MY
ADVICE TO THOSE WHO AGREE IN FULL SUBSCRIPTIONISM AND THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS
by J. Parnell McCarter
A “Declaratory Act” church is one that does not
require its church officers fully to subscribe to the church’s confessional
standards. In such churches, officers may take exceptions to various and
sundry of the doctrines outlined in the church’s confessional standards, and it
is not clear which doctrines no exceptions are taken to. Most American
churches have long effectively been “Declaratory Act” churches, but not so in
Scotland (see http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/magazines/fpm/1998/January/article4.php).
In order to become such in Scotland, the churches had to pass a Declaratory Act
to allow their officers to take exceptions to the confessional standards, and
to move such churches away from full subscriptionism.
For example, in 1892 the old Free Church passed a Declaratory Act. Before
adoption of this Act, all church officers in the old Free Church had to fully
subscribe to the doctrines of the Westminster Standards; after passage, they
could take various and sundry exceptions, the list of permissible exceptions
nowhere clearly stipulated. The reality
is that many church officers in the old Free Church had lied before 1892 when
they said they fully subscribed to the Westminster Standards. They so
much wanted to become officers, they were willing to lie and take a false
vow. When such duplicitous men constituted the majority of church
officers in the old Free Church, they then passed the Declaratory Act,
prompting the departure from the old Free Church of those that formed the Free
Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
In a “Declaratory Act” church there can be a wide
range of views. For example, in the old Free Church after passage of the
Declaratory Act, there were remaining those in it who still personally adhered
to the Westminster Standards, but were willing to tolerate a situation where
most of the officers in their church did not. Some of the church officers
post-Declaratory Act had huge differences with the Westminster Standards; some
had lesser differences. What typically develops in such churches is
that a wide range of view is accepted, including permission of those who adhere
to the Westminster Standards to remain. However, as time passes the working
assumption generally becomes that such deviations will continue to be
tolerated, no matter what the stated confessional standards of the church
are. A prospective church officer who would stand up and say that church
officers not fully subscribing are unqualified for office in the church, and
then consistently apply this stand in their actions, would find it increasingly
hard to become a church officer, especially a minister. So what typically
happens to those who fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards in such a
“Declaratory Act” church, especially those who are ministers or want to become
ministers, is that their words and actions are inconsistent with a full subscriptionist stance and consistent with toleration of
doctrinal deviation from the Westminster Standards. They may personally
agree with the Westminster Standards, but their words and actions typically
imply that they condone differences in other church officers of their
church. They generally do not convey by
their words and actions that they want current officers in the church who
disagree with the Westminster Standards to be removed from office.
From a very practical standpoint, it is hard in an
ethical way to bring a “Declaratory Act” church to full subscriptionism
to the Westminster Standards. (It was virtually impossible to bring a
full subscriptionist church in the Westminster
Standards to a “Declaratory Act” church, in an ethical way.) There were
some very unusual and unique circumstances that allowed church officers in the
Free Church of Scotland to revoke the Declaratory Act years after it was
adopted, but even there they had to tolerate non-full subscriptionism
for a number of years. But in most churches, it seems to me it would
generally take quite a bit of unethical craft to bring it about in
practice. Church leaders and prospective church leaders who agree with
the Westminster Standards would have to give the impression by their words and
actions that they will tolerate doctrinal latitudinarianism indefinitely, with
the secret hope that one day they can do an about-face and insist upon full subscriptionism to the Westminster Standards, leading those
officers who are not willing to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards to
step down from church office. It is one thing to return a church’s
confessional standards to the Westminster Standards; it is another thing
altogether to bring a church to full subscriptionism
in the Westminster Standards when it has been doctrinally latitudinarian
beforehand.
In summary, one implication of holding to full subscriptionism in certain confessional standards is that
one believes those who do not agree with those confessional standards should
not be allowed to be officers in the church. So if someone is unwilling
in words and action to embrace this implication, then it brings into question
whether one really holds to full subscriptionism in
certain confessional standards. Notice,
it is possible personally to subscribe in certain confessional standards,
without embracing the position that the church should take a full subscriptionist position.
On the other hand, without full subscriptionism,
how meaningful are the confessional standards of a church? There are many
heretics and even some infidels who agree with some portions of most
confessional standards, so “Declaratory Act” subscriptionism
to certain confessional standards is not very meaningful. One is hard
pressed to tell what the church really adheres to in the way of doctrine and
principles. My advice to all of those who agree in full subscriptionism and the Westminster Standards is to join a
church which fully subscribes to the Westminster Standards. It allows one
to avoid many ethical dilemmas, that I question can be overcome so long as one
is in a church that is otherwise.