5/07/07
COMPETING THEORIES OF DENOMINATIONAL
AFFILIATION
Readers may find these
excerpts from a discourse on competing theories of denominational affiliation
helpful:
Dr. Bacon:
--- In r-f-w@yahoogroups.com,
"Richard Bacon" <pastor@...> wrote:
> Such reasoning, IMO, undermines the very point of distinguishing
between
> true and false churches on the one hand, and between being and
well-being of
> those true churches on the other hand. The purpose of
distinguishing true
> and false churches is so we can know what churches we may lawfully
and
> conscientious join. Thus to make the esse / bene esse distinction
the one by
> which we determine whether we may or may not affiliate with a
given true
> church makes the prior distinction of true church/false church
unimportant.
>
Edgar:
Another list member
posted the following comments:
“if Elders would
only stay in a church that may be slidding and fight to reform her and make her
a beauty of a jewel in her profession AND walk...what a glory that would be
unto our King! Since Rev. Pockras has written that the RPCNA is moving
towards reformation and trying to clean things up, and return to the faithful
old paths, then why should ministers that know the good old way leave just
because a few, let's say liberals, are trying to change things? They
should stay and battle it out and those that are loose or trying to diluate the
Truth should be made to leave or better be taught and repent of their unfaithful
ways.”
Me:
Dr. Bacon, I do not understand you here. Let me give 2 examples:
1. The Lutheran churches during the Protestant Reformation: they
preached a true gospel by which men could be saved, but would it
have been right to join with such?
2. The schismatic churches in England and Scotland during the 1640s
(eg, those believing in Independency): they preached a true gospel
by which men could be saved, but would it have been right to join
with such?
As you know, I disagree with the Cameronians, especially on their
view of legitimacy of civil magistrates, but also on their
occasional hearing view. (And the errors of the RPNA multiplied far
beyond that.) On the other hand, I fail to see how we can discard
the esse / bene esse distinction in terms of denominational
affiliation.
As noted at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm,
I believe: So long as there is full subscription to the Biblical
standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards and a
reasonably good faith effort on the part of the church assembly to
implement those standards [i.e., a church in well being], we should
seek to be united to such a denominational church. On the other
hand, we ought not to join ourselves with churches that do not fully
subscribe to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original
Westminster Standards. And we ought not to join with denominations
schismatically formed, when there was already a denomination which
fully subscribed to the Biblical standards outlined in the original
Westminster Standards and there was a reasonably good faith effort
on the part of the church assembly to implement those standards. We
ought not to aid and abet schism in the visible church of Christ in
our church membership. If a church meets the scripturally bottom
line conditions, then we ought not to leave it on the fanciful
prospect of some "better" church that could possibly be created.
Dr. Bacon:
It seems to me that you understood perfectly.
But I also understand that you disagree with me. So...would that
mean you could not conscientiously join any church where a common cup is not
observed? If so, then I think you are simply falling into the "unduly
constituted" error of the Steelites, whatever else you may find good about
them.
Me:
Dr. Bacon, I was
sincere when I asked my questions, because I was not sure how you would answer
them. Both the Lutheran and Independent
churches are certainly true (not false) churches in being, for they preach a
gospel by which men can be saved. Would
you not agree? Yet, I fail to see how a reformed Presbyterian could rightly
join such. But it is not clear to me
whether you would agree, given you feel “distinguishing true and false churches
is so we can know what churches we may lawfully and conscientious join”.
With respect to your
question to me, I would preface my response by noting the sense of ‘church’ I
mean when I write, “So long as there is full subscription to the Biblical
standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards and a reasonably good
faith effort on the part of the church assembly to implement those standards
[i.e., a church in well being], we should seek to be united to such a
denominational church.” In this context,
by ‘church’ I mean the whole denomination, not some local manifestation. So when I speak of the church in its well
being in this context, I mean in its official status as a whole denomination. I am not speaking of the spiritual well
being of some local congregation(s).
As a Presbyterian, we ought not to separate from a denomination just
because there are peculiar local shortcomings.
I would also preface my response by some quotes from James Begg that you have helpfully provided at your church’s website http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Begg_Communion_Table_Introduction.htm : “This Innovation gave just cause of offence to several Ministers and private Christians. It was considered as a corruption of the worship of God, and contrary to the established laws and authorized practice of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. They saw that it was reviving an old heresy in worship, already condemned by the Church of Scotland, and calculated to interrupt the peace of the Church, and to produce schism and division...If there are any Ministers of the Church of Scotland who are dissatisfied with our Established Presbyterian form of worship, and are more attached to the Independent form, they ought publicly to declare so, and leave the Church…This matter has already been frequently and solemnly decided. It was decided in the Westminster Assembly, and in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1645.”
With these things in mind, so long as a denomination
maintained full subscription to the
Biblical standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards, its official
position as a church would be as noted in the article at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Begg_Communion_Table_Introduction.htm
. James Begg rightly did not separate from
the denomination simply because there were local violations of the established
law. And he rightly did not separate
simply because the church as a whole might not have as decisively and quickly
enforced church law as ideal. On the
other hand, if the church as a whole were foolishly to alter its official
position (for instance, officially adopting the sorts of violations condemned
in http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Begg_Communion_Table_Introduction.htm,
then I agree with James Begg in his characterization of this as “an old heresy
in worship… calculated to interrupt the peace of the Church, and to produce
schism and division...”
And example of such
foolishness on the part of a denomination is that of the RPNA regarding tattoos
and head-coverings in public worship , even mandating that members agree to
these things. Such erroneous positions
no Christian should accept, so there would be just ground for separation. Nevertheless, I still regard the RPNA as a
true church in being, even though not in well being.
Me:
Edgar, if you feel
that you have tried out the philosophy of denominational affiliation I am
advocating at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm and have found it wanting, I would submit at
least 3 reasons you never really tried the philosophy out in the RPNA at all:
1. The RPNA, along
with other Cameronian denominations, while sincerely believing they adhere to
the Westminster Standards, do not in truth, as explained at http://www.puritans.net/news/magistrate072804.htm
.
2. The RPNA, as
shown by its actions regarding tattoos and head-coverings in public worship,
has not reasonably implemented the Westminster Standards it professes to
uphold.
3. Those who joined with the RPNA chose to join
with a small denomination schismatically formed, when there was already a
church in place that held to the Westminster Standards and reasonably well
implemented those standards. In so
doing, they chose to join an organization with only a handful of leaders, in
contrast to the ideal of many leaders (Proverbs 24:6 ).
Those who made the
choice should not be so surprised by ill consequences when various sound
principles for denominational affiliation were not followed.
Now with respect to
your newly embraced philosophy of denominational affiliation, its underlying
assumptions, if consistently applied, could logically lead you back into the
church of Rome for several reasons.
First, because if we
can choose denominational affiliation with a church in being (esse), and are
not obliged to choose a church in well being (bene esse), then it may well be
argued Protestants can and perhaps should have remained in the Romish Church to
improve it. As noted in the article at http://www.puritans.net/news/catabaptism091905.htm
, Dr. John Calvin rightly opined, in his commentary on II Thessalonians 2, that
the Romish Church “retaineth some relic of a
church, mangled as it is.” We cannot
argue the Romish Church is in no sense a true church in being (albeit it
certainly is not one in well being), without contradicting what is taught in II
Thessalonians 2:3-4, and as rightly interpreted in the Westminster Confession.
Furthermore, the
nature of rejection of creedal full subscriptionism, which characterizes not
only the RPCNA, but also the PCA, OPC, etc., is predicated on assumptions which
are consistent with Romish and not Protestant positions:
1. Rejection of
creedal full subscriptionism is generally predicated on an effective denial of
the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture.
If scripture is perspicuous in its body of doctrines, then men are
without excuse in their rejection of creedal full subscriptionism. But if scripture is not perspicuous, as Rome
has long argued, then full subscriptionism is unrealistic and unwarranted, for
the church can not be expected to draw up the chief doctrines from scripture
alone.
2. Rejection of
creedal full subscriptionism is generally predicated on an effective denial of
the importance of written confessions in the life of the church. But differences over the doctrines contained
in written confessions was a chief impetus for the Protestant Reformation. It was no accident that Protestant
theologians wrestled for long hours in discussions with Romish theologians,
trying to see if agreement in written confession on the chief doctrines of
faith were possible.
3. Such denominations generally allow those as
communicant members in their churches who disbelieve the doctrines of grace
(are Arminians) and the Regulative Principle of Worship. Some even allow elders who disbelieve one or
both of these. Now we should remember
these words of John Calvin describing the Protestant separation from the Romish
Church, who rightly stated: “All our controversies concerning doctrine
relate either to the legitimate worship of God, or to the ground of salvation”
(The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/NRC_ch03.htm). If these doctrines be not essential after
all, as implied by allowing their disbelief in communicant members, then the
basis of the Protestant separation from the Romish Church is weak indeed.
While to stay in
such denominations to improve them may seem high-minded, we should not ignore
where such arguments logically lead.
Even more importantly, such a course is contradicted by scriptural
principles for selecting denominational affiliation. Scripture requires us to join that denomination which stands
opposed to heresies and schisms, for only such is approved of God (I
Corinthians 11:19).
Edgar:
… I understand all too well why we
should affiliate with the best reformed church the country may have given our
current ecclesiastical climate. Trust me, when I tell you that this is so
at the fore in my life right now. My concern is that most of the ones
that on paper claim to hold just about all points of
doctrine that I hold to, are either very small and therefore I am gun shy given
what we went through in the "RPNA-GM" or denominational in their
mentality and therefore given over to a sort of schism in that they all remain
separate from one another for various and myriad reasons… Since I know that you
hold that the FPCS is the best reformed church in the USA, I wonder why you
still have not joined her, yet ask everyone else to do so. I have issues
with that. I also have issues with some denominations, but recognize that
we need to be a part of the Body and I am considering many aspects, not only
what is on paper, but the current health of the denomination, and how robust
their ministry is. Before I jump in the water, I need to settle some
things...I understand that is part of your reason why you have yet to
join the FPCS…Since I know that you hold that the FPCS is the best reformed
church in the USA, I wonder why you still have
not joined her, yet ask everyone else to do so…While the FPCS may be solid in
many, many areas, they are Scottish, we need an indigenous church in the USA that aims at unity in Truth, without
compromise that may one day lead to being the National Established Church… I am still a Reformed
Presbyterian…
Me:
Edgar, here are several thoughts for you to consider:
1. You are wise for taking your time to sort these matters out and
thoroughly to consider them before jumping into a new denomination. And if a church is doing you justice given
these circumstances, it will not seek to hastily make you a communicant member
in their denomination.
2. Trying to find the “best” church out there is about as tangible as
trying to catch the wind, or trying to find the “best” person on this
list. I do not advocate trying to find
the “best” church, nor do I know which one it is. As I say at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm
, “if a church meets the scripturally
bottom line conditions, then we ought not to leave it on the fanciful prospect
of some “better” church that could possibly be created.” And the article outlines those bottom line
conditions. (If you look back years ago
at the various lists, you will see my posts expressing concern with the way
RPNA people were searching for and had supposedly found the “best” or “most
faithful” church.)
3. You are not going to be able
to have your cake and eat it too. As a
resident of the USA, if you want a church with a significant number of elders
and that credibly professes adherence to the original Westminster Standards, then
it must be a mission work of a foreign church.
But if you want an indigenous American church that credibly professes
adherence to the original Westminster Standards, then it is very
micro-Presbyterian indeed and relatively new in formation. My thoughts on this choice are at http://www.puritans.net/news/name041207.htm
. I would simply add that the reasons
for existence of the indigenous American churches are generally more than just
that they wanted to be an indigenous American church, and in some cases that
was not a thought at all in their formation.
To take but one example, the Presbyterian Reformed was formed in part
because of differences with the FPCS over Sabbath public transport (see http://www.puritans.net/news/sabbathpublictransport042605.htm
), and more differences have developed since then. If they wanted to be purely American, I doubt they would have congregations
in Canada and the UK.
4. If by “Reformed
Presbyterian” you mean Cameronian, then I would simply point out that among the
professedly “Reformed Presbyterian” denominations that have a synod or anything
near to it (e.g., the RPCI and RPCNA), they have discarded with the
distinctively Cameronian errors regarding the civil magistracy (see http://www.puritans.net/news/magistrate072804.htm
) and occasional hearing (see http://www.puritans.net/news/occasional050807.htm
) every bit as much as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS) lacks
such distinctives. On the other hand,
where Cameronianism was right, such as seeking to maintain full subscriptionism
to the original Westminster Standards as adopted by the Church of Scotland in
the 1640s, the FPCS has remained faithful, whereas denominations like the RPCI
and RPCNA have not (see http://www.puritans.net/news/rpci050307.htm
and http://www.puritans.net/news/rpcna043007.htm
). In addition, the FPCS has officially
called for the repeal of the Rescissory
Act and thus re-instatement of the Solemn League and
Covenant in the statute books of the United Kingdom (see http://www.puritans.net/news/fpcs070605.htm
). Finally, the FPCS has an
historic tie to “Reformed Presbyterianism” like the RPCI and RPCNA do. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
joined the old Free Church back in 1876, before the old Free Church adopted the
Declaratory Act in 1892. (The FPCS has an historic tie to Seceders also,
because in 1852 the Original
Seceders Church merged with the old Free Church.) When the old Free Church
passed the Declaratory Act, the FPCS separated from it in order to maintain a
church fully subscribed to the Westminster Standards (see http://www.puritans.net/bookreviewseconddisruption.htm
). So those of Reformed Presbyterian
heritage in the old Free Church who insisted on maintenance of full
subscriptionism to the Westminster Standards joined with the FPCS.
5. The reason the process of my
joining the FPCS has been over an extended period of time is due to a
combination of factors: my own personal
investigation of denominations; difficult personal wrestling with knotty issues
like attire and jewelry (see http://www.puritans.net/news/attire040604.htm
) which I had not previously considered in depth; division in my family
regarding denominational affiliation (see http://www.puritans.net/news/family022307.htm
); significant distance between my personal residence and the nearest FPCS
congregation; and carefulness on the part of the FPCS in terms of my admission
into the communicant membership of the FPCS, especially given factors such as
my distance. I am not asking anyone
else to do what I am not doing myself.
Rev. Winzer:
Isn't one obliged to actually take part in the congregational life of
the FPCS before recommending it to others? I think you can set up an ideallic
model in theory which simply cannot be maintained in practice. I for one was
quite surprised to find out what an FPCS church tolerates, particularly outside
of Scotland; and notwithstanding I still hold the FPCS in high regard because
of their maintenance of the AV, Westminster Confession, and Scottish Psalter. I
hold all churches in high regard who continue to maintain the old ways, even
though they might struggle to consistently implement them in our day, which we
all agree is a day >of flagrant immorality.
Me:
Clearly, Rev Winzer, different people come from different perspectives,
and the perspective that I offer is one who is 6-7 hours from the nearest FPCS
congregation and in North America and involved with it (though not yet a
communicant member of it) for the last 6 years. That is different from someone
like Peter in Scotland. I do not think that difference disqualifies me from giving
my opinion about the FPCS. But I would encourage anyone who was considering the
FPCS to shop around for perspectives, and not to rely on mine alone.
I am more aware than you might imagine of various shortcomings and weaknesses
in the FPCS. It was with those in mind that I wrote http://www.puritans