords less to the congregation than does Presbyterianism. It's true in the historic Dordt order and it's even more so in the URCNA.
The URCNA regards any decision by the congregation (the actions, in other words, of congregational meetings) as purely advisory. All authority vests in the local governing body--the Consistory. So much so, in fact, that in the Church Order, Consistory alone is capitalized and classis and synod (not capitalized) have no existence except when meeting. Cornel Venema, in his article in the Godfrey festschrift, rightly points out that the common allegation of "congregationalism" with respect to the URCNA Church Order is incorrect: it's not congregationalism (which has no real power) but "consistorialism." I should hasten to add that this does not play out in the same way in the historic Dordt order (the URCNA Church Order is a truncation of Dordt)--both the CRC and the RCA, e.g., retain a fuller church order.
Peace,
Alan
Alan, Thankyou for the clarification, and for giving me further reason to purchase that volume.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Not to be critical of either you, your church, or your denomonation but how do you even enforce vow 5? I mean I can say yes to it without ever understanding a single line of it. As far as I understand can mean no conscience understanding at all. How does your denomonation enforce that?
thbslawson
Puritan Board Freshman
Speaking from the heart for a moment, is it Biblical to forbid a brother or sister in Christ, one who has truly repented of sin and trusted in Christ alone for salvation and is walking in a manner worthy of Him, to join with a local body of believers, submit to the local session and partake of the Lord's Supper? I don't see how such a position can be defended Biblically. I can see withholding the ability to hold church office for non-confessional believers from a Biblical position, but I can't see withholding membership into the body a sinner bought with the blood of Christ. Christ has received such into HIS kingdom, yet we cannot receive him into our churches?
- Status
