The OPC & Subscriptionism.

[Presbyrino]

Originally posted by Richard B. Davis
I know that the OPC is a group in declension (like mine is) but this is quite alarming. It also brings up some important questions:

3) How wide spread is this liberalism?

Richard, in what why do you know that the OPC is in decline? You made this statement and left it dangling there with no justification as to reasons for declension. Did you come to this conclusion because church members are not required to subscribe to the Westminster standards for church membership?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Richard B. Davis
As many of you know the OPC and my own denomination (CanRC) are currently in a "sister church" relationship. Opponants on my side of the fence say that the OPC does not even really require it's ministers, let alone it's people, to subscribe to the Westminster standards. They might do so in name but in practice is another thing. At a classis meeting one minister mentioned to me (I happened to be there) that when he attended an OPC Presbytry meeting they allowed people to take exceptions to the WCF.

I know that the OPC is a group in declension (like mine is) but this is quite alarming. It also brings up some important questions:

1) How did this trend begin?
2) Is there a more conservative element in the OPC that is working towards orthodoxy?
3) How wide spread is this liberalism?
4) Oddly enough Reformed denoms. from the US tend to be a little more conservative up here in Canada. Is this the case as well?
5) Are other denoms., other than mine, also concerned about this?
6) What does this all mean for the OPC's future? Another PCA or CRC?

I'll just give my from my observation and experience. The OPC are not strict subscriptionists. But I do think they have a stronger identity of what it means to be Reformed than say the PCA. And they seem to take their presbyterianism more seriously than the PCA (i.e. actually making decisions on things rather than letting every session decide for itelf on controversial issues). I think that in part has alot to do with the founding history of the denominations. Right now, the OPC only allows "minor" exceptions (i.e. Creation day views, Sabbath views, disagreements over some wordings of phrases, etc.) which to us full subscriptionists aren't minor. But you won't find any charasmatics, liberals, or 4-pointers getting ordained. Unfortunately, the precedent is set (majority rule for ordination overrules subscription to the standards), and will probably erode if they are not diligent to examine their students and keep the bar high. The worship practice, though lenient in many respects, is still pretty common from church to church, and rejects contemporary styles. So even though there is some liberty to deviat, most don't seem to take that liberty.

Are they in decline? Well, they've never been a full subscriptionist denomination. So to allow exceptions isn't new. What will indicate if there is decline, is how they handle these Justification controversies. From what I understand, these issues have been going on for a while now in the eastern presbyteries, but are now finally spreading to the whole denomination. Unfortunately, people are still getting ordained who hold to Sheperd-like or NPP, views. Until that stops, or until the pulpits are overrun with more biblical ministers and elders, they will fall into decline because they will compromise the gospel.

But I'm not sure you can compare them to the Dutch churches. I admire the full subscriptionism of the whole membership, but at the same time I can see the idea behind lowering the bar for the membership to allow them room for growth (the only part that bothers me about it is the fact that these people, many ignorant of reformed history and doctrine, are the ones electing elders and calling minsters, unaware of the high standards they should have.) But on the same end, in the Dutch tradition, even though they are full subscriptionists in name, they aren't always diligent to enforce it, hence the decline of the CRC, RCA, etc.

Both systems depend upon an informed congregation, and diligent and faithful elders, in order to function and remain viable.

 

[Bernard_Marx]

Originally posted by JohnV
Richard:
I have some background in both the denominations you speak of. So I have an idea of the difference you're talking about. I would say, first of all, that in both denominations there is an onus on office-bearers to defend the faith the denomination subscribes to. This has nothing to do with personal exceptions. Exceptions exist in both denominations, but there is a difference in the view of formal unity within the denomination.

For example, the CanRC has only one Psalter in use in all its churches. This is an agreed policy for the denomination. But the OPC has no such agreement, but it rather takes the form of a suggestion. An individual church may opt for a hymnal other than the Trinity Hymnal. There is more individualism in the churches.

This also hold true for personal convictions. The respective denominations take different views on how this is determined. The CanRC holds a more uniform and formal approach, which would make FV-like isms more difficult to find root. But the OPC reacts more after the fact, with finally GA deciding on an FV-like ism after it has been circulated somewhat. In the CanRC this would likely be viewed as schismatic, since they hold a more formal uniformity within all the churches. In the OPC it is deemed as a healthy vitality, to some degree.

Of course, things like the justification issue gets a lot of publicity before GA makes a decision on it. But the general view is that it is not a negative effect on personal spirituality to explore ideas and to apply Scripture to them. So some things, like FV, etc., are deemed as formally legitimate until GA decides differently. This is the exception to subscription you are referring to, I think. So it seems a "before the fact" compared to "after the fact" type of comparison: the CanRC compared to the OPC respectively. Does this make sense?

In both denominations however, as I understand it, all office-bearers are called to defend the faith that the churches hold to, regardless of personal exceptions. The CanRC is more denominationally minded, so subscriptionism takes on a different form. It really is not possible for a church not to subscriptionist, as it is that they all are supposed to hold to the Bible, and no other teachings. So the OPC cannot, because of convention, hold to a subscriptionism like the CanRC without doing a major workover on a lot of other things. And I would not recommend that. Some things, I think, need a lot of work, but not its basis of operation like it is. These denominations need each other's different ways to keep a proper balance.

The reason I say this is because the CanRC is in danger at times of placing the denomination or the individual church at a level that minimizes individual membership. I know this has happened to a personal aquaintance of mine. But on the other hand, the OPC is in danger of allowing far too much personal leaway for office-bearers, as exampled by my situation. In both cases the situation turned very serious, but it did not have to. In the former case, it was a criticism of a denominational policy, and he was ostracized right out of the church for it. It was very poorly handled, but its just not done, to criticize the denomination, in the church where he was.

But in my case there is an unspoken licence, it seems, that a minister can preach as Scriptural teaching what is really only personal opinion or conviction. And to raise an objection to that causes wonderment and incredulity on the official level. I know its not the norm, but it clearly demonstrates the allowed variance from one denomination to another, from one kind of Reformed perspective to another. What I had to deal with simply would not have happened in the CanRC; it's just unthinkable. But on the other hand, what happened to a personal aquaintance of mine in the CanRC simply could not have happened in the OPC.

Both were wrong, in my estimation. But it showed the weakness of each system.

This is, in perspective, an entirely different thing than subscriptionism. I don't think that is the problem, though I think that the OPC could benefit from the formal subscriptionism of the CanRC-type. As well, the CanRC is quite a bit different than it used to be. Unity talks with the URC is very significant in that respect. In both denominations you will find that the membership qualifications are quite similar and unimposing. And in both denominations you will find the same determination and zeal for Scriptural soundness on the part of the office-bearers. The difference, it seems to me, is the view each has of the importance of the denomination, how she views herself as an expression of the one true, invisible church, and how that plays out in policy and practice.

These are just my observations. I don't claim any kind of authority on this. I now no longer think that mere subscriptionism for the OPC is the answer, though it may help. But I also like the direction the CanRC is going, with some concerns about some things. On the other hand, I see some very disquieting things going on in both denominations. So I share the concerns, though I may not put them in the same terms.

Thanks very much John for your interesting observations. For the most part I agree with what you've said.

The CanRC does have a more denominationally-based mindset. I can't say that it doesn't bother me somewhat. The Book of Praise, for example. Some of the selections in there are no more inspired than your garden-variety hymn. But no one can even think about singing a selection from a different psalter without going through the Book of Praise Committee, waiting for them to reach their decision and then waiting 3 years before the next Synod to approve it. Moreover, the whole thing with the Psalter-Hymnal and the Book of Praise in the unity talks. Why must there be only one book? Is it so confusing to sing different songs in another church? If you ask me people on my side of the fence are more worried about losing the Anglo-Genevan Tunes than anything, and rightly so. A lot of work went into it. Many of the older people were raised on these tunes. But that doesn't mean that all churches must have the same book.

But I still disagree with Fred. Subscription to the same doctrine is key. Perhaps the Dutch (and even Canadians) have a easier time embracing subscription than Americans simply because we're less independant. But whatever. I agree therefore that it could be part of the answer in combating heresy, but the CanRc has taken it to an unneeded extreme.

 

[Bernard_Marx]

Originally posted by puritansailor


II'll just give my from my observation and experience. The OPC are not strict subscriptionists. But I do think they have a stronger identity of what it means to be Reformed than say the PCA. And they seem to take their presbyterianism more seriously than the PCA (i.e. actually making decisions on things rather than letting every session decide for itelf on controversial issues). I think that in part has alot to do with the founding history of the denominations. Right now, the OPC only allows "minor" exceptions (i.e. Creation day views, Sabbath views, disagreements over some wordings of phrases, etc.) which to us full subscriptionists aren't minor. But you won't find any charasmatics, liberals, or 4-pointers getting ordained. Unfortunately, the precedent is set (majority rule for ordination overrules subscription to the standards), and will probably erode if they are not diligent to examine their students and keep the bar high. The worship practice, though lenient in many respects, is still pretty common from church to church, and rejects contemporary styles. So even though there is some liberty to deviat, most don't seem to take that liberty.

Are they in decline? Well, they've never been a full subscriptionist denomination. So to allow exceptions isn't new. What will indicate if there is decline, is how they handle these Justification controversies. From what I understand, these issues have been going on for a while now in the eastern presbyteries, but are now finally spreading to the whole denomination. Unfortunately, people are still getting ordained who hold to Sheperd-like or NPP, views. Until that stops, or until the pulpits are overrun with more biblical ministers and elders, they will fall into decline because they will compromise the gospel.

But I'm not sure you can compare them to the Dutch churches. I admire the full subscriptionism of the whole membership, but at the same time I can see the idea behind lowering the bar for the membership to allow them room for growth (the only part that bothers me about it is the fact that these people, many ignorant of reformed history and doctrine, are the ones electing elders and calling minsters, unaware of the high standards they should have.) But on the same end, in the Dutch tradition, even though they are full subscriptionists in name, they aren't always diligent to enforce it, hence the decline of the CRC, RCA, etc.

Both systems depend upon an informed congregation, and diligent and faithful elders, in order to function and remain viable.

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word "declesion." If anyone was offended, I apologize.

However what I was talking about you summarized for me. Creation, and the Lord's Day are not minor issues. In fact I would say that these issues have become key issues surrounding what it is to be Reformed today. If ministers aren't required to hold to the orthodix views then certianly the people aren't either.

If people are getting ordained that hold Shepherd-like views then I can firmly say that the OPC is in trouble. This is not to say that people such as the ones on thois board should abandon ship. No, in fact the opposite. I pray that the majority of OPC members, who are solid, will route Auburnism so full totally that no doubt will ever remain as to whether or not it has been routed.

But what about the Dutch?

Stuff like Shepherdism would have a tougher time getting in, so to speak. But if it did get in, it would have a much tougher time getting out. So, I am aware that there are certian difficulties on either side of the fence. On all sides there is a need for a strong shot in the arm of orthodoxy. There are current trends among the CanRC which trouble me. I recently attended a Classical Examination of a ministerial candidate in my classis that troubled me. The guy said that he had no problem with pictures of Jesus as long as we didn't worship them, and they passed him. He said that as a minister, he would point people to their works to help them grow in grace and assurance and they passed him. I've already said way to much. God help us, every one of us.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Regarding the invasion of auburnite stuff into the Dutch circles, it's already happened. John Barach, one of the original Auburn 4 and a URC minister, based his whole "covenant election" scheme off of Schilder, along with his denial of the covenant of works. I had wondered when the mono-covenantal view of Hoeksema and Schilder would merge with a works righteousness (i.e. covenant faithfulness) model of the covenant. Apparently I didn't have to wait long to see it with Auburn.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Bernard_Marx]

Very strange. Could you appraise me more with the link between Schilder and Auburnism?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Richard B. Davis
Very strange. Could you appraise me more with the link between Schilder and Auburnism?

If you can get a copy of the Knox summit on the federal vision, Barach writes about his view there. It's identical to Schilder. Though I don't think Schilder (or Hoeksema)would appreciate where Barach or the auburn guys are going with it. You can also hear Barach 2002 conference address on covenant election at sermonaudio. See what you think. I can't type extensively at the moment.

 

[JohnV]

Tom:

You said,

The CanRC does have a more denominationally-based mindset. I can't say that it doesn't bother me somewhat. The Book of Praise, for example. Some of the selections in there are no more inspired than your garden-variety hymn. But no one can even think about singing a selection from a different psalter without going through the Book of Praise Committee, waiting for them to reach their decision and then waiting 3 years before the next Synod to approve it. Moreover, the whole thing with the Psalter-Hymnal and the Book of Praise in the unity talks. Why must there be only one book? Is it so confusing to sing different songs in another church? If you ask me people on my side of the fence are more worried about losing the Anglo-Genevan Tunes than anything, and rightly so. A lot of work went into it. Many of the older people were raised on these tunes. But that doesn't mean that all churches must have the same book.

But I still disagree with Fred. Subscription to the same doctrine is key. Perhaps the Dutch (and even Canadians) have a easier time embracing subscription than Americans simply because we're less independant. But whatever. I agree therefore that it could be part of the answer in combating heresy, but the CanRc has taken it to an unneeded extreme.

Though I disagree with you about your assessment of the the Genevan tunes, I also think that there is nothing wrong with denominational unity on matters like the Psalter or Hymnal. These should be seen rightly as a matter in their own right, not necessarily demanded by Scripture. We have certain freedoms, I believe, but these freedoms also include the option of uniformity on some things within the denomination. Some are wont to think that the Genevan tunes are demanded by Scripture, and that was never the intention. These are Reformed churches, they wouldn't make that kind of obvious mistake. As a matter of fact, it is repugnant to subscriptionism. This is a hard thing to get across to some died-in-the-wool Canadian Reformed, but it is nothing more than an agreement to be uniform. The thing is, I think, that the need for choice pales in comparison to the need for uniformity.

The Genevan tunes are mostly unfamilair to me. I think the music is clumsy, and the words are forced too often. But I think the RPCNA Psalter does not match the music to the words. Some are very, very nice, and some are, well, I shouldn't say it out loud. On the one hand we just don't have enough appreciation for the different modes of music, and the Genevan Psalter goes too deeply into that, while the RPCNA Psalter doesn't seem to know that such a thing exists. I really like the blue Psalter Hymnal, because it strikes a balance, and is considerately done. But that's my preference and opinions. That has nothing to do with what the church approves for worship, and what a federation of churches covenant to hold by as a federation, to foster unity and to keep a convention of subscription to faithful doctrine. As much as I have my preferences, some things are more important. So putting up with the Genevan Psalter is easier than the CanRC putting up with mine and everyone else's preferences. And this way my preferences keep their rightful place, and don't get blown out of proportion.

Now in the OPC personal convictions on matters seem to be more important. And in some cases they should be. A minister still has no right to preach as if Christ's own words what is his personal view on some secondary things, things which the denomination views as a matter of personal conscience. But it is recognized that such a personal conviction is vital to a living faith, as opposed to being deemed as individualism contrary to the uniformity of the denomination. Some have taken too much licence in this, but by the same token some in the CanRC have taken away too much freedom of conscience that is rightfully practiced in the work of sancitification and upbuilding of faith.

Well, that' how I feel about it. Its easy for me, because I'm officially still OPC, but it is clear they don't want me; and I worship at a CanRC, but it is clear they can't have me. I've been relegated to an ecclesiastical no-man's-land, and I'm stuck there indefinitely. I have no rights to the sacraments, or the full rights of fellowship, or recognized as a member of the Covenant. Its a wretched place to be, but being in between like this makes it somewhat easier for me to sit back and look at both sides. I see pros and cons to both. And I see these two systems as complimenting each other.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by JohnV]

 

[Bernard_Marx]

John,

I know that there is nothing wrong with unity on issues surronding the songs sung in church within a federation of churches. Now that I think of it is important more for the whole issue of liturgical forms (Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc.) than the songs itself. So I agree with you here.

Yes, the Genevan tunes can be quite difficult to get used to. For someone who has been singing them it would be equally difficult to get used to the Psalter Hymnal especially in light of the fact that the psalms contained therein are incomplete.

This isn't to say that the Genevan tunes are canonical or perfect. The poetry is more often than not crude and sometimes the amount of words added to the text betokens sloppiness on the part of those who set them. However Dr. David Koyzis of Redeemer University in Ancaster has written much better words to accompy the music, much better. In fact I think that the Book of Praise Committe should look into replacing some of our psalms with these ones, but both of us know that's almost am impossibility. Here is a link to the psalms I speak of:

http://www.redeemer.on.ca/academics/polisci/psalter.html

Tom

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

i'm currently writing up a Sunday School class on the topic of subscriptionism and would appreciate any help. i've just started the actual writing this week and just have the sketch up. i've been reading on the topic (history of american presbyterianism) for awhile now and am trying to get the pieces in place. this thread poses several questions that i'd like to touch on in the essay. thanks

http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap2.html

[Edited on 3-25-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx

Originally posted by puritansailor


II'll just give my from my observation and experience. The OPC are not strict subscriptionists. But I do think they have a stronger identity of what it means to be Reformed than say the PCA. And they seem to take their presbyterianism more seriously than the PCA (i.e. actually making decisions on things rather than letting every session decide for itelf on controversial issues). I think that in part has alot to do with the founding history of the denominations. Right now, the OPC only allows "minor" exceptions (i.e. Creation day views, Sabbath views, disagreements over some wordings of phrases, etc.) which to us full subscriptionists aren't minor. But you won't find any charasmatics, liberals, or 4-pointers getting ordained. Unfortunately, the precedent is set (majority rule for ordination overrules subscription to the standards), and will probably erode if they are not diligent to examine their students and keep the bar high. The worship practice, though lenient in many respects, is still pretty common from church to church, and rejects contemporary styles. So even though there is some liberty to deviat, most don't seem to take that liberty.

Are they in decline? Well, they've never been a full subscriptionist denomination. So to allow exceptions isn't new. What will indicate if there is decline, is how they handle these Justification controversies. From what I understand, these issues have been going on for a while now in the eastern presbyteries, but are now finally spreading to the whole denomination. Unfortunately, people are still getting ordained who hold to Sheperd-like or NPP, views. Until that stops, or until the pulpits are overrun with more biblical ministers and elders, they will fall into decline because they will compromise the gospel.

But I'm not sure you can compare them to the Dutch churches. I admire the full subscriptionism of the whole membership, but at the same time I can see the idea behind lowering the bar for the membership to allow them room for growth (the only part that bothers me about it is the fact that these people, many ignorant of reformed history and doctrine, are the ones electing elders and calling minsters, unaware of the high standards they should have.) But on the same end, in the Dutch tradition, even though they are full subscriptionists in name, they aren't always diligent to enforce it, hence the decline of the CRC, RCA, etc.

Both systems depend upon an informed congregation, and diligent and faithful elders, in order to function and remain viable.

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word "declesion." If anyone was offended, I apologize.

However what I was talking about you summarized for me. Creation, and the Lord's Day are not minor issues. In fact I would say that these issues have become key issues surrounding what it is to be Reformed today. If ministers aren't required to hold to the orthodix views then certianly the people aren't either.

If people are getting ordained that hold Shepherd-like views then I can firmly say that the OPC is in trouble. This is not to say that people such as the ones on thois board should abandon ship. No, in fact the opposite. I pray that the majority of OPC members, who are solid, will route Auburnism so full totally that no doubt will ever remain as to whether or not it has been routed.

But what about the Dutch?

Stuff like Shepherdism would have a tougher time getting in, so to speak. But if it did get in, it would have a much tougher time getting out. So, I am aware that there are certian difficulties on either side of the fence. On all sides there is a need for a strong shot in the arm of orthodoxy. There are current trends among the CanRC which trouble me. I recently attended a Classical Examination of a ministerial candidate in my classis that troubled me. The guy said that he had no problem with pictures of Jesus as long as we didn't worship them, and they passed him. He said that as a minister, he would point people to their works to help them grow in grace and assurance and they passed him. I've already said way to much. God help us, every one of us.

Reuben:

I am very much amazed that someone who is associated with the CanRC has problems with Shepherd's views! I don't want to spread rumors, but don't many CanRC ministers look favorably upon Shepherd and have even defended him? If so, may the Lord bless you as you stand up for the truth in your own denomination.

 

[Bernard_Marx]

Reverend Kok,

I am aware that some esteemed Canadian Reformed people have defended Shepherd's views, among them being Jelle Faber. Shepherd also quotes Schilder extensively who is is you no doubt know is a hero among the CanRC.

However my experience among the CanRC and it's ministers inasfar as the A4 is concerned is that they're very ignorant. I attribute this to the very cautious attitude that they have towards any theology of North American origin. Had they been aware of what's going on in A4 circles, I'm sure the professors at the theological college would accuse Shepherd, as Faber did, of misunderstanding Schilder.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx
Reverend Kok,

I am aware that some esteemed Canadian Reformed people have defended Shepherd's views, among them being Jelle Faber. Shepherd also quotes Schilder extensively who is is you no doubt know is a hero among the CanRC.

However my experience among the CanRC and it's ministers inasfar as the A4 is concerned is that they're very ignorant. I attribute this to the very cautious attitude that they have towards any theology of North American origin. Had they been aware of what's going on in A4 circles, I'm sure the professors at the theological college would accuse Shepherd, as Faber did, of misunderstanding Schilder.

Interesting. I always thought that Schilder was (basically) orthodox but I began to question that when I saw what Shepherd was doing with his work.

 

[JohnV]

Tom:

I haven't had time to look at these things yet. I don't know where everyone stands on these things. But I think I would agree with you about the distance they keep from NA theological disputes. In a sense they can't avoid it, but it still doesn't make a lot of big news, really. At least as far as I can see. If there are some who side with Shepherd, or even the A-4, it really won't cause a much of a wave. It's just a different world in the CanRC, from what I can see. And I'm from Dutch background at that. I thought I knew them, and to quite a degree I do, but there are some things that I just can't understand. It'll take time. But I just can't see people getting excited over Shepherdism there, even is some of their seminary faculty might lean that way.

 

[JohnV]

Daniel:

Schilder is regarded as orthodox by many, mostly by the CanRC. But not by all. Some see him merely as intellectually reactionary. But we have to be careful to separate Schilder from the first generationist followers of his that went overboard in their separationist views.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by JohnV
Daniel:

Schilder is regarded as orthodox by many, mostly by the CanRC. But not by all. Some see him merely as intellectually reactionary. But we have to be careful to separate Schilder from the first generationist followers of his that went overboard in their separationist views.

Agreed.