Richard:
I have some background in both the denominations you speak of. So I have an idea of the difference you're talking about. I would say, first of all, that in both denominations there is an onus on office-bearers to defend the faith the denomination subscribes to. This has nothing to do with personal exceptions. Exceptions exist in both denominations, but there is a difference in the view of formal unity within the denomination.
For example, the CanRC has only one Psalter in use in all its churches. This is an agreed policy for the denomination. But the OPC has no such agreement, but it rather takes the form of a suggestion. An individual church may opt for a hymnal other than the Trinity Hymnal. There is more individualism in the churches.
This also hold true for personal convictions. The respective denominations take different views on how this is determined. The CanRC holds a more uniform and formal approach, which would make FV-like isms more difficult to find root. But the OPC reacts more after the fact, with finally GA deciding on an FV-like ism after it has been circulated somewhat. In the CanRC this would likely be viewed as schismatic, since they hold a more formal uniformity within all the churches. In the OPC it is deemed as a healthy vitality, to some degree.
Of course, things like the justification issue gets a lot of publicity before GA makes a decision on it. But the general view is that it is not a negative effect on personal spirituality to explore ideas and to apply Scripture to them. So some things, like FV, etc., are deemed as formally legitimate until GA decides differently. This is the exception to subscription you are referring to, I think. So it seems a "before the fact" compared to "after the fact" type of comparison: the CanRC compared to the OPC respectively. Does this make sense?
In both denominations however, as I understand it, all office-bearers are called to defend the faith that the churches hold to, regardless of personal exceptions. The CanRC is more denominationally minded, so subscriptionism takes on a different form. It really is not possible for a church not to subscriptionist, as it is that they all are supposed to hold to the Bible, and no other teachings. So the OPC cannot, because of convention, hold to a subscriptionism like the CanRC without doing a major workover on a lot of other things. And I would not recommend that. Some things, I think, need a lot of work, but not its basis of operation like it is. These denominations need each other's different ways to keep a proper balance.
The reason I say this is because the CanRC is in danger at times of placing the denomination or the individual church at a level that minimizes individual membership. I know this has happened to a personal aquaintance of mine. But on the other hand, the OPC is in danger of allowing far too much personal leaway for office-bearers, as exampled by my situation. In both cases the situation turned very serious, but it did not have to. In the former case, it was a criticism of a denominational policy, and he was ostracized right out of the church for it. It was very poorly handled, but its just not done, to criticize the denomination, in the church where he was.
But in my case there is an unspoken licence, it seems, that a minister can preach as Scriptural teaching what is really only personal opinion or conviction. And to raise an objection to that causes wonderment and incredulity on the official level. I know its not the norm, but it clearly demonstrates the allowed variance from one denomination to another, from one kind of Reformed perspective to another. What I had to deal with simply would not have happened in the CanRC; it's just unthinkable. But on the other hand, what happened to a personal aquaintance of mine in the CanRC simply could not have happened in the OPC.
Both were wrong, in my estimation. But it showed the weakness of each system.
This is, in perspective, an entirely different thing than subscriptionism. I don't think that is the problem, though I think that the OPC could benefit from the formal subscriptionism of the CanRC-type. As well, the CanRC is quite a bit different than it used to be. Unity talks with the URC is very significant in that respect. In both denominations you will find that the membership qualifications are quite similar and unimposing. And in both denominations you will find the same determination and zeal for Scriptural soundness on the part of the office-bearers. The difference, it seems to me, is the view each has of the importance of the denomination, how she views herself as an expression of the one true, invisible church, and how that plays out in policy and practice.
These are just my observations. I don't claim any kind of authority on this. I now no longer think that mere subscriptionism for the OPC is the answer, though it may help. But I also like the direction the CanRC is going, with some concerns about some things. On the other hand, I see some very disquieting things going on in both denominations. So I share the concerns, though I may not put them in the same terms.
