Why not, Bryan (Dearly Bought)? I'll bite. Could be an interesting topic.

So here it is: Defend confessional membership.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am still confused (it must be the late hours), but are we talking membership only or communion as well?

__________________
Boliver
Future Chaplain
EPC
Hankamer, TX

Well, I'd argue that confessional membership should be inextricably linked to the manner in which you guard the table, but I'll stick to defending confessional membership for right now. I know that a number of churches which practice confessional membership will open the table to an evangelical Baptist visitor, even though I think it is inconsistent.

__________________
Bryan Peters
Providence Reformed Church (URCNA)
Des Moines, Iowa

Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed. There is no offence in it; it is the staff of uprightness.
~Martin Luther~

I'll have to preface this by stating that I'm not going to try and write out a long defense, at least not tonight. I'm also pretty new to Reformed ecclesiology. However here's a starting point for discussion:

The basis of a Reformed church's fellowship is not an undefined list of essentials, but what we confess in our confessions. The Apostle Paul writes,
Luke records of the early disciples,
Our ecclesiastical unity is based in common confession. Since this explicitly a confessional board, I trust this isn't in dispute. So how do we claim a common confession if it really isn't a common confession of the church membership? I guess I'm just as confused by non-confessional church membership as some are by my view.

Taken from other thread:
Let me give you an example of how one Reformed pastor understands it.
Your question particularly pertains to a certain group of Presbyterian churches. Obviously Continental Reformed churches would not have such an issue due to the absence of this statement from their confessions. I guess that if a) a Presbyterian church held to a version of the WCF that contained the original version of this clause and b) this church interpreted the clause as an identification of the papacy with the antichrist as opposed to an antichrist, then there would be justification for lovingly confronting members who began to confess otherwise. I don't know that anyone advocates immediate excommunication for a member who begins to confess something contrary to a church's confession, just as ethical error doesn't necessitate immediate excommunication either. Hopefully there will be a gentle shepherding of erring sheep before anything so extreme.

I don't know that subscription requires "complete knowledge." Certainly the church needs to do its job in teaching the contents of the confessions to new members. I doubt that most Reformed elders have a full understanding of every word in their confessions. But they have sworn to uphold these confessions and should rightfully take the appropriate actions if they come to the conviction that some point of doctrine in their confessions is contrary to the Word of God.

Bryan,

It sounds like what you're making the case for is more that "not advocating things contrary to the confession is necessary for remaining in good standing after your error has been made known to you by the minister from the confession;" not, "you must assent to everything in the confession before you can be made a member." There is a big difference between the two.

Which one do you want to defend?

Thanks for going ahead and doing this thread, by the way. I hope it's interesting.

It almost certainly is true that every Elder does not have full understanding of their Confession. But, in the PCA at least, it's a little more complicated than that. The vow requires that he
This emphasizes that every statement and proposition must be considered and if any cannot be affirmed in good conscience, they must be disclosed and evaluated by a jury of spiritual peers (presbytery).

This would be a lot to ask of a new believer who wants to peaceably learn, study and reflect on the teachings of the church.

Well, I think that part of the reasoning behind confessional membership is that it is impossible to refrain from advocating false doctrine without assenting to true doctrine. So I really don't see a big difference between the two. Perhaps you're thinking that a person could vow to refrain from "publicly" advocating things contrary to a confession but still "privately" hold to them. I don't really understand how that works in practice.

Not necessarily. Let's look at it this way. Chapter II of the WCF states that God is "incomprehensible." A new believer doesn't have to be familiar with the Clark/Van Til debate over our knowledge of God to affirm this. An elder, however, should have a little more ability to comprehend and teach regarding the details of this one word.

So, yes, a confessional church should take a while to go through the confessions in their membership courses. A member should be told what he will be confessing. Are they willing to state that God is "incomprehensible" and learn more about the intricacies of what that means from the church's officers? Then no problem.

I don't think it is a problem to require a new member should have heard/read every proposition of the confessions and agree to them. People are faced with much lengthier (and harder to understand) documents in regards to their finances every day. They still sign off on those contracts. Why such a hesitancy to require some careful consideration on the part of church members?

It sounds like you are saying new members should be "familiar" with the confession of faith and that would be good, but that's not the same thing as understanding and receiving every statement or proposition which, in my understanding is what subscription requires (unless a conscience-based exception is granted).

They should receive every statement or proposition. I think their understanding of those statements may be at varying levels of comprehension. They need to be able to say they agree with each statement. They don't need to be able teach every statement to a class.

This would set a very high bar for membership indeed.

Much time, energy and effort would be required to evaluate every member on every statement or proposition and then evaluate every exception.

The weak, uncertain, unlearned, skeptical, inarticulate, people with language barriers, would have a very difficult time ever becoming (communing) members under these circumstances. Some, I suppose, would never aspire to join- maybe only continue indefinately as regular attenders.

I recently listened to a sermon by Piper on church membership and he believes that a church cannot properly teach or discipline a believer without that believer being a member of the church. Thus at Bethlehem (I recognize it isn't confessional) the only requirement is a viable profession of faith. Once a member, then the training of their theological belief system begins. Now to be elder is a different story. They have their doctrinal statements which are apparently quite lengthy and each new elder has to adhere to all of it.

Confessional membership entails no exceptions. There certainly would be a detailed membership interview. I don't know that you need to require examination on every word or phrase of the confessions. They just need to affirm that they do confess them and demonstrate that they do understand what they confess.

As I've tried to emphasize, I'm not saying that new members need to be as articulate as the members of the Westminster Assembly or Synod of Dordt. The church needs to be committed to communicating the content of the confessions at whatever level of comprehension new members are able to understand. If someone does not have the mental capacity or knowledge base to deal with a detailed discussion of the regulative principle, circumstances, and elements of worship, then they don't have to have such a level of understanding. They just need to know that we only worship God in the way that He commands us to.

I think you're making exhaustive knowledge of a statement an unnecessary qualification for assenting to it. If all human knowledge of God is ultimately analogical, then it is easier to understand how two people can truly confess a doctrine yet with different levels of understanding.

The Confessions are much more specific than this, though.

On the one hand this is saying, one must subscribe to every statement or proposition, no(!) exceptions to be a member, on the other, nobody has to understand them the same way.

As described, this is a very high barrier for membership, one I'm not sure is a biblical one, or in the way described here- a practical one for operation of the visible church.

Again, I'm not speaking of contrary understandings of the confessions. I'm saying that a statement such as "God is incomprehensible" can be truly understood at varying levels of mental comprehension. In fact, the statement that "God is incomprehensible" can never be exhaustively comprehended because all of our knowledge is analogical.

Consider the following:
Stephen Charnock managed to write an incredibly voluminous tome on the truths expressed in this article (not that I mean to say that he was specifically referring to the Belgic, mind you). However, one doesn't need to have Charnock's level of comprehension of God's immutability to be able to truly confess that God doesn't change.

I was considering such an example in the context of the Three Forms of Unity, which don't use terms such as "regulative principle," "circumstances," or "elements." However, the regulative principle is present in the Three Forms. I'm just emphasizing that we can explain the concepts present in the confessions without getting incredibly technical in our explanations.

I think it can be a valuable practice when practice prudently and with care and moderation.

I admire the balance that many churches used to take (maybe still do?) wherein after basic instruction in evangelical truth, newcomers were baptized and made apart of the church, but remained catechumens of sorts until further instruction had been given.

What do you think about that approach?

It's better than just leaving them with "basic instruction in evangelical truth", but still has problems. What is the rush to add them to the membership rolls?

Does anyone else have any further thoughts on this? (Especially pastors and elders?) Why do you think it a valuable/commanded practice to either not require subscription to a confession as a condition for initial membership, or to do so?

I think I've just always tacitly assumed it not necessary; I'm curious to hear more pros and cons.

I agree with you 100% Paul, we should defend confessional membership, In trying to practice meekness we have developed weakness in the church. The same happened to the Puritan church, they were so cautious about not being too picky about theological arguments that they allowed Unitarianism to creep in and break apart and abolish what was once sacred.

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

Do we want to have a two-tiered congregation? Tier 1: those who actually affirm the confession of faith and Tier 2: those who are not required to affirm and confess the same faith?

Do we want a Reformed congregation or merely a Reformed session/consistory?

See ch. 5 of RRC.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog

I, personally, don't understand the logic behind NOT requiring some level of subscription on the part of church members. These are, after all, people who have a say in some potentially significant situations in the life of the church... it would be a shame to think that some of these people are making decisions (i.e., should a given man be our pastor) and yet themselves not believe what the church supposedly believes. Additionally, I've often wondered how we actually administer real discipline and uphold certain standards if the member in question can simply say, "Well, that isn't what I believe..."

It may seem inefficient and cumbersome for a church to require (some level of) confessional subscription, but in my mind it makes a lot of sense to do so.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

I think this hits a good balance.

New members are not expected to fully comprehend let alone fully comprehend and agree with every statement or proposition of doctrine in their standards. They do however:

1) profess Christ publically
2) vow to walk obediently
3) support the church
4) submit to the church
5) agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine

I think that's quite a bit to ask a new member, enough.

Officers take the next step, which is a big one, and vow that they have comprehensive knowledge of their doctrine as contained in their standards and that they agree with each proposition or statement unless they are granted a "peer reviewed" exception which is recorded and made known to the congregation which in turn votes to confirm them.

This governing basis to me seems to protect well the biblical polity of the visible church.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

But Scott - nothing about the PCA's barebones requirement requires anything distinctly Reformed.

These vows are good succinct summaries for public profession, but I don't think they should be used as what you seem to imply, that is, as some sort of bare bones creed.

Actually, I think points 3-5 do implicitly involve Reformed polity and doctrine:

3) support the church (further her reformed identity by support)
4) submit to the church (discipline)
5) agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine (Bible, standards)

Granted, there is no vow before God, witnessed by men, as to comprehensive knowledge of and agreement with the system of doctrine. There is however a receiving of polity and agreement to submit to studying the Church's doctrine in peace.

Practically (not arguing this biblical imperative or even clear in Scripture), this probably produces more informed (doctrinal) membership in the long run.

However none of the three you have highlighted Scott give any sense of requiring agreement or even minimal ascent to the Standards of the Church. I could be an Amaryldian or an Arminian and agree in good conscience to those three without any trouble. That I think is a real problem when considering people for Church membership.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

And you are correct, Benjamin.

The consequence of this type of system is that probably the large majority of new members will know little (or even nothing) of the Reformed doctrine initially.

That was certainly true of me. I understood and believed the doctrines we have in common with the rest of the evangelical (non-reformed) church (e.g. justification by faith alone), but little of Reformed doctrine (the "5 points," covenant theology, the Confession and Catechisms).

It took me almost two years to "get up to speed" with the doctrinal standards. It was a shock coming to grips with baptising infants but over time, God granted me understanding that the children of believers are part of the visible church too.

Only recently has the covenant theology, particularly eschatologically, come to make sense.

I think the vows the PCA requires new members set a high bar for membership in the visible church, but not too high. This approach, I think, even encourages more informed membership over the long run.

As others have noted why the rush to church membership? Why should the teachiong of the faith and therefore the "real teaching of the confessions" come after membership and not before?

It seems that true believers in Christ need the discipline, discipleship, participation, privileges and accountability that membership provides. The sooner the better.

Once they have been examined, publically profess Christ and vow to follow Him obediently, agreed to submit to and support the church and to peaceably learn her doctrine, they have, by God's grace done a lot. Their recognition as members of the body of Christ and the particular church should not be unduly withheld.

Scott -

I understand what you're saying.

But I still disagree.

I know far too many people who are members in good standing of PCA churches whose elders are all very confessional - and have been for many many years - and yet these members have beliefs on some key issues that are at complete variance with the Standards.

I don't buy the "oh, let them join and they'll eventually come along" argument.

Being Presbyterian we put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the elders. But elders are elected by the people. Pastors are chosen by the people. There is a lot of talk on this Board about all the unconfessional pastors running around denegrating the Standards... but we should take a step back and ask the question, "Why is there a "market" for these men in our denomination?" It is because many of the people don't believe the Standards themselves, so they hire a man in line with their convictions.

I'd rather see smaller membership rolls and yet have people who actually believe the confession.

Let me also add something I believe acknowleges the very legitimate concerns expressed here about informed church participation and membership.

After this kind of membership (examination of credible profession of faith, public profession of faith and vow to walk obediently, to support and submit to the church and to peaceably learn her doctrine), there needs to be an effort to disciple members in church-life skills and the doctrinal standards of the church.

This needs to be:

1)pro-active,
2)systematic
3)regular as a part of the life of the church.

This is the privilege, calling and responsibility of church leadership (Elders and Deacons).

From my understanding, this is the basic biblical pattern of polity and protects all the vital interests.

So what do you do when they won't budge from their Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc.? You try your best, but they're still convinced that the Bible doesn't teach the confessional doctrine. Do you discipline them now even though you accepted them into membership on different grounds?

I think this captures the most fundamental problem (that I can see so far) with subscription not being necessary for members. How far do you let things go?

There are two problems I can see with this critique, however:

1.) Is there a difference between resisting the church's teachings and holding forth your own on the one hand, and not being convinced of something while still humbly and meekly learning on the other?

2.) If I am an elder and there is a member of my church, a brother in Christ for whom I have been charged to care, who holds to certain aspects of dispensational teaching, do I really want to discipline him and drive him to the dispensational church where his foundation in these teachings will be solidified? Or do I want to keep him under our ministerial feeding so that he will be nurtured in the truth?

Just some questions I think ought to be answered.

There is a difference between a.) holding a conviction on some matter and b.) not knowing enough to hold a conviction on some matter. Church membership classes should give the knowledge necessary to be convicted of the truth (or error) of the doctrines in the Reformed confessions. I think that if we're honest, we have to admit that a little bit of knowledge about a matter leaves "neutrality" impossible.

Talking about specifics of discipline will need a little more background than this.

If I'm an elder in a confessional church that holds its members to the confessions, then this member has obviously changed his convictions from when he took his membership vows. How I address it will probably be determined in part by how his change of convictions came to my attention. It does need to be addressed, although in a pastoral manner.

However, it could also be that I'm an elder in a church that has changed the standards for membership and his convictions were permissible when he took his vows. The waters here would be much more murky.

That being said, I don't think that driving him to a dispensational church would weigh heavily on my mind. One could make the same argument for almost any doctrine: e.g., if we hold members to paedobaptism, we'll drive them to a Baptist church.

If we're talking about people who are looking to become members of our congregation, then it is important to note that denying membership to Arminians or Dispensationalists doesn't prevent them from further conversing with the consistory/session and hearing the public preaching of the Word.

The PCA vows, anyway, in what seems to strike a balance that protects all the vital biblical interests requires a member to:

1) profess Christ publically
2) vow to walk obediently
3) support the church
4) submit to the church
5) agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine

These require peaceable obedience to the church, learning of her doctrine, and abiding her discipline and government.

I really can't see a basis for disciplining a member because, for example, they are struggling with accepting the "L" of TULIP (limited atonment). Now, that person cannot openly defy the church on this point, cannot teach it authoritatively to others, etc. but that is a very different thing than requiring their comprehensive knowledge of and belief in a most profound systematic confessional theology.

Moral issues are covered in the vows in that open scandalous sin is under the discipline of the church. Teaching wrong doctrine is under the authority and responsiblity of church officers. An insolent, defiant or strife-ridden attitude toward the church could also be under discipline of the church.

But, as I reflect on this now, I'm not seeing a biblical pattern or principle for making visible church membership difficult.

Church teachers, officers and leaders are held to a much higher standard (cf James 3:1) but for an ordinary believer, membership tends to confirm a reality- people whom God has chosen to save who agree to learn the church's doctrine peaceably, serve her peaceably for God's Honor and Glory, and submit to her discipline and governance.

So... would teaching it authoritatively to others include their children?

pp. 179-80:

Mr Clark,

Your book sounds great, and well worth reading!

Thanks.

My thoughts here are a couple:

1) What is our biblical basis for requiring comprehensive knowledge of and assent to every proposition and statement before someone can be "recognized" as a part of Christ's Body? Where do we see this in Scripture?

2) By setting so high a bar for (visible) church membership, aren't we also creating "two tiers"- one group of regular attendars who will continue indefinately because they are discouraged from joining due to lack of comprehensive knowledge or confidence in good faith assent to every statement or proposition?

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 05:28:45 EST-----

Children go through training at church, including catechism class in order to become "communing members" (at least in the PCA) and have exposure to the doctrinal standards through church life in many ways.

If you are asking whether a father or mother at home is required to teach through the standards at home- no I don't think a father or mother should be disciplined for not teaching the "L" of TULIP to their children at home. I'm not going to be totally dismissive and say "it doesn't matter what the parents teach at home" because that's not really the point.

Remember, I'm starting with the assumption that new member parents do NOT have comprehensive knowledge of doctrinal standards, far less are they in a position to give good faith assent to every statement or proposition of all the standards. You are starting with the opposite assumption:

The example I was giving was that someone who does not accept the "L" of TULIP would not teach a Sunday School class on that point. The church's teaching is under responsibility and authority of the church officers, who are held to much higher knowledge standard by their vow.