5/08/07
OCCASIONAL HEARING
Unlike the historic
Church of Scotland, and contrary to sound scriptural principles, historic
Cameronian and Seceder churches have a policy forbidding what they term
occasional hearing. Occasional hearing is the practice of
attending worship services or preaching by ministers of denominations other
than one's own. The historic
Cameronian and Seceder position stipulates as a blanket policy that believers
of a certain denomination should never engage in occasional hearing of
ministers of another denomination, even if these ministers of another
denomination be ministers of a true church in being, preach a true gospel, and
have many valuable insights into the word of God. This policy, if consistently applied, would put Puritan Dr. John
Owen (who fell into the error of ecclesiastical independency, but who on many
other matters had a depth of scriptural understanding unparalleled by many
Presbyterians) in the same category as the Pope (or even arguably a Muslim imam),
for purposes of receiving instruction via preaching and teaching. Such a consequence alone should serve to
evince the absurdity of the historic Cameronian and Seceder position on this
matter. It would have been most unwise
not to avail of Dr. Owen’s theological scholarship in his day, whether via
personal instruction or writing. And
what is true then is true now. It would
be unwise not to avail of the theological scholarship of Dr. Lee, Dr. Bacon,
Dr. Beeke, Rev. Schwertley, Rev. Winzer, Rev. Lanning, Rev. Bancroft, Rev.
Pockras, etc., even though they be in denominations different from the one in
which I am heading.
The reality is that
the policy of occasional hearing is rarely applied with consistency; even
Cameronians and Seceders cannot live with it.
A cursory tour of Cameronian websites like http://www.covenanter.org/ and http://www.swrb.com/
will show how even Cameronians feed on the ministerial instruction of those of
other denominations. Yet, historic
Cameronian and Seceder arguments rely on passages like the following to make
their argument: “Cease, my son,
to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge"
(Proverbs 19:27). Such a passage as
this is saying far more than simply not attending the services of one “that
causeth to err.” It is implying that we
should not feed on their instruction in word or print. If historic Cameronians and Seceders, having identified every minister outside
their denomination as one “that
causeth to err” according to Proverbs 19:27, then they would not feed on such
ministers’ instruction in word or print as they do. The truth, however, is that Proverbs 19:27 is not speaking of men
such as John Owen at all. And so the
basis for their alleged Biblical argument falls.
Sadly, the error of
the Cameronians and Seceders on this point of occasional hearing has tended to
bring into disrepute certain things which should not be discarded. In an over-reaction to the Cameronian and
Seceder error on occasional hearing, many have thrown the baby out with the
bath water on some other matters associated in some ways with the historic
Cameronian and Seceder churches (although certainly not tied exclusively to
these churches). First, it has tended
to bring into disrepute the esse / bene esse (i.e., being / well being )
distinction among denominations and sects, alongside the true / false
distinction among denominations and sects.
However, this esse / bene esse distinction is well founded as a basis
for denominational affiliation , as discussed in the article at http://www.puritans.net/news/denominations050707.htm
. In truth, the esse / bene esse
distinction for purposes of deciding denominational affiliation has been
employed by many reformed theologians outside Cameronian and Seceder circles. One example that famously comes to mind is
James Bannerman, in his excellent work The Church of Christ. Second, it has tended to bring into
disrepute a policy of greater care due with respect to which denominations one
should partake the Lord’s Supper. The
esse / bene esse (i.e., being / well being ) distinction among church
denominations can come into play with respect to communion. The church should excommunicate those who
have fallen into the error of heresy and schism (I Corinthians 5:6-13, 11:19 ). These heretics and schismatics often then
form heretical and schismatic denominations of their own. Under such circumstances, it is quite
inconsistent for a believer to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper in the
heretical and schismatic church denominations formed, while recognizing the
schism in Christ’s visible church is due to their heresy and errors. For instance, the Baptist error has caused
schism in Christ’s visible church. It
is an error against sound scriptural principle, which the Westminster Standards
and other reformed confessions rightly condemn. Baptists should not be allowed communion in the reformed churches
until they repent of their error. So it
would be wrong for a reformed believer to partake of communion in a Baptist
church, even a Calvinistic Baptist church.
While a Calvinistic Baptist church is a true (not a false) church in its
being, preaching a gospel by which men can be saved, it is not a church in well
being. Thus, the esse / bene esse
(i.e., being / well being ) distinction among church denominations should come
into play with respect to communion, even though one may be greatly profited by
reading and hearing some of the sermons of the Calvinistic Baptist minister
Charles Spurgeon. As discussed in the
article at http://www.puritans.net/news/fpcs062804.htm
, we should distinguish between allowing a Baptist to partake of communion in a
reformed church (as well as partaking of communion in a Baptist church) versus
the Reformation practice of allowing a member of the reformed Church of the
Netherlands to partake of communion in the Church of Scotland, or vice
versa. Let’s give a somewhat
hypothetical example which is more relevant today. Suppose a congregation in Northern Ireland is seeking union with
but is not yet part of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS). And suppose one of its communicant members
is visiting a FPCS congregation during its communion season. And suppose this communicant member fulfills
all the FPCS criteria of belief and practice required of communicant members in
the FPCS. Under such circumstances, it
would be appropriate that such a visitor were allowed access to the Lord’s
Table in the FPCS church. But this is
very different from allowing a Baptist access to the Lord’s Table in the FPCS
church. The official FPCS policy (which
I think is correct) is somewhat different from the historic Cameronian and
Seceder communion policy, but it shares with it great care taken with respect
to who is admitted to the Lord’s Table as well as where one should partake.