Confessionalism In The PCA

[JS116]

Hello all,

I want to ask all you guys,specifically PCAer's how does your church practice confessional subscription?

I'm dialoging with a friend I went to school with here in Wilmington about it, he says, "The PCA purpose is so missional, it looses it's focus on its theological roots which they state is the WCF. It wants to become more evangelical than confessional."(somewhat paraphrased)

True or False?

 

[Ne Oublie]

Hey Shawn!

This is an interesting question. I cannot answer for the PCAers but I have a question in the opposite. I have heard that many see that OPCers are only concerned about being confessional and intellectualism than being missional minded? Would that be a fair assessment? Of course I say this rhetorically, even though there may be some truth, can these really be answered honestly?

I am willing to bet most PCAers on PB would NOT come out and say "Yah, we marginalize our confession, but we really want to be more missional minded". Is the PCA really concerned about being confessional anyway?

Its a bit like asking the Supreme Court if they are Constitutionalist or are they just trying to be fair judges for the people?

 

[JS116]

Haha! I like how you put that about them saying ,"yeah we marginalize our confession" , nobody's wants to say that.

Anyways I can sense that in the OPC..at least in the one I attend. The OPC is trying to become more missional minded but just doesn't know exactly how to get there.I say the two can learn a lot from each other, after all their sister churches!

Hey Shawn!

This is an interesting question. I cannot answer for the PCAers but I have a question in the opposite. I have heard that many see that OPCers are only concerned about being confessional and intellectualism than being missional minded? Would that be a fair assessment? Of course I say this rhetorically, even though there may be some truth, can these really be answered honestly?

I am willing to bet most PCAers on PB would NOT come out and say "Yah, we marginalize our confession, but we really want to be more missional minded". Is the PCA really concerned about being confessional anyway?

Its a bit like asking the Supreme Court if they are Constitutionalist or are they just trying to be fair judges for the people?

 

[Scott1]

I'm not sure how helpful such generalizations, based on second hand opinions might be about entire denominations. What is the purpose in building our faith?

What has God called us to do? Live in community in covenant focused on worshipping Him in spirit and in truth- serving His church as unto Him, and under the authority He has appointed therein.

Discipling God's people to bring Him Glory. Bringing God's (kingdom) principles to all of life and thereby bringing Him Glory. Preaching the Gospel which God uses as means to bring sinners to the disciplines of Christian obedience to the end of His Glory.

Both denominations do this.

 

[Zach]

I'm not sure how helpful such generalizations, based on second hand opinions might be about entire denominations. What is the purpose in building our faith?

What has God called us to do? Live in community in covenant focused on worshipping Him in spirit and in truth- serving His church as unto Him, and under the authority He has appointed therein.

Discipling God's people to bring Him Glory. Bringing God's (kingdom) principles to all of life and thereby bringing Him Glory. Preaching the Gospel which God uses as means to bring sinners to the disciplines of Christian obedience to the end of His Glory.

Both denominations do this.

 

[JS116]

I don't think neither of us is denying the fact that both denominations present the gospel correctly and try to further the kingdom of God.

This isn't a thread on combating between denominations, this discussion is about the differences of how the reformed churches in general seek out these things, particularly the PCA since this was the church that came up in the discussion.

I'm not sure how helpful such generalizations, based on second hand opinions might be about entire denominations. What is the purpose in building our faith?

What has God called us to do? Live in community in covenant focused on worshipping Him in spirit and in truth- serving His church as unto Him, and under the authority He has appointed therein.

Discipling God's people to bring Him Glory. Bringing God's (kingdom) principles to all of life and thereby bringing Him Glory. Preaching the Gospel which God uses as means to bring sinners to the disciplines of Christian obedience to the end of His Glory.

Both denominations do this.

 

[Jack K]

As with most generalizations... there's a kernel of truth to it, but as soon as you say it people will want to tell you how it isn't exactly true or fair or applicable across the board.

The PCA is a far more complicated animal than that statement allows. There are divisions within the denomination itself between churches that tend to think first of themselves as upholding doctrine and those that tend to think first of themselves as places for spiritual renewal or "missional" activities. But all PCA churches will value all these things to an extent. The difference is what's top of mind.

The last PCA church I was part of would probably best be labelled as part of the "spiritual renewal" camp. But we also spent a lot of time teaching and defending doctrine. And we were "missional" in many ways, too. We really couldn't conceive of being any of these without also being the others. They fed each other.

 

[JS116]

As with most generalizations... there's a kernel of truth to it, but as soon as you say it people will want to tell you how it isn't exactly true or fair or applicable across the board.

The PCA is a far more complicated animal than that statement allows. There are divisions within the denomination itself between churches that tend to think first of themselves as upholding doctrine and those that tend to think first of themselves as places for spiritual renewal or "missional" activities. But all PCA churches will value all these things to an extent. The difference is what's top of mind.

The last PCA church I was part of would probably best be labelled as part of the "spiritual renewal" camp. But we also spent a lot of time teaching and defending doctrine. And we were "missional" in many ways, too. We really couldn't conceive of being any of these without also being the others. They fed each other.

Thank you Jack for you assessment. That gives some considerable insight about the PCA. I guess it's fair to say, while the denomination is more focus on evangelism than other denominations, it also has a mission to be theologically sound.

I was thinking the "missional" churches had to be somewhat theologically sound if they were ordained in the PCA

 

[Zach]

I thought this was an interesting blog post about what is going on in the PCA over at the Aquila Report by a PCA Pastor.I don't know what I think about it and I would be interested in hearing the opinions of some of the PCA Members and Pastors on the board.

 

[earl40]

As a person who is about to be admitted into a local PCA congregation I see that the church we are about to join is missional in that we are encourged to be tell our neighbors and 'officially' evangelize if we are so inclined.

So far as our PCA churh not being confessional I was a tad disapointed, in that as one who went through the interview process I am not sure a Morman would have any problem going through the process and becoming a member.

 

[toddpedlar]

As a person who is about to be admitted into a local PCA congregation I see that the church we are about to join is missional in that we are encourged to be tell our neighbores about Jesus if we are inclined without being officaillay ordained to so. Now from what I have read the OPC does not even "allow" such. Now I believe some members of the OPC would say they would have no problem with what our church encourages, but from what I have read here the official OPC church would not allow their members even try to evangelize the lost unless they were ordained. I may be missing something in my view but this is very easy to see if one spends any time at the Puratin forums.

So far as our PCA churh not being confessional I was a tad disapointed, in that as one who went through the interview process I am not sure a Morman would have any problem going through the process and becoming a member.

Your statement about "official OPC church" misses the mark entirely and could be construed as libelous. Do you really believe that the OPC officially forbids its members to speak to others about Christ??? Do you not see that there might be a difference between making a practice of 'informal evangelism' and telling neighbors (important that you chose the word "neighbors" there - the people you naturally have contact with in your daily life) the reasons for the hope that lies within you??

 

[jogri17]

Will someone define for me what ''confessionalism is''? Seriously, I keep on hearing people (dgh, rsc, horton, ct, etc.) saying we need to recover a Reformed identity rooted in our confessional heritage, I have yet to hear someone define practically what confessionalism is.

Is it defined by singing Psalms only, having 2 services a every sunday, not go Power to Change when in University, eating Hagelslag, or taking naps, etc.? Does it mean Catechetical preaching?All these elements can be found in other traditions. RSC presumes a definition a confessionalism, but I do think he fails to define it in ''recovering the reformed confession''. It's hard to have a confession when one side refuses to define Confessionalism. Personally, I think there are elements in methodism, pietism, neo-evangelicalism, etc. that are reconsilable with a quiaunderstanding of subscription to the Westminster Standards or the 3 forms of Unity.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Will someone define for me what ''confessionalism is''?

I will bite. I do not know what many of the Westminster Cali guys are after but I think I can explain what most of us mean. I will just use the PCA as an example. If I were a person who had no exposure to reformed theology and happened to walk into a PCA church I may never find out what it actually means to be presbyterian in the historical sense. Plenty of PCA churches look like the average American evangelical church with programs and gimmicks and the like. Many of these are contrary to the confessions that are supposed to be the statement of faith for our church. Confessionalism in this case means that the Elders who have to affirm the standards to be ordained actually mean what they say and govern accordingly. The confessions should be treated as the official understanding of scripture and practices that are against them should be removed from our churches, while practices spelled out by the confession yet neglected should be reinstated. To the best of my knowledge, the way that the standards as a whole are accepted by the denomination that does not mean you would have to accept exclusive psalmody. Yet it would still regulate to an extent the worship of the PCA which can be anything from an organ to a rock band lazer light show (I am hopefully exaggerating).

 

[jogri17]

I will bite. I do not know what many of the Westminster Cali guys are after but I think I can explain what most of us mean. I will just use the PCA as an example. If I were a person who had no exposure to reformed theology and happened to walk into a PCA church I may never find out what it actually means to be presbyterian in the historical sense. Plenty of PCA churches look like the average American evangelical church with programs and gimmicks and the like. Many of these are contrary to the confessions that are supposed to be the statement of faith for our church. Confessionalism in this case means that the Elders who have to affirm the standards to be ordained actually mean what they say and govern accordingly. The confessions should be treated as the official understanding of scripture and practices that are against them should be removed from our churches, while practices spelled out by the confession yet neglected should be reinstated. To the best of my knowledge, the way that the standards as a whole are accepted by the denomination that does not mean you would have to accept exclusive psalmody. Yet it would still regulate to an extent the worship of the PCA which can be anything from an organ to a rock band lazer light show (I am hopefully exaggerating).

Ok, that was very helpful. Now to a certain extent I agree There is a distinction between the theology of the Confessions and the practices of mainstream neo-evangelicalism. But for the sake of dialogue and to better help me formulate my thoughts and keep this dialogue going, let me push back slightly please.

You said these things, here is the questions I would like to pose back:
«The confessions should be treated as the official understanding of scripture and practices that are against them should be removed from our churches, while practices spelled out by the confession yet neglected should be reinstated. »

Do the Confessions (3 forms of Unity and Westminster Standards) speak in detail concerning our practices in such a way that many more evangelical congregations would be in practice? Is the church bound to understand the Confessions in such a way that the original authors most likely intended something to mean, or if their language was less than precise on a point (which I think many people would say the Regulative Principle is very broad and not precise as articulated in the confessions), interpret it broader than the original authors intended?

«while practices spelled out by the confession yet neglected should be reinstated.» What examples spelled out by the confession are neglected in more contemporary PCA churches?

Thanks

 

[jwright82]

Will someone define for me what ''confessionalism is''?

On one level it means taking the confession seriously. It is not willy nilly oh yeah sure I suscribe to the confession. No one in the PCA, that I know of, is aginst being confessional. They are just lax on what is an o.k. interpretation of the confession, which allows for all sorst of views I guess. But if you are confessional than you are trying to understand the confession as it has been traditionaly understood.

 

[Unoriginalname]

[/COLOR]

Do the Confessions (3 forms of Unity and Westminster Standards) speak in detail concerning our practices in such a way that many more evangelical congregations would be in practice?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Is the church bound to understand the Confessions in such a way that the original authors most likely intended something to mean, or if their language was less than precise on a point (which I think many people would say the Regulative Principle is very broad and not precise as articulated in the confessions), interpret it broader than the original authors intended?

I am pretty sure this would be a point of debate but at least for my definition, I would say that we confess the Standards as received or interpreted not necessarily as they were originally written. I am sure someone who is not a 22 year old punk kid (referring to myself) could correct me on this. I understand this is not a simple issue, I just know that what I desire is a uniform understanding of what standards mean for our church.

 

[jogri17]

[/COLOR]

On one level it means taking the confession seriously. It is not willy nilly oh yeah sure I suscribe to the confession. No one in the PCA, that I know of, is aginst being confessional. They are just lax on what is an o.k. interpretation of the confession, which allows for all sorst of views I guess. But if you are confessional than you are trying to understand the confession as it has been traditionaly understood.

But then you are not being confessional, you are being a traditionalist. What the text says, v. how we interpret it are 2 entirely different things. Surely you can be a strict confessionalist (I consider myself one) as well as holding to views that the writers of the Confessions and those who interpret it would disagree with. That's the nature of Confessions, they are time limited and consensus documents.

On one level it means taking the confession seriously. It is not willy nilly oh yeah sure I suscribe to the confession

This is a very subjective definition. I have read every English commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, I use it in my personal devotions (the Confession) and I'm working on a long term project to fundraise to get a critical translation of the Westminster Standards and the 3 forms of Unity in French. Yet, I would strongly ally myself with the more Tim Keller side of the PCA. I just think people confuse Confessional subscription and Church governance. The Confessions speak very little on how the Church is to be run, except for broud concepts. People just presume that how it was done in the 16th and 17th centuries = the confessional posistion, when the confessions don't adress important issues that the Bible does. This is why The CRC is in shambles in my humble opinion. The confessions do not adress egalatarianism v. complementarianism, important hermeuntical questions that have come about as a result of liberal scholarship, certain elements concerning the nature of Scripture, etc.

I personally would be happy for conservatives to steal a page from the liberals and create a ''Book of Confessions'', only I would add ''the Danver's statement, and teh Chicago statement to the 3 forms of unity and Westminster standars'' and require subscription to that. Unless we get out of the notion that Theology was something settled at the time of the Reformation and we continue to use the same language of the past, we doom ourselves and the Reformed Faith for not being in dialogue with others and responding in the proper manner.

Just some thoughts.

 

[jwright82]

But then you are not being confessional, you are being a traditionalist. What the text says, v. how we interpret it are 2 entirely different things. Surely you can be a strict confessionalist (I consider myself one) as well as holding to views that the writers of the Confessions and those who interpret it would disagree with. That's the nature of Confessions, they are time limited and consensus documents.

I wouldn't disagree with that. But what I meant is that we have a tradition that has been interpreting these documents since they were written. So although we can and have developed in our theological understanding we don't forget that tradition in what we are doing. If you arive at a totaly new understanding of the confession than you might want to be cautious in accepting it, if it is unheard of in the historic reformed tradition.

There are areas of genuine disagreement (like just what exactly does "general equity" mean?) and that is fine. But on nearly everything else the confession is clear in what it teaches, it is just the nature of words that they can be twisted to mean something slightly different. It is history IMOH that regulates how we interpret most things. Where we disagree with history we should do so with reverence and for solid biblical reason.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

This is a very subjective definition. I have read every English commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, I use it in my personal devotions (the Confession) and I'm working on a long term project to fundraise to get a critical translation of the Westminster Standards and the 3 forms of Unity in French. Yet, I would strongly ally myself with the more Tim Keller side of the PCA. I just think people confuse Confessional subscription and Church governance. The Confessions speak very little on how the Church is to be run, except for broud concepts.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, sorry. In the context of what I wrote what I meant was that no one in the PCA is an outright anticonfessionalit, except Enns and Choong up in New York. Even the Federal Vision guys at least seem to think that their views are confessional. But a lot of people believe in a very broad understanding of the confession, so as to allow all sorts of interpretations as all valid. That is not taking the confession seriously. It teaches one thing and one thing only. In certian sections more general language was used to allow for different views but it is exact on whatever it teaches. Taking the confession seriously means we seek to understand it correctly and submit ourselves to it as a subordinate document to the scriptures but a summery of biblical teaching as well.

The Confessions speak very little on how the Church is to be run, except for broud concepts. People just presume that how it was done in the 16th and 17th centuries = the confessional posistion, when the confessions don't adress important issues that the Bible does. This is why The CRC is in shambles in my humble opinion. The confessions do not adress egalatarianism v. complementarianism, important hermeuntical questions that have come about as a result of liberal scholarship, certain elements concerning the nature of Scripture, etc.

That is why we have study commities and the The Book of Church Order.

I personally would be happy for conservatives to steal a page from the liberals and create a ''Book of Confessions'', only I would add ''the Danver's statement, and teh Chicago statement to the 3 forms of unity and Westminster standars'' and require subscription to that. Unless we get out of the notion that Theology was something settled at the time of the Reformation and we continue to use the same language of the past, we doom ourselves and the Reformed Faith for not being in dialogue with others and responding in the proper manner.

Well, not to get this thread off track but I would recomend you study the Federal Vision heresy to see ho wimportant the use and meaning of words affects the whole edifice of theology. Or for that matter the Trinitarian/Christological debates that gave us the three echumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicean, and Athansian). All debates over the huge differences in the changing of little words in our doctrinal formulas.

 

[jogri17]

Well, not to get this thread off track but I would recomend you study the Federal Vision heresy to see ho wimportant the use and meaning of words affects the whole edifice of theology. Or for that matter the Trinitarian/Christological debates that gave us the three echumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicean, and Athansian). All debates over the huge differences in the changing of little words in our doctrinal formulas.

No question here, but that proves my point that we need new creeds and confessons because the older ones are just not sufficient. The Apostle's creed while trinitarian in structure, does not explicetely teach it, thus Nicea was necessary, and than the Athanasian furthermore to just make the point clear. The idea of clarifying the Reformed documents is anathema to the majority of folk, except those who are in deep theological circles and who care. The confessions, great as they are, are not sufficient for the 21st century unless the Church is commited to cultural isolation and many churches and groups within NAPARC have choosen that. The more a church wants to be the church and interact with the broader Christian community and the confront the world, it needs to change and adapt language in order to better express and teach the Reformed Faith.

 

[jwright82]

Well, not to get this thread off track but I would recomend you study the Federal Vision heresy to see ho wimportant the use and meaning of words affects the whole edifice of theology. Or for that matter the Trinitarian/Christological debates that gave us the three echumenical creeds (Apostle's, Nicean, and Athansian). All debates over the huge differences in the changing of little words in our doctrinal formulas.

No question here, but that proves my point that we need new creeds and confessons because the older ones are just not sufficient. The Apostle's creed while trinitarian in structure, does not explicetely teach it, thus Nicea was necessary, and than the Athanasian furthermore to just make the point clear. The idea of clarifying the Reformed documents is anathema to the majority of folk, except those who are in deep theological circles and who care. The confessions, great as they are, are not sufficient for the 21st century unless the Church is commited to cultural isolation and many churches and groups within NAPARC have choosen that. The more a church wants to be the church and interact with the broader Christian community and the confront the world, it needs to change and adapt language in order to better express and teach the Reformed Faith.

Well that is certianly a valid P.O.V., I for one don't see a need to change them but I am open to the idea.