Thread: Ecumenical Relationships

Here's a subject that I've been pondering.

Churches, that is denominations or federations of churches, have a tendency to have initial relationships with each other on the basis of recognizing each other as a "true church".

However, most denominations recognize that the original authority is in the local congregation, with each office-bearer being ordained with the authority that Christ gave through His Word. That is, then, the real church is the local one, not the denomination as a whole.

Yet it is the denomination that is recognized as true by other denominations.

Each individual church can have exceptions to the denominational standards, as long as they aren't basic or divisive. The one church may take its freedom to be borderline liberal, or even go over the borderline; and another church within the same denomination may take its orthodoxy too far, and become legalistically orthodox. A denomination which recognizes this set of churches may or may not take that into consideration; they may just look at the representative set of standards that the denomination stands for.

At any rate, the question is whether the liberal church in the denomination, or the ultra orthodox one, are seen as true churches, even though it may not be within the standards of the recognizing denomination? Does recognition of a denomination imply recognition of the individual church? What is the extent of such denominational recognition?

Some churches/denominations reject the invisible/visible church distinction, and say that the true church is manifest in the local congregation. Some of these have seceded from other denominations. How can they do that with that belief in mind? Does the invisible church become a false church? Does the manifestation of it cease at some given time? Suddenly a denomination is refused the recognition of being a "true church"! Does this, then, include all individual churches, as well as related ones? If they secede because of what the denomination as a whole has done, then why did they secede from churches that did not agree as well? Does one church have authority to call others out "or else"?

I've been pondering these things for a while. It seems that whether it is a uniting of denominations or a separating of them, the weaknesses of the denominational system become very clear. These are tough questions.

Any thoughts?

John, you are expressing the very topic I am working on for my doctorate based out of the WCF and the debate between "what is the church?"

At any rate, the question is whether the liberal church in the denomination, or the ultra orthodox one, are seen as true churches, even though it may not be within the standards of the recognizing denomination? Does recognition of a denomination imply recognition of the individual church? What is the extent of such denominational recognition?

I'm just going to say this one thing so that no one gets upset at me at this point (I'll let them get upset at a later time - another year from now).

Don't confuse "denomination" with "church" in the wrong way. A denomination (that word) IS the church. The question revolves around which one (denomination) is the true denomination (or church). Which one has apostolic succession (i.e. lawful ordination of elders) AND the criteria the Reformers set forth in terms of true preaching and the administration of the sacraments (which is why it was lawful for ordained men in a denomination (the Catholic Church) to bring judgment on the RCC by saying they were apostate. Thus, Luther, Calvin and the Reformed church had every right to continue the Church (i.e. the Reformed denomination) against the false teachings of the real schismatic (the RCC) who denied the Gospel (i.e. orthodoxy).

The recognition of the denomination (i.e. the church) implies recognition of an individual localized meeting house (i.e. local church "A"). If that local expression of the church (church "A") is apostate, then it is the right and duty of the church (i.e. the denomination) to excommunicate that body or cut out the leaven if necessary (as it was int he case of the Reformation). In the particular case of the Reformation, it was the newly ordained men (the students) who ultimately became the teachers and expelled the false teachers from the true church.

Does this make any sense?

So is it possible that two local "true" churches do not recognize each other as true, simply because the denomination does not sanction the recognition on a denominational basis?

Originally posted by JohnV
So is it possible that two local "true" churches do not recognize each other as true, simply because the denomination does not sanction the recognition on a denominational basis?

I am sure that is a give away. You could probably even find break away Catholic groups who are "true" churchs - who knows - but my point is like you said. There are variations within denominations and so there is bound to be individual churchs that are true within a denomination deemed apostate.

Fraser, you say "bound to be", and all I am asking for is the possibility of individual churches being a) true though in a denomination not considered to be true; b) false though in a denomination considered to be true; and c does a church/denominatin have a right to excommunicate from that recognition a local church within the body with which it has ecumenical relationships, but not authority? Does mutually recognizing each other as churches/denominations imply mutual oversight?

You have to make a distinction between "groups of people" who come together to study the bible, and what is a true Church. Both can exist, but only one would BE a true church. They would need ordained men, the proper preaching of the Word, and the proper administration of the sacraments. There could be, then, two churches in Denomination "A", one being part of the true church, and the other being apostate. We see that all the time when people or churches are excommunicated from a given denomination or fellowship. (Like when the OPC or PCA split away from a corrupted body.)

The concept of denomination, then, could be just as detrimental as it was thought to be beneficial? I mean (let's take the OPC/PCA secession, though I don't know much about it) the OPC or PCA may take a dim view of the parent denomination, but still recognize one or more individual congregations? But doesn't the 'official' status of these indivudual congregations, being alligned with the rejected body, namely the PCUSA (or whatever it was) keep that from being possible on an official basis? Can a church/congregation be unofficially true, but officially false? Or, conversely, does the 'official' status of 'true church' on the basis of affiliation with a recognized denomination, protect an individual congregation from being officially rejected as a false church?

Is it even possible to secede from a church that has no invisible/visible church distinction? That is, a denomination views the invisible church to be that, and only that, which is manifested in real congregations. Such denominations may refer to themselves as 'the only true church'. But that makes it impossible to secede from such a denomination, doesn't it? A true church does not cease to be one, or else it never was one in the first place. So secession would be a cutting of ties to the 'one true church', even if that church has erred gravely.


I know, this is more than one question, and complicated at that.

John:

I don't know if there are any clear answers to these questions, which I think are good. The New Testament does not contemplate denominations and, indeed, condemns sectarianism, which is essential to denominations. The NT presupposes a unified organizational structure, which is required by Acts 15. So, I would say Protestant denominationalism is abnormal and we should hope for better.

The situation is analogous to the division of Israel into Northern and Southern kingdoms. Israel was created as a unified entity and all of the its laws were structured around that assumption. The split made nonsense of some of these laws, but the people were forced to live with it anyway, at least until God restored unity.

Here is a quote from the PCA's Book of Church Order, which I think is right:

2-2. This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.

John: Below is an excerpt from some Sunday School notes I did on Matthew 16 concerning excommunication. Denominationalism presents a practical problem for excommunication. I discuss some of the history and issues surrounding denominationalism too. It is long and so feel free to ignore it.

I recently read an account of an ancient excommunication proceeding in which someone was cast out of the church. He repented and stood at the doors of the meeting place of a congregation, seeking to be restored to fellowship. He had nowhere else to go if he wanted participate in the life of the church. Every orthodox congregation would have barred him because of the fundamental ecclesiastical unity. Excommunication had some visible teeth.
Excommunication in modern Protestant churches presents a practical problem. If a person is excommunicated from one church, he can simply go down the street to another "“ often with no questions asked. In any event, it will be no problem to find another church that will accept him, even knowing of the other church´s excommunication. This obviously undermines one purpose of excommunication, which is to send a message to the excommunicated that he is outside of God´s covenant community. One congregation denies that the person is part of the community. A second affirms that he is. Who is he to believe?
This practical problem arises because there is little ecclesiastical or governmental unity among modern Protestant denominations. We should see this condition as abnormal. While this is an oversimplification, generally speaking, Christianity was united ecclesiastically for the first 1,000 years of its existence. If a person were excommunicated from "œthe church"� he had nowhere else to go, except for the occasional minor break-off sect (which was normally heretical). Christendom did not have denominational splits, independent congregations, and the like. If a person were excommunicated he would not be welcome in any congregation throughout Christendom.
The first great schism in church history occurred in 1054 AD. Prior to the schism, Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, with heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years the Roman papacy had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. The Eastern churches resisted these papal pretensions. The end result was schism with Catholic Church excommunicating the Eastern churches and the Eastern Churches returning the compliment. Both continued to function independently.
From this point on, the church was divided in two. The Eastern Orthodox system remained basically as it had been. In the Roman system, the papacy became increasingly tyrannical and worldly. It was in desperate need of reformation. In the Sixteenth Century, a group of people, such as Martin Luther, tried to reform the Roman Catholic church. They did not initially break from the church but rather protested against its abuses. These protests are the reason they were called "œProtestants."� Rome would have none of these changes and banished these men from outside her government.
Unwilling to submit to papal tyranny and the false doctrines the church imposed on men, men like Luther and Calvin set up their own ecclesiastical institutions in order to minister to the people of God. These institutions were provisional and were not intended to be permanent. The great hope was of "œreformation"� not "œschism"� or separation.
The situation of the Reformers is analogous to the situation of the French Charles de Gaulle in World War II. Germany invaded France and took over the government. French collaboraters, such as Marshal Petain, helped the Germans do this. French resistance fighters, led by Charles de Gaulle, refused to recognize German authority in spite of German occupation. They set up a shadow government to resist German tyranny and resist occupation. The great hope of de Gaulle and others was the liberation of France, not separation from it. Charles de Gaulle carried on much of his work from England. The French did not become complacent or happy in their new land. They did not separate from France and become reviled at the notion of returning.
The situation of the Reformation has turned out somewhat differently. The farthest things from the minds of most modern Protestants is unifying the church. Division and schism are the order of the day. Congregations and denominations split regularly, often over inconsequential things. Historians of Christianity in America have rightly identified one of its defining characteristics as an "œimpulse to split"� which is much more extreme than in other countries. In America there are countless denominations, each claiming to speak with the voice of Christ. The spirit of division Paul warned against is common. Paul spends 6 chapters in First Corinthians arguing against disunity. This is a summary of the problem in the organized church at Cornith.
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17. Paul expected the unity of the mystical body to be expressed in tangible and earthly ways. Namely people should be "œunited in mind and thought."� Not having this unity leads to sectarianism, with claims of allegiance to various sub-groups within Christianity. Denominationalism is at its worst in America. The sinful impulse to factionalism in America is like the sin of division in Cornith on steroids. The PCA Book of Church order rightly says that the unity of Christ is "œobscured"� by the presence of denominations. In other countries, the religious scene is ordinarily dominated by only a handful of groups.
I don´t know of any answers about how to resolve the problem of disunity and denominationalism. Few Americans even perceive this as a problem. The situation of the modern church seems to have parallels to ancient Israel. Israel was created to be a unified confederacy of twelve tribes. After the death of Solomon it split into two separate kingdoms (Judah and Israel a/k/a the Northern and Southern Kingdoms). This set up insoluble problems. For example, the center of worship was in one kingdom that was hostile to members of the second kingdom. Members of the second kingdom could not participate in divine worship due to the separation. Yet, God still treated both groups as His people. The only real solution was unity. In a glorious passage, Hezekiah strove for this unity by inviting members Israel to join with Judah in the celebration of the Passover. See 1 Chronicles 30. God gave the people "œunity of mind."�
In the end, though, the only thing that restored unity was the defeat and exile of Israel and Judah by Assyria and Babylon. Unity was only restored when the remnant returned from exile. The returnees set up one kingdom, not two. It took defeat by foreign powers to eliminate the division of the Northern and Southern kingdoms. I would not predict what God will do to unify the church. He has severely pruned His people before, such as with the barbarian invasions of the West in the Fifth Century, which almost (but did not) destroyed the Western church. Afterwards the church grew and flourished like never before. Of course, God could supernaturally provide His people with the "œunity of mind"� that accompanied Hezekiah´s celebration of the Passover. That is my hope and prayer.

I would think that denominations arose because of a need for mutual oversight among churches that professed the same doctrinal standards. So on the one hand, with everyone going his own way, it is necessary, and useful. While we were continually splitting it posed no problem. But it is ecumenicity now that makes it difficult. See what I'm getting at? I know you do, Scott. Thanks for helping get this straight.



[Edited on 9-11-2004 by JohnV]

Every split, though, John is continually probelmatic because it is an affront the the Christ mandated authroity structure of the church.

The quote given from the PCA book of church order:

2-2. This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Let me condense this:

This visible unity is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians.

I ask, "huh???"

How can the visible unity of the church NOT be destroyed as it continues to splinter? Splintering is a division and destruction of unity unless there remains a reinterpretation of the Reformed church and its continuation as an ecclesiastical body. One would have to say that the ecclesiology of the Reformation is useless, and we should reinterpret what it means to have common unity at the expense of ecclesiology.

For exmample, would Calvin say that the Anabaptist movement was part of the Reformed church?

Or, would he say that the Methodist church, or Anglican church are true churches?

I'll stop there.

Originally posted by webmaster

The recognition of the denomination (i.e. the church) implies recognition of an individual localized meeting house (i.e. local church "A"). If that local expression of the church (church "A") is apostate, then it is the right and duty of the church (i.e. the denomination) to excommunicate that body or cut out the leaven if necessary (as it was int he case of the Reformation). In the particular case of the Reformation, it was the newly ordained men (the students) who ultimately became the teachers and expelled the false teachers from the true church.

This entire subject is very interesting to me. Can you expand your thoughts on proper ordination, provide me some biblical support for it, and explain how we decide who is properly ordained? Can someone in the PCUSA be properly ordained even though they became liberal and caused a split? Is this what defines the true Church/schismatic distinction?

I too have been pondering this subject for some time.

OK, I get that Matt. What I was saying, or trying to say, is that we are beginning to perceive the problems we created when we were split happy. Now that there are relationships between churches, on the basis of recognizing each other as true churches, it is the view of the invisble and visible church that gets blurred in the doing of it.

I guess I'm tying to ask if there is more to ecumenicity than recognizing each others' doctrines as coinciding.

Matt:

I understand what you are saying. I don't think there are any good or clear answers, as the existence of denominations is outside of what the Bible contemplates. Still, I think that the PCA BCO is right. The existence of denominations necessitates certain types of divisions, including jurisdictional divisions. For example, the PCA is not juridically required to recognize a decision of the United Methodist Church or even of a close sister, such as the OPC. Of course, the judicial decisions of the PCA are binding in the PCA only, absent some sort of inter-communion treaty with other denominations.

Still, unity is reflected in a number of ways:

> The PCA will adminster communion to any member of an evangelical church in good standing
> The PCA will accept transfers from people of other denominations
> The PCA will accept as properly adminsitered the baptisms performed by other denominations
> The PCA will work in concert with others of different denominations (such as in joint ministry enterprises)


There are other ways too. So, denominations represent serious divisions. There is still, or can be, some unity, though.

Now, contrast the PCA's view with a strict Lutheran version of the doctrine of "unionism." This doctrine prohibits any religious interaction between a confessional Lutheran and anyone else. The strict proponents of this prohibit even family members of different denominations from praying together. It certainly prohibits the receipt of communion by non-Lutherans, etc. This doctrine is losing its effect as the Lutheran denominations get more liberal.

Scott

Originally posted by Scott
Matt:


Now, contrast the PCA's view with a strict Lutheran version of the doctrine of "unionism." This doctrine prohibits any religious interaction between a confessional Lutheran and anyone else. The strict proponents of this prohibit even family members of different denominations from praying together. It certainly prohibits the receipt of communion by non-Lutherans, etc. This doctrine is losing its effect as the Lutheran denominations get more liberal.

Scott

Is there a side of the Lutherans that remain conservative and yet ecumenical?

The Missouri Synod is something akin to the PCA and may be more ecumenical (you actually see debates on this in this synod). The Wisconsion Synod (400,000+ members) is more old-line and likely to more strictly apply unionism. The ECLA is mainline liberal, which means that they blow with the wind.

It is interesting that in the evangelical world, there is little or no Lutheran presence. I think this is at least partly attributable to unionism. Frankly, that may be a good thing for Lutherans. They have some insulation from the stuff that happens there. The PCA largely embraces evangelicalism, which hurts our ecclesiology quite a bit (evangelicalism is largely a parachurch movement).

You may recall some post 9-11 fallout over unionism. A Lutheran minister participated in a national event with ministers from other Christian groups (and I think non-Christian groups). Anyway, that created a controversy. I think this was Missouri Synod.

Originally posted by Scott
The Missouri Synod is something akin to the PCA and may be more ecumenical (you actually see debates on this in this synod). The Wisconsion Synod (400,000+ members) is more old-line and likely to more strictly apply unionism. The ECLA is mainline liberal, which means that they blow with the wind.

It is interesting that in the evangelical world, there is little or no Lutheran presence. I think this is at least partly attributable to unionism. Frankly, that may be a good thing for Lutherans. They have some insulation from the stuff that happens there. The PCA largely embraces evangelicalism, which hurts our ecclesiology quite a bit (evangelicalism is largely a parachurch movement).

You may recall some post 9-11 fallout over unionism. A Lutheran minister participated in a national event with ministers from other Christian groups (and I think non-Christian groups). Anyway, that created a controversy. I think this was Missouri Synod.

Yes, I remember that. I considered joining a LCMS church. They are really strict subscriptionist.

Thanks.

Brett:

That is interesting that you considered a LCMS. There is little movement between members of Reformed and Lutheran churches, except in the way of marriage or for similar non-theological reasons. I have an interest in churches that people see as substitutes for Reformed churches. Those on the high church end tend to become Anglican (Episcopal) or even Orthodox or Catholic, depending on their theological leanings. Low church people tend to go to baptist, bible or other independent churches. I would place Lutherans on the high church end but there is not much movement in that direction. Perhaps the unionism and strict subscriptionism is party responsible.

AT one point several years ago, I was considering moving to Phoenix and there were not many Reformed churches in the area. I was considering Lutheran too, although at the time I knew very little about them (I still know only a little).

Scott

Originally posted by Scott
Brett:

That is interesting that you considered a LCMS. There is little movement between members of Reformed and Lutheran churches, except in the way of marriage or for similar non-theological reasons. I have an interest in churches that people see as substitutes for Reformed churches. Those on the high church end tend to become Anglican (Episcopal) or even Orthodox or Catholic, depending on their theological leanings. Low church people tend to go to baptist, bible or other independent churches. I would place Lutherans on the high church end but there is not much movement in that direction. Perhaps the unionism and strict subscriptionism is party responsible.

AT one point several years ago, I was considering moving to Phoenix and there were not many Reformed churches in the area. I was considering Lutheran too, although at the time I knew very little about them (I still know only a little).

Scott

Both of the LCMS church's we visited had "open communion". That is you could take communion so long as you believed the "real presence"(I didn't). My understanding of the LCMS is that it tends to be much more nominal than the Presbyterian denoms since many there are Lutheran by tradition only. Also, it seems as there is a wide range of LCMS church's just as their are in Presbyterian circles. They have some that have modern evangelical worship, high liturgy, and everything in between.

One of the LCMS Church's that I visited were very grieved about the Pastor who was disciplined. The prevailing thought was that he made a mistake, but perhaps was disciplined to harshly.

Our (Redeemer Presbyterian Church) ex-music minister, Leonard Payton is now at a Lutheran Seminary. We still sing many of the hymns that he wrote for us. From what I understand he was Lutheran through and through. I believe he has written some good books on worship.

Brett: That is interesting. That confirms that thought that the LCMS is somewhat like the PCA (conservative on paper but loose in practice). My understanding is that the Wisconsin Synod is stricter in practice, perhaps more analogous to the OPC. The ECLA is analogous to the PCUSA.

It also does not surprise me that there are many nominal Lutherans in churches. Lutheranism tends to be the religion of German and Nordic immigrants and their descendants. As that national identity fades, so will much of their uniqueness.

We have one or two ex-Lutherans in our church and they are pretty much low-church evangelical all the way and I get the impression that that habit was formed at their old Lutheran churches. They did not even know that the Lutheran catechisms identify the Pope as the antichrist (that was shocking to them).

Scott

BTW: Here is an interesting article on the Lutheran doctrine of unionism:
The Struggle against Unionism in Missouri
http://www.faithplano.org/Papers/The...t_Unionism.htm

That view is interesting Scott. I gather that by "low church view" you mean that attendance and friendship are important to them, but doctrine is secondary. Or, if doctrine is important, its more personal scruples than doctrine; or if some doctrine is important, then it is quite general a liable to be swayed by cultural influences. If this is so, then of course ecumenicity is not really a problem as far as differences in denominations is concerned. If the ones that would have the most difficulty with the Reformed faith find it not so difficult to be members in a Presbyterian church, then it seems clear that what constitutes a true church, what represents the invisible church, is not so strict a matter with them.

My concern can play out in so many different ways. The main concern is that the identity of the group as true overrides the identity of the individual as a true believer. Peripheral doctrines, and even some essential doctrines can be used to prosecute an individual in one denomination, which removes his membership status, and so leaves him without the means of grace through the sacraments, and without proper oversight for life and doctrine. Right now that's my personal fear, because it is possible that the OPC just doesn't want to hear my case, as that is how its going right now.

It could also happen that one denomination, wishing to unite with another, leaves in the cold those who just can't bear being united with that denomination. Some will leave rather than join in the merging, and some will think that the church they grew up in has ceased to exist because of it. These are not necessarily "low church" people, but they could be "high church" in tradition only. Be that as it may, the point is that the invisible church has disappeared for them, while the organized church has taken on a different shape for them. For them the damage goes deeper, because it shakes their view of what it means to be part of the invisible church.

I think it happens the other way around in "low church" scenarios, where the instituted group becomes secondary to the identity of the individual as a true believer. The church has to accommodate the individual as true, so it becomes an administrative thing more than a doctrinal thing for the church; while for the individual believer the status of being true is individually defined, with the church carrying a rather wide definition to allow for everyone who thinks himself true.



[Edited on 10-11-2004 by JohnV]

By "low church" I mean views that see the role of the visible church as relatively unimportant, and perhaps even optional. "High church" would be those who see the visible church as important or even essential to Christian life.

Many anabaptists and independents, for example, see the "visible church" (if they even recognize such a thing), or their local meetings, as mere voluntary societies designed for individuals to help one another. If someone can achieve a holy life on his own, then he does not need this sort of crutch.

In contrast, a higher church view would see the visible church as essential for Christian life. It is where the believer is nourished by Word and sacrament and the vehicle through which Christ mediates the benefits of His redemption. It is where God's ordained representatives are. It is not optional.

Scott

What if a "low church" adherent is a member of a "high church" church? And what it that comes into conflict?

Or,

To what extent should the "high church" church take its view of "high church"? Is the congregation more important than the idividual? Or is it part and parcel of the "high church" view that the two cannot come into comparison that way?

I don't think the congregation is more important than the individual. I think a high church point of view (in which I would place confessional Protestantism - Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican) would see the church as analogous to a team. Both corporate responsibility and personal achievement are important. As with football, individual contributions are essential and some players are better than others. Still, success is measured as a team endeavor by the team's score. Further, a player's individual accomplishments are measured by how they benefit the team (how many yards did he get, how many points did he score for the team, etc.).

A low church view would tend to see the Christian life more analogous to an individual sport, say golf. All accomplishments are measured by how well one performs as an individual.

Scott

as the existence of denominations is outside of what the Bible contemplates.

Scott,

Denomination = church. (i.e. The Presbyterian Denomination IS the visible church.) That is the distinction. When one joins a denomination, they are joining either a shcismatic body who broke away from the church, or they are joining the one true church. it would be historically impossible to say that every group is the church, whcih is why I take issue with the BCO historically on that point. Its like whent he Roman Catholics, even though Trent says otherwise, that we are all "separated brethren." What in the world does that mean?? Same with what teh BCO is saying. THat doe snot make all people in those breaks non-christians, it does make them schismatics and rejecting authority.

This is something that I am personally struggling with. I'm still getting my thoughts in order on it. Thanks for helping me with that. I'll get back to this in the near future, as I think it is an important issue.

This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.

How could they say that the Word and Sacraments are administered correctly by "evangelical" churches?

If we lived during the Reformation, then, OK. But Evangelicalism today is not the same - it is a liberal ecumenical trend. So, how could the BCO address this by saying that a church that is really not a true church though it is a "denomination" (obscuring that) could rightly administer the sacraments? If we follow what Matt is saying, then how could "XYZ church" have ordained men who are rightly administering the sacraments if they are dissenters FROM the church?

[Edited on 11-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]

The framers of the BCO and the PCA generally do not share Matt's views on the institutional church. If you examine the covenant individual church members take in order to become members, you will see how minimal it is. About the only doctrinal content is inerrancy and sola fide.

Scott:
What the officers of a church and what the individual members can be held to are two different things.

When someone accepts Christ as Saviour and Lord, in short, they believe Christ at His word for salvation, they become Christians. They do not need to be versant in every detail of doctrine before they are accepted as Christians. But it is important to disciple them properly, so that they do know the basics of what they have gotten themselves into, so to speak. Just because, for example, the doctrines make it mandatory that believers baptize their children, that doesn't mean that believers who can't understand that, and don't baptize their children are not believers. Nor does it mean that everyone tied to an Arminian church, or RC church, is thereby accounted as an unbeliever. They may be a true believer and have never yet been faced with the true doctrines of grace beyond their initial conversion. Sure, those who have faced them and rejected them willfully do not have the same kind of assumed status as those who have yet to face them and obey the Word. But we cannot hold up some arbitrary level of spirituality akin to our own as the line in the sand for who to recognize as Christians and who to judge as non-believer or unbeliever.

On the other hand, a minister or elder is one commissioned (laid hands on, ordained) to minister God's Word. Woe to him if he ministers as God's Word what is not God's Word but rather the word of man as God's Word. That is a basic contravention of his position and office. Therefore fidelity to the Confessions is of the utmost importance there. Not everyone who wants to can be an elder, and not everyone who wants to can be a minister. One must be called to it by God.

I haven't read anything by Matt that counters that. He does hold up a high standard for Christians and for leaders. And he does show well and reasonably the ramifications of mixing beliefs that are traditional rather than Biblical with Biblical teachings. And that is right to do. And I don't disagree with him. But he does accept as Christian those who are not up to that standard, but who yet believe to the best of their ability. I don't think this is out of sync with Presbyterian order. Having a high standard and simultaneously holding a gracious and humble standard is not contradictory, but wholly Biblical. It is also God's way of dealing with us, who were sinners yet when Christ died for us.

"Denomination" is not the true church, but representative of it. One cannot say that the OPC, for example, is the only true Church. That would mean that those those having ecclesiastical relationship with her are not true churches because they are not the OPC. Yet the OPC as a denomination must be held accountable as representing the one true Church. Other denominations can do that too, and be in relationship with each other.

All this, however, makes unification of two denominations very tricky. It is not so simple. For example, the OPC would allow a Christian Reconstructionist congregation to exist, but the CanRC, which has relationship with the OPC on the basis of recognition as a true Church, would never stand for it. It wouldn't last two minutes. Things like that are just not done in that denomination without immediate discipline taking place. The Form of Subscription just would not allow it, and such a church would necessarily fall under the category of 'false church'.

Do you see the contradiction here? A true church, the OPC, having false churches by CanRC standards, and having unification talks? Dividing is easy; unifying is real tricky.

[Edited on 15-11-2004 by JohnV]

The framers of the BCO and the PCA generally do not share Matt's views on the institutional church.

Which means they reject the view of the WCF and the reformation.

JohnV is right in the way this is tricky.

One would have to come to establish norms across the board to avoid the problems here.

That is why the Reformation relied on the Insitutes, and the Westminster Assembly relied on the Solemn League and the Insistutes.