2/23/07
Recently I
received an inquiry concerning my family’s divided ecclesiastical
condition. My response is found below:
Dear XXX,
Let me first try to
answer your question, and then discuss with you some things about what you
wrote. It is very non-ideal that Charlotte and I will be in different
denominations, but I do not know how to avoid it with a clear conscience.
If I looked at the issue of denominational affiliation as just a preference
issue, then I may give in to Charlotte's preference. But on this
particular issue, I do not look at it in that way. And Charlotte is
adamant she will not join with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS)
or any church that uses a common cup in communion (combined with some other
reasons for not joining with the FPCS).
When I married
Charlotte, I knew what I was getting. She was the first in her family to
leave Romanism, against much opposition from her relatives. After
coming to Calvinistic convictions, she moved to go to a Calvinistic church,
leaving behind churches which had people of her own native ethnicity and
culture. And she even further distanced herself from her native
background when she married me. All of that takes a pretty strong
personality, but that same strong personality can sometimes make it hard to
lead Charlotte when she thinks she is right.
So there you have it:
my conscience cannot allow me to budge and her conscience cannot allow her to
budge. But though I think the FPCS is the right church to join, I do not
believe it has a monopoly on true believers. So I will try to make the
best of this situation, which probably means we will be in different
denominations, until God changes my mind or her mind or both. Thankfully,
on many, many issues Charlotte and I are quite agreed.
What I have told my
family is that my biggest difference with the RPCNA is this matter of loose
(versus full) subscriptionism. I simply do not know what the RPCNA
regards as non-negotiable in its WCF/Testimony. My fear is that every
Reformation distinctive is somehow negotiable and subject to compromise with
this form of subscription. And I think my fears are confirmed when I see
things like the RPCNA synod not taking action to make sure its own college's
chapel operates according to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), or when
I see people who are obviously Arminian given communion and a guy from Young
Life appointed as CUTS director and still links with Navigators, etc. If even
RPW and the doctrines of grace are on the table and negotiable, then why not
join Rome? Furthermore, it is absolutely devastating to the foundational
Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture if a church cannot come up
with a confession based on scripture that all ministers and communicant members
agree in. If scripture is not clear enough to do that, then is not Rome
right?
Yes, I have
differences with the amendments to the Westminster Standards found in the RPCNA
WCF/Testimony, but those are actually secondary to the one stated above.
I agree with you
about church splinters, which is one reason my conscience is bound to the
FPCS. I do not agree with the reasons for separation that created other
denominations, but I do agree with the reasons for separation that led to the
FPCS. (eg, I think Cameronians were wrong to leave the Church of Scotland
(CofS) for the reason they did [following the “Glorious Revolution” in Britain’s
history], and now most churches that originally were Cameronian like the RPCNA
admit the same by their own changes to their standards).
Sincerely,
Parnell