A DIALOGUE ON CHURCH
I have recently been engaged in a dialogue on church union with Nate Eshelman, a seminarian at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and ministerial candidate in the RPCNA. The full dialogue is at http://nathaneshelman.blogspot.com/ . Here are excerpts:
Parnell: “Are you suggesting there should be affiliation and merger even if it comes at the expense of an erroneous confession and without full subscription to any reformed confession? Is a denomination flawed merely on the grounds of being relatively small in number?... another way I might phrase my questions to you is this: Unity is a noble goal, but how should unity Biblically be achieved? Should it be achieved by rallying around an erroneous confession, just for the sake of having visible unity? Or should it be achieved by rallying around a true confession like the original Westminster Stds, and joining a church which holds to it? But if we do settle on the first method, then why is the Roman Catholic Church not the sensible choice?”
Nate: “I believe that
there are a few different things that we need to consider as we think about
unity, subscription, and issues centered on church unity vs. purity (if you
want to say that they are opposing thoughts).
1. What churches are available locally? There may be a perfect church on
paper, but if there are not people locally with whom
to fellowship, than you are a being pure in theory, but practice will have to
be different. You will either have your papers with the pure church and
fellowship with the erroneous church; or you will have your paper in the pure
church and have false fellowship- emails, blogs, internet forums. This forsakes the face-to-face nature of
the church. The bottom line is that
those who seek out the purest church for the sake of having their Confession
usually end up being sectarian. What was Calvin's advice in letters to those
who only had Lutheran churches to attend? Be Lutheran. 2. When a couple of ministers leave a
denomination to be a pure church they are abandoning the duty to be reformers
and those who answer the gainsayer. Time after time, in church history we see
people abandoning the church to make something pure- that leaves the larger
body with less sound men to fight against error. Hence the couple of ministers that left have
done damage to the body of Christ. It would be like if you had cancer and all
of your antibodies left you because they did not like the cancer being there-
you die. This is the problem with everyone and their brother starting presbyterian churches with 2-5 ministers: it NEVER ends,
and the body of Christ is in further schism.
I could see if all of the church courts had been appealed to and the
church refused to repent and kicked a man or group of ministers
out- but to leave and start something because you have a problem with a
secondary issue- that is schism and sin. (Of course, the main concern should
always be for restoration with the sinning body.) I am not sure of all of the ins and outs of
Scottish church history and am in no position to judge all of the bodies
(Church of Scotland, Free Church, Free Church Continuing, Reformed
Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Associate Presbyterians, Associated
Presbyterians, and many, many more) , but I feel confident in saying that this
is not what Jesus Christ had in mind- and neither is a couple of 'pure'
ministers who separate themselves from the body of Christ claiming to be the
truest church or the purest church. What
was the Reformer and Puritan position on reformation and church unity? You stay and fight for the sake of Christ
until the established church will no longer have you. Were there faulty
confessions in the Church of England before the Act of Uniformity? You bet ya! But our forefathers knew enough to set aside party
spirit and to fight for the sake of the Gospel and Christ. We have a practical
result of THIS practice of 'unity and purity' in the Westminster Standards. If the Puritans had all left their churches
to go start their own churches, I can say with a good conscience that the
Westminster Standards would have never been written. There would be hundreds of
smaller works that defined little 3-5 ministerial bands. The Westminster
Standards are the practical outworking of a Reformed ecumenical spirit. There
is no way to argue against this given the historical evidence.
This is my position, following in the Reformation and Puritan tradition. I will
stay where I am and be a witness. A witness for the sake of
the Gospel. A witness against what I see as error. A
witness for the healing of a body that has been called to be one. I
believe where I am is a good place with a lot of work
being done for the Gospel. I will never
leave because of minor disputes or cultural baggage. I will not partake in
schism. There is a term amongst youth
counter-culture that is helpful. It is called 'chasing the red dragon' and what
it means is that you are looking for something that is not there and you will
waste your whole life looking for.
I will not chase the red dragon of the purest church in the world- our
Confession of Faith, chapter 25, says that even the purest churches under
heaven are subject to both mixture and error.
I believe that we are confessionally bound to
acknowledge this and to have the same faith of our Puritan forefathers- stay
and fight under the captain of our souls, who loved a spotted and unfaithful
bride enough to die for her. I will live
for her and pray that she can be pure in doctrine, practice, and single
mindedness.
Two a'Brakel quotes to ponder:
It is not sufficient to merely join
the church, to remain with her for some time, and thereafter to separate from
her. One ought never to break away from and leave her under the pretense
that the church is degenerate, in order to establish a pure church, for:
First, the Lord has never blessed such endeavors. There have always been those
(in the first church, both prior to her oppression by the antichrist as well as
since the time of the Reformation) who under this pretense have broken away
from the church. The Lord, however, has always overturned such endeavors, and
such undertakings have collapsed of themselves when the initial instigators
died. Due to a just judgment of God, however, such individuals have rarely
perceived their errors and made confession of them, and have rarely rejoined
the church. Rather, having been given over to their own stubbornness, they have
remained independent as people without any religion, or they have succumbed to
heresy and have joined themselves to such assemblies which most fully agreed
with their errors. Such was the case with the Brethren in
It is a dreadful sin to depart from the church for the purpose of establishing one which is better, for the church is one, she being the body of Christ. To separate oneself from the church is to separate from the people of Christ and thus from His body, thereby withdrawing himself from the confession of Christ and departing from the fellowship of the saints. If one indeed deems the church to be what she really is, one will then cause schism in the body of Christ, grieve the godly, offend others, give cause for the blaspheming of God's Name, and cause the common church member to err (II: 61).”
Parnell: “I would like to continue the dialogue with these
brief comments for now, and hopefully continue as time permits:
1. We ought to distinguish a "church with a true confession" and a
"pure church". I have argued for the former, but never the latter. So
my question of you and others is what gives you the Biblical right to join a
denomination with an erroneous confession (the RPCNA Testimony) when there is a
denomination with a true confession (the original Westminster Stds)? You may be moving from
2. If you are willing to join a church with an erroneous confession, then where
is your bottom line? Why does it not go as far as joining the Roman Catholic
Church and seeking to work to improve it?
3. What happens to church discipline if numbers determine who a person should
go with, instead of which party is right on the issue? eg, the APC left the FPCS because they wanted to be
able to attend the Romish Mass. So
if most in my area agree and leave the FPCS on such grounds, should I leave it
too, even though I agree with the FPCS position?
4. I think you have mis-interpreted
Nate: “I must confess that I do
not have it all worked out. I do not pretend to know all of these things. Since the church in the NT is one visible
church we must work off of principles and have no clear evidence of church
splits, etc. I also want to say that
these thoughts are just that- thoughts on the issue. I am not attempting to
present a Reformed dogmatic here. Should
we join
Parnell: “Nate, in answer to your question, I could not join with any denomination which does not adhere to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Stds. That is my bottom line, because I believe scripture teaches it as the bottom line. That is why I could not join with various denominations, inc the RCC, but can with the FPCS. I am just trying to understand what bottom line you are advocating. eg, *if* the only denominations with congregations in one's town were the PCUSA, CRC and RCC, should one join with one of them instead of the FPCS, which does not have a congregation in town?... Rutherford wrote: “When the greatest part of a church makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the church of separatists, though the maniest and greater part in the actual exercise of discipline is the church; yet in the case of right discipline, the best though fewest is the church.” Why should we not believe denominations such as the ARP, RPCNA, and OPC which have defected from the truth by their confessional amendments to the original Westminster Standards are separatists, whereas the FPCS (adhering to the original Westminster Standards) is not?”
Nate: “There is a time to leave a church and a time to plant something else- when... that is what I am trying to work out... I am not sure if I ever will at this point- Scripture does not leave much room for our current system of denominationalism…When I speak of not partaking in schism, I speak of starting something new- adding to the problem. I would imagine that our current list of Reformed and Presbyterian churches is enough. Do not cause further schism. I will, by the grace of God, never be a minister that helps start a micropresbyterian church. That is what I mean… Since NAPARC churches are unified to some degree and have some mutual fellowship, I do not think that it would schismatic if someone went to another NAPARC church (or some similar group of Reformed churches that have accountability to each other).”
Parnell: “Nate, let may submit why you may be having difficulty answering my question about the CRC, PCUSA and RCC: you are concerned where it logically leads. If it is ok to unite with a denomination that has constitutionally/confessionally defected from the truth in some major respects (rejecting Esta Principle, tolerating women deacons, tolerating Christmas observance, tolerating marriages prohibited in Bible[affinity issue], etc),it is quite arbitrary to argue disunity should be maintained with the CRC because it tolerates women elders (for example). Your theory of church unity and affiliation IMO logically leads to the conclusion you should be urging the merger not only of the NAPARC denominations, but also of denominations like the CRC. In contrast, Bannerman's view of church union and affiliation would argue that there should be no union with those bodies that have defected from adhering to the original Westminster Standards (see http://www.puritans.net/news/bannerman051107.htm ). Obviously, I agree with that view.”
Nate: “What about Original
Westminster and all of that extra-biblical baggage such as no make up, jewelery, stage plays, etc.
You cannot claim that the FPCS holds to the original standards therefore we
need to join them- and then also require all of the Scottish cultural baggage. It is like saying that you cannot be a
Christian unless you have been circumcised in the manner of
Parnell: “Nate, the things you mention like no make up, no movies, etc. are applications historically maintained by the Church of Scotland of principles outlined in the original Westminster Stds. As you know, I agree with those particular applications, and I'm glad the FPCS is seeking to uphold them. With respect to the confessional standards of the FPCS (the original Westminster Stds), as you know I fully subscribe to them, which means I believe they are true and without error in laying out what scripture teaches. It should surprise no one that the church can derive from the Bible true confessional stds, given it is the "pillar of truth" per the Bible. I find it rather amazing that some individuals agree with no church's confessional standards, but believe they know what is true. Such must think they are the "pillar of truth" and not the church. I think I have made it clear that I believe the FPCS does not perfectly implement its standards, nor do I believe any church on the earth before the Lord's return will. Some examples: some laxity in enforcing movie ban (see http://www.puritans.net/news/moviesfpcs051607.htm ); inconsistency in suppressing jewelry (http://www.puritans.net/news/attire040604.htm ); allowing some officers to believe and teach that Roman Catholic baptism should not be accepted. As I note at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm , "...we should not expect there to be perfect implementation of the Biblical standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards by any church. The very standards themselves aver as much..." I do not accept that all churches have confessional/constitutional errors. I believe the FPCS's standards are true, but I believe the RPCNA's are not true. But I readily agree no church is perfectly pure. A church, like a person, may hold to the Ten Commandments, but that does not mean they can perfectly keep them. The church we should join is to be the "pillar of truth", but there is no Biblical expectation that it will be perfect before the Lord returns.”