Is Church Discipline Incompatible with Sola Scriptura?

Church Discipline Is, in Theory, Compatible with Sola Scriptura

In their arguments against Sola Scriptura, I have frequently heard Catholics argue that Protestant churches are acting hypocritically when they discipline members for disagreeing with or opposing the teaching of the church, given the teaching of Sola Scriptura.  The argument often goes something like this:  "Sola Scriptura teaches that there is no Magisterium, no Supreme Court in the Church that determines what the true interpretation of Scripture is.  Rather, everyone has a right to interpret Scripture for themselves.  This is called the 'right of private judgment'.  Each Protestant church can maintain its own existence only by maintaining this right, because their independent position is based on their own unique biblical interpretations.  But Protestant churches, particularly confessional churches that have courts that try people for false teaching, are being hypocritical, because the leaders maintain their own positions by means of the right of private judgment, while they deny that right to their members and discipline them for disagreeing with the biblical interpretations of the leaders.  They tell everyone to practice Sola Scriptura--which includes the right of private judgment--but then they discipline them when they do so."

I think this argument--or at least this form of it--is fundamentally flawed.  Here's why:  Protestants who affirm Sola Scriptura do not affirm a "right of private judgment" understood as described above.  No such right is inherent in the idea of Sola Scriptura.  Protestants (at least historical, theologically-conservative, confessional Protestants) do not teach that people have a right to interpret Scripture any way they like.  Protestants affirm rather that the Bible is the supreme authority in matters of doctrine, and that everyone has a duty to agree with the Bible.  Confessional Protestant churches affirm the Bible as the supreme authority, so they do indeed recognize a right and a duty belonging to each Christian to check the views of their leaders against the teachings of Scripture and to reject those views if they go against Scripture.  But if, instead, it is the leaders' position that is in accord with Scripture, the church member has no right to oppose it but rather a duty to submit to it.  So if a church member opposes the teaching of Scripture which is enshrined in the church's official confession, the church has every right to discipline that member.  Such discipline is perfectly consistent with the idea of Sola Scriptura.

In short, confessional Protestants do not teach that everyone's individual interpretation of Scripture is the ultimate authority, or that everyone's personal views are the ultimate authority; rather, they teach that Scripture, rightly interpreted is the ultimate authority, and everyone has a duty to conform their views to Scripture.  So it is perfectly appropriate, then, for churches to discipline members for rejecting or opposing the proper interpretation of Scripture on the basis of their own false interpretations of Scripture.

Church Discipline Is, in Practice, Often Incompatible to Some Degree with Sola Scriptura

However, while this common Catholic argument is fundamentally flawed in the way it is often formulated, there is some truth to it.  Sola Scriptura does say that every individual has the right and the duty to conduct his own investigation into the meaning of Scripture and, after he has done so, to stick with that interpretation even in opposition to church leadership.  That investigation must be conducted with care, diligence, humility, and prayer, with deference to the Church's tradition, to the great doctors of the Church, to the work of scholars, etc.  It cannot be a sloppy, haphazard, biased investigation.  But, once a properly-executed investigation of Scripture is carried out, every individual has a right and a duty to follow the interpretation that emerges from such a study--not because every individual has a right to believe whatever he wants, but because every individual has a duty to follow Scripture as the supreme standard.

However, under the Sola Scriptura view, unlike in Catholicism, there is no human Supreme Court on earth in doctrinal matters that can be looked to with implicit trust to provide the objectively-correct interpretation of Scripture.  This causes some serious problems in Protestant practice that Catholics (and others) have often justly pointed out.

1. For one thing, even if Scripture is perfectly plain and clear in its teachings, the lack of a human supreme doctrinal court tends to contribute to a significant amount of anarchy and division among Protestants.  It is evident why that would be the case, when we understand human nature.  A church may have come to the correct understanding of Scripture, and enshrined that understanding in their confession of faith.  A church member comes along and opposes that teaching.  The church attempts to discipline that member, but the member says, "I have the right and duty to conduct my own investigation into the meaning of Scripture.  I have done so, and I find your interpretation incorrect.  So, since Scripture is a higher standard, a higher court of appeal, than you are, and since you disagree with Scripture, I have a right and a duty to refuse to submit to your discipline and to continue to promote what I see Scripture as teaching.  We must obey God rather than men."  There is no human court to which both sides in this dispute can turn to adjudicate this difference over the proper interpretation of Scripture, so this controversy must end at an impasse, practically speaking, unless one side changes their view.  The two sides will go their separate ways, both insisting that they are right because they are in accord with the true supreme standard--the Scriptures.

Here is a statement of this problem coming, not from a Catholic, but from an Atheist Libertarian author:

The likelihood of conflicting interpretations of special revelation did not pose as much of a theoretical problem for Catholics as it did for Protestants. In the Catholic Church the pope was the ultimate arbiter of doctrinal controversies. His function was rather like that of the Supreme Court in American law; what the pope said was final, and that was the end of the matter (at least in theory). But Protestants, in rejecting papal authority and in maintaining that each person should use his or her own conscience to understand Scripture, generated a serious problem for themselves. Hundreds of Protestant sects arose, and their conflicting interpretations of the Bible frequently spilled over into politics. Thus Catholic critics of Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers were basically correct when they predicted that the Protestant approach to the Bible would result in a type of religious anarchy, as each individual viewed himself as the supreme authority in religious matters. Reverting to my previous analogy, the result was similar to what would happen if America had no Supreme Court, or judicial system of any kind, and each American was free to interpret and implement law according to his own judgment.

2. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, in reality, Scripture is not always completely plain and clear.  Certainly, there are some things on which Scripture is so explicit and clear that hardly anyone will be able to find themselves in honest disagreement with what almost everyone can see that it says.  For example, if someone wants to argue that Jesus was just an ordinary human being, it is pretty easy to see that Scripture is clearly against such a view.

However, on many issues which often constitute the basis of theological controversy, Scripture is not so explicitly clear.  Take infant baptism, for example.  This is one of the issues over which Protestants and Protestant churches have often been divided.  Scripture never explicitly addresses the subject.  And yet this is an issue that cannot be avoided.  A church must take some stand on this subject.  It must embrace and practice infant baptism, oppose infant baptism, allow infant baptism as optional, etc.  Any church cannot but take some position on this issue that others disagree with.  Since Scripture never explicitly addresses this subject, nor even clearly and plainly hints at it, if one is practicing Sola Scripture one must come to one's convictions on this subject by looking at what Scripture does say and trying to infer, based on all available evidence, what the most likely correct answer is.  But here we are into complex literary and doctrinal interpretation, and at this level of interpretation it is going to be very difficult to come to any clear, objective conclusion.  We simply do not know what the apostles would say if we were able to ask them what the proper answer is.  We can find clues in Scripture that we can try to use to help us lean more one way or another, but we have to admit that the evidence is sparse enough that we would not think it terribly surprising or absurd if, were we able to ask, say, the Apostle Paul what the correct answer is, he gave an answer different from ours.

This is exacerbated by the fact that we can't even know if this method of trying to figure out the truth is the proper one until we first show that Sola Scriptura is the correct presupposition for interpreting Scripture.  If Sola Scriptura is correct, then the proper way to figure out the answers to doctrinal disputes is to do one's best to interpret Scripture for oneself, making use of all the clues available, trying to infer the correct answer as best one can even in areas where Scripture is not plain or explicit.  But if Catholicism should turn out to be true, this would be the wrong way to interpret Scripture.  According to Catholicism, Scripture comes as part of a package deal which includes also an infallible Tradition and an infallible Church teaching authority (Magisterium).  Scripture is meant to be interpreted within the context of the infallible Tradition of the Church and under the guidance of the Church's God-guided interpreters.  The Magisterium of the Church constitutes a divinely-appointed human, visible Supreme Court to adjudicate doctrinal disputes.  So if Catholicism is true, the Sola Scriptura method of interpreting Scripture is almost certainly going to lead to false conclusions, at least sometimes, because we will not be using the proper, God-ordained method for its interpretation.

So when we try to come to a conclusion about something like infant baptism on the basis of our own personal investigation into Scripture, trying to sort out the most likely answer based on whatever clues and hints we can find, without any reliance on an infallible Tradition or Magisterium, we are in deep waters, and the results of our investigation are going to be very subjective.  If we know for a fact that Sola Scriptura is the right method for interpreting Scripture, then we can trust that God will overrule the obvious tendency towards subjectivity here and ensure that, if we do our best, we will end up with the right answer.  And, when we find ourselves in dispute with lots of other readers of Scripture who come to different conclusions, we will assume that they are objectively wrong, even though it is hard to prove on a human level that one's own conclusion was arrived at in a clearly, objectively-better way than the alternative conclusions.  (After all, in disputes over the meaning of complex and subtle literary documents, it is notoriously difficult to separate objectively-better interpretations from differences rooted in personality, background, bias, etc., and the Bible is certainly an extremely complex literary document, written in ancient times in ancient languages by many different people in ancient cultures, very alien from our own in many ways, over thousands of years, containing a variety of literary forms, etc.)  But when we throw in the fact that we first have to prove that Sola Scriptura is even the proper way of proceeding to begin with, I think it must be concluded that there is simply insufficient data in Scripture available to do what Protestants try to do with it.  To a large extent, Protestants are trying to squeeze the milk of a complete and detailed doctrinal system out of the stone of a Scripture that simply cannot yield what they want from it.

Conclusion

I think that Catholics should be more careful in their criticism of Sola Scriptura not to caricature the viewpoint.  To conflate the idea of Scripture as the supreme doctrinal standard with the idea that people have a right to interpret Scripture in their own way is inaccurate and misrepresents what Protestants believe.  However, I think that this caricature is based on some true observations and legitimate criticisms that, if stated more carefully and clearly, can constitute some significant and legitimate concerns and objections regarding Sola Scriptura without mischaracterizing the position.  While Sola Scriptura does not imply that individuals have an intrinsic right to interpret Scripture contrary to the teachings of the leaders of their particular church, and so church discipline is not, per se, contrary to Sola Scriptura, yet, in practice, the lack of a supreme human doctrinal court combined with Scripture's lack of explicitness and clarity on many important doctrinal subjects does indeed lead to the conclusion that there is a degree of inconsistency between the practice of Sola Scriptura and the practice of church discipline.  For a church to be able reasonably to discipline one of its members for rejecting or opposing the doctrinal positions of the church and its leaders, the church has to be able to show with objective conclusiveness that its own doctrinal positions are indeed the positions of Scripture.  Since the Sola Scriptura method of interpreting Scripture cannot supply that kind of objective conclusiveness, there is often an unreasonable inequality involved when the church regards its own interpretations of Scripture as objectively superior to the interpretations of its allegedly erring members.

For more, see here, here, and here.

Published on the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

What does the FPCS think of the OPC?

I raise this question in response to some who have challenged my claims on this point in recent months.  Despite these challenges, the answer to the question need not be a difficult one to arrive at.  The FPCS is a Presbyterian church.  It holds to a presbyterian form of church government.  In a presbyterian form of church government, the visible church has a duty to be united in formal unity and the government of the church has a duty to function collegially.  Under such a system, denominational division entails a charge of schism against the church one is divided from and a refusal to recognize that other church's ecclesiastical authority.  The FPCS and the OPC are denominationally divided from each other.  Therefore, the FPCS (giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is consistent with its own professed presbyterianism--and this is the charitable way to understand a church's actions unless the church gives good reason to think otherwise) thinks of the OPC as a schismatic sect--part of the visible church de facto, but a part that has cut itself off from the de jure unity of the legal body.

We can confirm that this is the FPCS's position also by looking at the Free Presbyterian Catechism, written up by the FP church itself (a new edition having just been issued in 2013).  I have pasted relevant portions from that catechism below, combined with a little commentary of my own (in red).

106 Q. What is meant by Christ’s Church being Catholic?
A. The word Catholic means Universal, which teaches us that the Church of Christ is one in all nations.

There is only one Body of Christ, and so that Body (the church) is one in all nations, throughout all the earth.  Here we see articulated the biblical and presbyterian view of the unity and catholicity of the church.  There are not many "bodies of Christ" divided up into separate and independent portions in different nations or other localities.

108 Q. What do we mean by the term “the visible Church”?
A. The visible Church is made up of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children (Acts 2:39).

Again, we see the worldwide or international character of the church--not just in its "invisible" aspect but in its "visible" aspect as well.  There is only one visible church on the earth, and so it is one in all nations.

112 Q. How should we describe the Free Presbyterian Church?
A. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland should be described as a branch of the visible Church in the world.

The language of "branch" suggests that there are other branches.  The FPCS is not itself the totality of the visible church in the world.

114 Q. What are the other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland?
A. The other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland today are the Church of Scotland, the United Free Church, the Free Church, the Free Church (Continuing), the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the Associated Presbyterian Churches and the International Presbyterian Church[17]

Here are some other branches of the visible church in the nation of Scotland.  The Catechism focuses in upon Scotland because the FPCS exists mostly in Scotland and considers itself by Scottish national constitution the rightful official church of the nation of Scotland.  But there are, of course, other branches of the visible church in other nations as well, such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which exists primarily in the United States.

128. Q. Are there other forms of Church government adopted by men professing to follow the New Testament?
A. Yes, there is the Independent or Congregational form of government in which congregations are not in subjection to superior courts, and frequently no distinction is made between teaching and ruling elders.

In presbyterianism, church government is collegial, and so congregations are not independent.  They are subject to superior courts.  As Charles Hodge articulated it, "The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole."  In independency, by contrast, congregations are not subject to larger binding church councils.

140 Q. What is its Supreme Court of the Free Presbyterian Church?
A. The Synod is the Supreme Court of the Free Presbyterian Church and regulations for its affairs, and those of all the other Church courts, are to be found in the Church’s Manual of Practice.

The highest court recognized by the FPCS is its own Synod.  This highlights its separation from other denominations, as there are no mutual courts uniting the FPCS to any other denomination and so no recognized mutual submission with any other denomination.

141 Q. Is the Free Presbyterian Church opposed to union with other Churches?
A. No, the Free Presbyterian Church encourages biblical union with any Church in Scotland or overseas provided that there is a unity in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, and practice.

Of course the FPCS encourages biblical union with other churches.  This follows from its commitment to a presbyterian understanding of the unity and government of the church.  In a presbyterian system, the visible church throughout the earth is to function in formal unity and with collegiality in its government.  Denominational independency is forbidden.

142 Q. But should we not for the sake of brotherliness overlook differences and join with other Churches?
A. No, it is not brotherly to overlook important principles in doctrine, worship, government, discipline, and practice and so unless there is common ground on all these, any union would be at the expense of truth (Rom. 16:17, 18; 2 Thess. 3:6).

Although unity is a requirement, that unity must be in the truth.  There is therefore a warrant and a duty to refrain from uniting with churches that have compromised the faith and practice of the church in matters where Scripture has spoken clearly.  Here, the catechism articulates the FP church's opposition to latitudinarianism.

143 Q. Can Christ’s prayer “that they all may be one” (John 17:21, 23) justify creating a single Church from every Church that professes to be Christian, irrespective of its doctrine?
A. No, because this would make it contradict the clear testimony of Scripture that Church unity can only be in the truth (Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:13-16; 1 Tim. 3:15).

Same comments as just above.

144 Q. Are there any in the visible Church who are not true believers?
A. In every Church that professes Christ there will be a mixed company of true believers and others who are not true believers.

This articulates the distinction between the "invisible" and the "visible" church.

145 Q. May there be such declension in a professing Christian Church that it becomes no longer Christian?
A. The Scriptures speak of a “synagogue of Satan” in spite of its profession (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9). Christ calls his people to come out of Babylon, which is the name given to the apostate Church of Rome in Scripture (Rev. 18:4).

Churches can become so corrupted that they should be considered "apostate."  Among these is the Romanist church, which has vitiated the core of the gospel by its false doctrine and worship.

146 Q. When should individual believers separate from the fellowship of others?
A. The Scriptures enjoin believers to withdraw themselves from those who are professed brethren and who walk disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6), so when men have so rejected sound doctrine, right government, and discipline, or have introduced superstitious worship, or are maintaining a schismatic position, and when an orderly correction of these evils fails, then believers are to separate from such.

Christ has given the keys of discipline to his church in order to preserve purity in doctrine and practice.  When believers fall into sin in various ways, if they cannot be reclaimed through an "orderly correction," they are to be cut off from the visible body until they repent.  This applies not just to church members, but to church leaders as well.  If church leaders are called to repent and refuse to do so, are then cut off by discipline (in the name of Christ) from the visible church, but yet continue to maintain that they continue to possess ecclesiastical legitimacy, the result will be the creation of two church bodies (denominations) where before there was only one.  In this case, continuing denominational separation becomes a duty.  (This happened, for example, when the FP church separated from the Declaratory Act Free Church in 1893.)

The concept of "schism" is introduced here, which will be discussed further below.  It is important to note here that we are to separate from those who "are maintaining a schismatic position."  That is, we are to refrain from union with those who are schismatics.  If there are professed church leaders who are schismatic, we are not to join with them by recognizing and submitting to their professed authority, for they are to be regarded as cut off from the fellowship of the church (and therefore also, obviously, from office in the church) until they cease to be schismatic.

147 Q. When is it lawful to break ecclesiastical union through separation?

A. Unity is an absolute duty and therefore the only lawful reason for separation is when one is compelled unavoidably to sin in order to maintain the bond of union. In this case the sin of schism is made by those compelling to sin. Up until this point any separation would be unjust schism since one may still testify against corruptions in the Church and use all lawful means to have them removed.

"Unity is an absolute duty."  Of course.  This follows, again, from the presbyterian nature of the church.  Since unity within the visible church is an absolute duty, we have a moral obligation to preserve that unity unless continuing in that unity requires us to sin, in which case we are warranted and have a duty to separate.  For example, when the former Free Church of Scotland adopted the Declaratory Act (see link above), this altered the constitution of the church and thus required sin of all its officers.  Therefore, the fathers of the FP church had no choice but to separate in the name of Christ from the Free Church.

Such a separation is warranted because those who have forced the separation by requiring sin must be disciplined by the church according to Christ's command.  Denominational separation is thus an act of discipline, by which the faithful party cuts the erring party off from the church and refuses to acknowledge its continuing legitimacy and authority.  It entails a charge of schism from the faithful party to the erring party, and the erring party is henceforth (until it repents) to be regarded as schismatic.

If separation is engaged in when sin is not required to maintain unity, this separation is unwarranted and is thus itself a schismatic act.

148 Q. What is schism?
A. Schism is a breach of the union and communion that ought to exist within the visible Church in doctrine, government and worship (1 Cor. 12:25; Rom. 16:17).

The visible church, being one in all the earth, has a duty to manifest that oneness by unity in its doctrine and worship (and practice), and in its government.  That is why unity is an absolute duty.  It is why "the Free Presbyterian Church encourages biblical union with any Church in Scotland or overseas."  Schism--that is, the unwarranted division of one part of the visible church from another part--is thus a sin.

A question arises here:  What is the status of a "schismatic church"?  Should it be considered a part of the visible church or not?  I think the answer is "yes" and "no."  In a de facto sense, schismatic churches are parts of the visible church because they profess Christianity.  (It is in this sense that the FPCS claims to be one branch among others within the visible church.)  That is precisely what makes schism possible and so heinous.  We do not speak of the church being in "schism" from the body of Buddhists in the world precisely because Buddhists do not profess to be parts of the Body of Christ at all.  There can only be schism between parts of the de facto visible church.  On the other hand, we are not to have formal fellowship with schismatic churches.  We are not to join formally with them and submit to their authority.  They do not possess formal legitimacy as churches.  Thus, they can be said to be out of the visible church considered de jure.  Historian James Walker, I think, expresses this nuance well as he attempts to articulate how the Scottish Presbyterian churches of the 1600s viewed schismatic churches:  "It is not clear to me what, according to this view, was the exact position of a schismatical Church. If it had the main truths, it was still a Church,--a Church, I think they would have said, in concreto and materially, and salvation work might go on there; but formally and in abstracto, it could not be recognized as a Church, or communion held with it as such."  A distinction of this sort seems the only way to preserve the nuances articulated here in the catechism.  John Calvin articulated a similar distinction in his comments on the status of the Church of Rome in his Institutes:  "In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain - symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church."  Of course, none of this is to say that all schismatic churches are on the same level in terms of how far they have departed from orthodoxy in doctrine and practice.

Can we have any Christian fellowship with those in schismatic churches?  Clearly, we cannot have any kind of fellowship which would negate our position regarding the schismatic nature of those in schism.  But if we can recognize (as I think we can, and as is implied in the above discussion) that the Body of Christ is manifested in various ways (though not legally) among schismatics at least in some circumstances, and that there are grounds for a charitable hope that many even among schismatics are truly regenerate Christians (members of the invisible church), then it seems to me (though this question is not addressed by the catechism) that we can engage in various kinds of informal fellowship with schismatics, so long as we do not engage in any fellowship that would condone their schism or negate our formal separation.

149 Q. What is the duty of Churches in Scotland who profess to represent the Reformed Church?

A. All Presbyterian Churches in Scotland claiming to represent the Reformed Church and who have caused or who maintain schisms contrary to the avowed Westminster Standards are bound to repent and to return to purity in doctrine, worship, government and discipline. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is not guilty of schism and claims to be the true heir of the Reformed Church of Scotland in doctrine, worship, government and discipline. While she certainly does not claim perfection, she maintains that all Churches in Scotland should unite around her constitution and testimony.

Here, the catechism makes explicit in the context of the nation of Scotland the conclusions already implicit above.  Since the FP church has a right to exist, and to exist for now separately from other denominations in Scotland, it follows that the other Scottish churches are in schism and thus need to "repent and to return to purity in doctrine, worship, government and discipline."  The FP church, of course, does not hold that itself is in schism, for that would be to reject its own legitimacy and authority and thus undermine its very claim to have a basis for separate existence.  Because the visible church has a duty to be unified, all churches in Scotland have a duty to unite around the FP testimony and thus with the FP church.

Of course, it is evident from the entire context that these same conclusions apply to the FP church's relationship with churches in other nations as well.  The catechism zones in to focus on the churches of Scotland because of its unique connection to Scotland, but the catechism has acknowledged that the visible church of Christ is and has a requirement to be "one in all nations," and thus, as it articulated earlier, biblical union is to be sought with churches in Scotland "and overseas" (and in nations other than Scotland but not overseas as well--that is, England).  The FP church's commitment to the international unity of the visible church in manifested, for example, in its existing congregations and presbyteries in other nations, such as its congregation in Santa Fe. TX, in the United States.  It has been said that these congregations in other nations are the seeds of national churches in these nations.  The 2011 FP Religion and Morals Committee Report (p. 11) put it this way:  "The Committee believes that this Presbyterial structure is the model for Church government in every nation and that our presence as a Church in other nations implies that we aim at fully established Presbyterian structures within these nations."  Thus, the FPCS does not recognize, for example, the OPC in the US as constituting the de jure church in the US, but has begun the process of building its own "Presbyterian structures" within the US.

Our look through the FP Catechism's discussion of the church and church unity has confirmed what we already knew from the implications of the FP's confession of presbyterian church government:  The FPCS believes itself warranted to continue for now in denominational separation from the OPC, and this means that the FPCS thinks of the OPC as a part of the de facto visible church but also as a schismatic sect speaking de jure.  There are other ways this conclusion can be confirmed as well, but we have now fulfilled my intentions for this particular article.

For more, see here and here.

UPDATE 3/10/15:  I thought I'd add a few quotations from the FP website further confirming what the FP Catechism says about the the oneness of the visible church throughout the world (not just in Scotland), the concomitant duty of unity, and thus the schismatic nature of any denomination (in Scotland or in any other nation) which is not in formal communion with the FPCS.

First of all, from the "What We Stand For" section of the FP website.  Under the heading of "Reformed in Church Practice" the website affirms that the FP church professes an "[a]ffirmation of Presbyterianism as the Scriptural system of church government to the exclusion of all others" and an "[a]cknowledgment that whilst all who profess the true religion should seek ecclesiastical union in one visible church, the Church’s testimony to Biblical truth should never be diluted: therefore our separate stance from other denominations is our unavoidable duty at the present time" (links in original).

Then, from the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the website, we have this comment in response to the question, "Are You Ecumenical?":

Being a Presbyterian church we believe in the unity of congregations in a Presbyterian structure. We do not believe in the spurious unity of the modern “ecumenical movement” which minimises doctrinal difference between the Protestant churches and which is leading towards reunion with Roman Catholicism under the pope. We believe in the unity of all Spirit-taught, born-again, believers in Christ throughout the world, and that this should be expressed ecclesiastically in Presbyterian church government.

See also this statement on "Our Separate Stance," which includes this comment:

Accordingly, conduct giving the impression that there is no obstacle to association with other Churches undermines the necessity for a separate position and is therefore inconsistent with loyal adherence to the Free Presbyterian Church, and is consequently disapproved of by this Church.

What They Have That We Don't

The various Reformed churches in the world, and in the United States, are not united in one body, under mutually-binding councils.  Assuming a presbyterian ecclesiology, this means that these separate denominations do not recognize each others' presbyterial authority.  They do not accept each other as legitimate branches of the de jure church of Christ (though they may see each other as expression of the church of Christ in a de facto sense).

Some Reformed people protest this evaluation, saying that the various Reformed denominations do indeed accept each others' legitimacy.  But, as I've argued in many places (such as here and here), such a claim makes no sense in a presbyterian context.  According to presbyterianism, the oneness of the church involves in its essence collegiality in its government--that is, churches which accept each others' legitimacy must function together in mutual submission to each other.  But divided denominations are not in such submission to each other, by definition.  Some protest that there is some connection between the denominations.  For example, many of them join together in various non-binding Reformed organizations (like ICRC and NAPARC).  The problem is that these organizations are non-binding.  Thus, they do not represent an expression of presbyterial mutual submission between the denominations.

It is helpful here to contrast the situation of the Reformed denominations with the situation of the Eastern Orthodox churches--particularly in the United States.  Due to a number of particular historical circumstances, there are many EO jurisdictions existing in the United States which overlap with each other.  This bugs many EO, because it presents an appearance of disunity.  For example, in the area where I live (northern Utah, near Salt Lake City), there are overlapping jurisdictions--including the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.  Ideally, distinct jurisdictions ought not to overlap.  (If you want to get a better feel of what I'm talking about here in terms of what's going on with the EO church in America, check out this helpful article by EO Father Andrew Stephen Damick.)  Does this mean that the EO church is in a similar state to the various Reformed denominations existing in the US, often overlapping each other by having presbytery boundaries overlap, etc.?  No, it does not, and the difference highlights the disunity of the Reformed churches compared to the EO.

The EO, despite the messiness of their jurisdictional situation in the US, still recognize each others' legitimacy and authority, and this is manifest tangibly in various ways.  For one thing, all the Orthodox churches in the US share the same faith, practice, and worship, unlike the various Reformed denominations.  Also, the EO churches function in mutual submission to each other governmentally, unlike the Reformed churches.  They accept the idea of larger, mutually-binding councils between themselves.  One of the most interesting tangible manifestations of their governmental unity is the existence of a body called The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America.  On the website of this body, you can find lists of churches that are in full communion with each other and are officially recognized as canonical--i.e. possessing de jure legitimacy.  You'll find no such official list recognized by the various Reformed denominations.  The Assembly is also working in concrete ways to end the jurisdictional confusion.  Here are some quotations from the "About" page of their website (linked to just above):

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America is one of thirteen bishops' assemblies that have been established in different geographical regions throughout the world. It is made up of all the active, canonical Orthodox bishops of the United States of America, of every jurisdiction.

The Assembly was established in accordance with the Decision of the 4^th Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, convoked in Chambésy, Switzerland, June 6-12, 2009, at which met representatives from all the universally-recognized autocephalous Orthodox churches. These representatives recognized substantial canonical "anomalies" in the organization and life of the Church in these regions, and realized that, though these anomalies had arisen from specific historical circumstances and pastoral needs, they nonetheless present a number of serious problems for the faithful; moreover, they give an appearance of disunity in the one holy Church. As such, these representatives unanimously agreed to the formation of the assemblies of bishops to heal, as quickly as possible, these anomalies. . . .

The purpose of the Assembly of Bishops of the United States of America is to preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church by helping to further her spiritual, theological, ecclesiological, canonical, educational, missionary and philanthropic aims. To accomplish this, the Assembly has as its goals: i) the promotion and accomplishment of Church unity in the United States ii) the strengthening of the common pastoral ministry to all the Orthodox faithful of the region; and iii) a common witness by the Church to all those outside her. In addition, the Assembly has as an express goal iv) the organization of the Church in the United States in accordance with the ecclesiological and the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church. . . .

Unlike SCOBA however, the Assembly is a transitional body. If it achieves its goal, it will make itself obsolete by developing a proposal for the canonical organization of the Church in the United States. This proposal will in turn be presented to the forthcoming Great and Holy Council, which will consist of all canonical Orthodox bishops throughout the world. Should this proposal be accepted, it is hoped that the Assembly of Bishops will then come to an end, ultimately to be succeeded by a governing Synod of a united Church in the United States.

The various Reformed denominations in the US, or throughout the world, could never have an organization like this, because the Reformed denominations are not unified in faith and practice, and they are unwilling to recognize any higher council outside of their own highest general assemblies.  There is no Reformed "Great and Holy Council" coming up to which plans for organizing and systematizing the various denominational jurisdictions could be submitted.  The EO are working to make it so that there will no longer be churches of the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction in the same locations as churches of the Antiochian or Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, etc.  But the Reformed denominations will never submit to a situation where there will no longer be any overlapping Reformed denominational jurisdictions.  The EO, despite some administrative confusion, are still one church, unified in faith and practice, with all the branches in mutual submission to each other.  Not so with the Reformed denominations.  So perhaps it is time for us to face up to that fact and stop pretending that we have more unity than we do.  Then we will be in a better position to seek the full unity of Christ's de facto church on the earth.

For more, see the above links, and also check out this book.

New Book: Presbyterianism Re-asserted

The book I wrote up last summer and have been tweaking ever since is now finally published, and can be found here as a free PDF.  I plan to put out a print version of it soon, and when I do I will put that link in an update here.

The book is an extended look at presbyterian church government and denominationalism and an argument that the one is inconsistent with the other.  I've made this argument many times on this blog (such as here), but the book ties the core observations and arguments (both from catholic and Reformed history and from the Bible) together.

B. B. Warfield Was No Presbyterian

I have noted in previous posts (such as here) the presence of a form of independency or semi-independency tending to pop up even in Presbyterian circles.  I have recently become aware that this tendency is present in full force in the writings of B. B. Warfield, a famous American Presbyterian theologian writing at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century.  I have read very little Warfield, but I recently came across some quotations from him that made me want to learn more about his views on church unity.  In my search, I came across his essay entitled "True Church Unity: What It Is."  (This version appears on the website of World Reformed Fellowship.  According to the website, it comes from a version "[r]eprinted in The Banner of Truth; Number 89; February, 1971; pp. 26-32; from Selected Shorter Writings; 1970; pp 299-307.)

If this article is characteristic of Warfield's thought in this area, then I can safely say that at least in the areas of church authority and unity, Warfield was no presbyterian but was rather a congregationalist (or at best a semi-congregationalist--but is this really different?).  He emphatically denies ecclesiastical authority outside of the local churches, which is the historic hallmark of independency as opposed to presbyterianism:

It is important to observe, however, that this unity was not organic, in the special sense of that word which would imply that it was founded on the inclusion of the whole Church under one universal government. The absence of such an organization is obvious on the face of the New Testament record, nor do its pages contain any clear promise of or prominent provision for it for the future. The churches are all organized locally, but no external bonds bind them together, except as this was here and there supplied to certain groups of churches by the common authority over them of the same apostolical founders. No central authority ruled over the whole Church. It is perfectly obvious that Jerusalem exercised no domination over Antioch, Antioch none over the churches founded by its missionaries. Nor were the churches associated in a common dominion of the whole over all the parts. Even in the next generation the most powerful lever Rome could bring to bear on Corinth was entreaty and advice. The apostles went forth to evangelize the world, not to rule it; they divided the work among themselves, and did not seek to control it as a 'college'; they delegated their individual authority to the local officers and founded no dynasty, whether individual or collegiate.

Presbyterians would agree that "no central authority ruled over the whole Church," in the sense of a single person (like the Pope) or some group of people above the ordinary officers of the local churches (such as cardinals or archbishops).  But Presbyterians would also equally insist that there is indeed another kind of central authority ruling over the church--precisely one of the kinds, in fact, that Warfield explicitly excludes when he says, "[n]or were the churches associated in a common dominion of the whole over all the parts."  The apostles, Warfield says, "delegated their individual authority to the local officers and founded no dynasty, whether individual or collegiate."  But this is not true, for according to Presbyterianism, the elders of the local churches do not function independently but are part of a college of elders ruling over the entire church.  This is the foundation for the authority of presbyteries and synods or councils.

1. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.

3. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31)

CHRIST hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church: to that purpose, the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hand of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the churches of the world upon all occasions.

And Christ hath since continually furnished some in his church with gifts of government, and with commission to execute the same, when called thereunto.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical, and synodical. . . .

IT is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the several assemblies before mentioned have power to convent, and call before them, any person within their several bounds, whom the ecclesiastical business which is before them doth concern.

They have power to hear and determine such causes and differences as do orderly come before them.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that all the said assemblies have some power to dispense church-censures. . . .

Synodical assemblies may lawfully be of several sorts, as provincial, national, and oecumenical. (Form of Presbyterial Church Government)

In short, according to Presbyterianism, the presbyterate of the church does not function simply in isolated factions, over local congregations, with (as Warfield puts it) "no external bonds" to "bind them together."  Rather, the presbyterate is collegial in nature, as individual elders function as parts of congregational sessions, sessions function in submission to presbyteries, and presbyteries function in submission to larger synods or councils.  There is no office above that of the the local elder (teaching or ruling), but the elders collectively exercise an authority over each other and have an obligation to submit to each other, and larger groups of elders have authority over individual elders or smaller groups of elders.  As Charles Hodge sums it up, "The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole."

It is astonishing that nowhere in Warfield's article does he even mention a passage of Scripture which clearly overturns his entire congregationalist mentality, and which is constantly on the lips of true presbyterians when they contend for the biblical view of church government.  I refer, of course, to the narrative of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.  This passage, among many others, is a great bane of congregationalists, for it shows the church doing exactly what they want to say the church is never to do--exercising collegial authority binding on the whole catholic church.

Warfield makes clear throughout his article that one of his main concerns is a false, latitudinarian idea of unity in which there is to be organizational unity among Christian at the expense of holding on to the whole counsel of God's Word.  And he is quite right to warn us of this idea.  But in avoiding this extreme, he seems to have gone to one on the other side and simply jettisoned the whole idea of organizational, governmental unity in the visible church.  The truth is that we need not just unity, and not just truth, but unity and truth and unity in the truth.

Here are just a couple more quotations from Warfield's article, from towards the end of it where he is summing up some of the consequences of his principles:

1. We are not to seek it [that is, church unity] in the inclusion of all Christians in one organization and under one government. A story is told of a man who, wishing a swarm of bees, caught every bee that visited his flowers and enclosed them together in a box, only to find the difference between an aggregation and a hive. We cannot produce unity by building a great house over a divided family. Different denominations have a similar right to exist with separate congregations, and may be justified on like grounds. . . .

The true pathway seems, then, to lead us as our present duty to:

1. Hearty recognition of all Christians as members of the body of Christ, and of all denominations which preach the gospel of Christ as sections of this one body.

2. Hearty and unwavering testimony to all God's truth known to us, as the truth of God to be confessed by all his people.

3.Co-operation in all good works as brethren.

4.Formal federation of denominations for prosecuting tasks common to the federated bodies, so far as such federation involves no sacrifice of principle or testimony.

Contrary to Warfield, different denominations do not have a right to exist similar to that of separate congregations.  Separate congregations are lawful and pragmatic divisions of the one church into local units for the better functioning and fellowship of the church (see the discussion of this in the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, linked to above).  However, these distinct congregations have an obligation to function in visible and governmental unity with each other in a presbyterial system--under sessions, presbyteries, and higher synods.  The whole idea of separate denominations, on the other hand, involves the idea of distinct churches or groups of churches refusing to submit to each other in formal, governmental unity, and this idea is inherently schismatic.  Divided denominations may recognize each other as de facto parts of the visible church, but the very idea of governmental division implies (at least assuming a consistent presbyterian system) that the divided denominations do not recognize each other as parts of the visible church de jure.

For a brief biblical case for presbyterian church government, see here.  For an examination of the Westminster Standards as they speak to the unity and collegial government of the church, see here.  For more, see here.

UPDATE 2/3/15:  Another concrete way of getting at how un-presbyterian Warfield's view is is to note that his view does not allow for any binding church assemblies beyond (at best) the level of presbytery.  He says, "[t]he churches are all organized locally, but no external bonds bind them together, except as this was here and there supplied to certain groups of churches by the common authority over them of the same apostolical founders."  He never (in this article, at least) clarifies whether by "locally" he is referring to the level of the local congregation or the level of the local presbytery.  My guess would be the former, because in later Presbyterianism presbyteries in general seem to get a lot less local than they used to be.  They seem almost to take over the role previously assigned to the "provincial synod."

Either way, Warfield's view does not recognize a presbyterial structure beyond the presbytery level.  In the OPC, for example, there are congregational sessions, presbyteries, and the General Assembly.  In the FPCS, there are sessions, presbyteries, and the Synod (with the idea that there would normally be a higher General Assembly if the church was larger).  Warfield's view declares illegitimate and without authority the Synod and the General Assembly, because larger church assemblies, in his view, have no authority to rule over smaller church groups.  So not only does Warfield deny the overall governmental unity of the visible church; his view also removes levels of governmental unity that are almost universally practiced in modern Presbyterian denominations.  Boettner's view amounts to the same thing.

The Implication of FP Churches in Other Nations

A little while back, a commenter on another post called my attention to a brief statement in the FP Religion and Morals Committee report from 2011.  The statement occurs in an introductory paragraph to the second part of the report (found on p. 11) explaining why the Religion and Morals Committee decided to focus in its report on the state of morals and religion in Scotland rather than reporting conditions in other countries as well:

This part of the report is generally confined to a consideration of the state of religion and morals in Scotland. It is in Scotland that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland lays express claim in her constitution to the rights and privileges of the historic established relation with the State. Scotland is also the country in which our Presbyterial structures have a complete and biblical form with a supreme court of review. The Committee believes that this Presbyterial structure is the model for Church government in every nation and that our presence as a Church in other nations implies that we aim at fully established Presbyterian structures within these nations. The Committee would welcome separate reports on religion and morals to be sent to the Synod from Overseas Presbyteries.

The FPCS has churches (and even sometimes entire presbyteries) in nations other than Scotland.  I mentioned in an earlier post that if the FPCS formally recognized the jurisdiction of other denominations in other nations, this would be at worst a blatantly schismatic act and at best a highly irregular situation, because if there are de jure churches in these other nations, what business does the FP church have in coming over and setting up rival congregations?

This statement from the report clarifies that the existence of FP churches in other nations is not an anomaly, but that it "implies that we aim at fully established Presbyterian structures within these nations."  That is, there is a larger goal of establishing more congregations, presbyteries, and eventually national synods in these countries.  Of course, there are already plenty of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, presbyteries, and general assemblies in some of these nations (such as the United States), but these churches have sufficient problems in terms of doctrine and practice (though many of them are quite faithful in most areas) that the FPCS cannot at this time embrace them in full communion, and so there is the goal of establishing other national Presbyterian churches with which the FPCS could be in full communion.  Since the unity of the one visible church of Christ is an absolute duty, the ultimate goal is to see the world full of orthodox national churches in different nations who are all in full formal communion with and committed to mutual presbyterial submission to each other.

For more, see here.

Must the Unity and Purity of the Church Wait for Ideal Circumstances?

In my discussions with various people about presbyterian church government and its implications for the unity and collegiality of the church (see here for example), I sometimes encounter people claiming that it is all very well and good that the church should be unified and function collegially, and that denominationalism is antithetical to the very nature of the church and its government, but that one cannot insist on such things in our current non-ideal climate.  Sure, the collegial functioning of church government is ideally supposed to be an important way in which the church maintains its unity and purity, but the ideal simply can't exist right now.  For example, the OPC cannot right now embrace full unity with the RPCNA and function collegially with them in terms of government--such as by holding a common council to come to terms with doctrinal differences such as the dispute over exclusive psalmody.  The OPC cannot do this because it would have to compromise its own doctrinal commitments to do so, such as its commitment to allow the singing of uninspired hymns in public worship.  A denomination ought never to compromise its doctrinal commitments for the sake of unity when it believes those commitments to be biblical.  So we'll just have to settle for a non-ideal denominational division between de jure true churches at this time and hope and work for better in the future.

So the argument goes, and it sounds plausible on the surface.  But when examined just a little more closely, it makes no sense.  For one thing, does God give the church permission to ignore his prescriptions for how the church is to function simply on the basis that "we live in non-ideal times"?  All times this side of eternity are "non-ideal."  Do we get to dispense with other commands of God when we feel the times are not right for them--like prayer, Bible study, the preaching of the gospel, love to neighbor, etc.?  Only God's Word can tell us when we can make exceptions to his general commands, and where in God's Word has he given us the right to divide the unity of the church and ignore the authority of fellow presbyters and church courts on the grounds that we think them less orthodox in doctrine or practice than ourselves?  As James Durham put it, "by way of precept there is an absolute necessity of uniting laid upon the church, so that it falls not under debate ‘Whether a church should continue divided or united . . . more than it falls under debate whether there should be preaching, praying, keeping of the Sabbath, or any other commanded duty; . . . [T]hat men should by agreement state a division in the church, or dispense therewith and prefer the continuing of division, as fitter for edification than union, we suppose is altogether unwarrantable."

The reply might be made that a faithful denomination cannot unify with all other denominations, because Christ has also commanded the church to keep the faith pure, which can't be done if it does not remain separate from groups which have distorted it in some way.  This is quite true, but it brings us to another absurdity of the argument under examination.  The argument maintains that de jure churches ought to remain separate from other less pure de jure churches in order to protect the purity of the faith, and that therefore there cannot at this time be unity and a collegial exercise of church authority between such divided denominations, such as would be manifested by having common councils, etc.  But this argument seems to forget one of the main purposes for which Christ commanded collegial and conciliar authority in his church, which was to preserve the purity of the church within its unity.  Thus, instead of being a reason for de jure churches to avoid participating in common binding councils, existing contradictions in doctrine and practice are the best reasons for holding such councils.  In fact, a non-ideal situation of churches contradicting each other in doctrine and practice is actually the most ideal situation for holding church councils, for the collegial and conciliar use of church authority is a primary means appointed by Christ for the church to use to help maintain its unity by dealing with the divisions in doctrine and practice that threaten it.  Collegial church authority is intended to help preserve the purity of the church within its unity.  To neglect this means of the sanctification of the church and instead, contrary to Christ's command, to willingly separate the de jure church into isolated factions that refuse to respect each others' authority and deal with their differences is not only not the way Christ has ordained to preserve the purity and unity of the church but is certainly one of the best ways to ensure the continuation of disunity and impurity within it.  This argument and course of action, then, is like a sick man who refuses to go to the doctor because his circumstances are non-ideal--i.e. he is sick.  When he gets better, he says that that will be the time to go.

Therefore, this argument clearly fails as an excuse to continue to keep the de jure church in a divided state.  Denominationalism is never permitted, and it is never the path towards the healing of the church.  In terms of a consistent presbyterian practice, the division of two churches into two distinct denominations can only mean that the two denominations are rejecting each others' legality and authority as de jure churches, having pronounced sentence upon each other and cut each other off.  Any attempt to justify the severance of de jure churches from each other while continuing to attribute de jure status to them entails an abandonment of biblical presbyterianism.

I've dealt with this argument in other places as well, such as here and here. 

UPDATE 2/6/15:  From my book on this subject, a couple of analogies that provide further illustration of why the "non-ideal time" argument doesn't work:

#1. You're absolutely right that it would be a great thing for all the different denominations, and especially the Reformed denominations, to be united. This is definitely the ideal we should be seeking. But we need to have proper nuance in our thinking. Just because, say, the OPC and the PCA are not united in the ideal way, it doesn't follow that they are not united at all, or that they are rejecting each others' de jure legitimacy and authority. Husbands and wives can be separated to some degree in times of marital trouble without being fully and finally divorced. So churches might be separated in ways that are not ideal without it necessarily implying that they completely reject each other as legal churches.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to acknowledge the real essence of the problem. It is absolutely crucial that all actual nuances be properly recognized, but it is also crucial that we avoid inventing nuances where they do not in fact exist. Imagine that Frank and Sarah are a married couple having problems, and Frank comes to you and says this: “You know that Sarah and I have been having problems in our marriage. Here's what we've decided to do: We're going to live separately, avoid intimate relations, have separate bank accounts, and feel free to see other people. Although this is not ideal, we think it will be good for our relationship. We'll still be husband and wife, but in a sort of recovery mode.” You will probably respond by informing Frank that what he has in mind is not any kind of marriage relationship at all, whether he chooses to call it that or not, because he and Sarah will be living in such a way as to deny the very essence of what it means to be married. To be married involves more than just a name; there are certain essential characteristics that have to be there to lay just claim to the name. Husbands and wives can't see other people, they have to actually spend time with each other, etc. Without these things, they can't claim the name “marriage” for their relationship.

Similarly, the relationship between two legal churches in a presbyterian system involves certain essential characteristics, and if these characteristics are not there, the churches can't claim to recognize each others' legality. As we've seen, active, legal elders have an inherent right to function as parts of larger church courts, and church courts have an inherent right to function as parts of the universal governing body of the catholic church. The very recognition of legality when it comes to ecclesiastical authority involves formal and binding mutual submission and accountability. When denominations are separate from each other, that mutual submission and accountability are not there. For Denomination A to refuse to engage in mutual submission and accountability with Denomination B while still choosing to say they attribute legal authority to Denomination B is a mere pretense—a name without the thing. Another parallel that might help is to think of the sphere of civil relations. Imagine someone saying, “Sure, I acknowledge the legal authority of the United States government! I just don't think I have any obligation to obey any of their laws and policies, pay taxes, show respect, etc.” Such alleged “acknowledgment of legal authority” would be merely a sham; there is no real acknowledgment there are all, for the essence of what such acknowledgment means is denied.

The OPC article on biblical unity, cited earlier, uses the term “sinful disunity” to describe denominational division. It does so precisely because denominational unity between the legitimate churches of Christ is not just some nice ideal to work for someday; it is a moral requirement that necessarily always exists between all legitimate churches, a requirement they cannot abandon without sin. Denominational division, by its very essential nature, involves a rejection of legitimacy in terms of legal authority. It is certainly true that churches can exist in a state of tension with each other without an implied mutual rejection of legitimacy. Temporary states of discipline can exist between elders and elders, or between elders and members, etc., without a violation of the essential unity of the church. What can't consist with that essential unity, however, in a presbyterian system, is a settled, permanent division in which the separated denominations refuse to submit to each other.

John Anderson on How Latitudinarianism Implies an Abandonment of the Truth

Great comments below from John Anderson (from his book Alexander and Rufus, or A Series of Dialogues on Church Communion in Two Parts, published in 1820, p. 24) which point out well the incompatibility between latitudinarianism in practice and the upholding of the whole counsel of God's Word.

You say, that a christian cannot surrender the least tittle of truth which he believes to be the testimony of his God; or do any act which implies such a surrender.  And, is it not as unlawful for a particular church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to surrender any part of that which she hath received, and which she professes as a truth of God's word?  Surely, it is no less unlawful.  But a church may be justly said to surrender any such part of her profession, when she does not hold it fast.  And, it is evident, that she does not hold it fast, when she admits the avowed opposers of it to her sacramental communion: for, in doing so, she in effect tells them and the world, that she does not account their opposition to that article any moral evil, nor the holding of it any duty.  She does not require her members to hold it; and, therefore, she must be considered as dropping or surrendering it.  For an article, which a church does not require her members to hold, may, indeed, be the private persuasion of individuals, but is no longer any part of her public profession.

See here for some comments from OPC ruling elder Bryan Holstrom making this same argument in the context of the OPC's toleration of baptist members.  See here for a general critique of latitudinarianism.

John Anderson on Lawful and Unlawful Sections of the Catholic Church

The selection below is from John Anderson's book Alexander and Rufus, or A Series of Dialogues on Church Communion in Two Parts, published in 1820, pp. 7-8.  In it, Anderson argues that a denomination existing to preserve false doctrine does not possess ecclesiastical legitimacy as a separate body and so should not be joined with in communion, while any denomination which exists in order to preserve the catholic truths of the Word of God does possess legitimacy and it is right to join with them in communion.

The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion.  There is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local situation.  But when a number of people, bearing the christian name, combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church.  It is not denied, that they belong to the catholic church; but it is denied, that there ought to be any such section or division in it.  Thus, there ought to be no section of the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct subsistence, the support of an episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the scripture, or the propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of antiscriptural doctrine, in opposition to that of God's election, redemption, effectual calling and the conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the support of ways and means of divine worship not found in scripture.  If the catholic visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would abolish all such sections.  But no society ought to be called such an unlawful section, while it can be shewn that it subsists as a separate society for no other end, than for the maintaining of something in the doctrine, worship or government of the church which belongs to the christian religion as delivered in the word of God, or for exhibiting a testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture requires the catholic church to condemn.  Such a profession of any party of christians is no sectarian profession; and an union with them is not a sectarian, but properly a christian union; and, being cordial and sincere, is a union in Christ; and communion upon the ground of this union is truly christian communion.  On the other hand, however much of our holy religion any body of christians hold in common with others, and however many of them we may charitably judge to be saints, yet while their distinguishing profession is contrary to the word of God, communion with them as a body so distinguished, is sectarian communion; as it implies a union with them in that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic church.

For more, see here and here.

Rev. Michael Ives on Parish Evangelism

I wanted to recommend an article by Rev. Michael Ives.  The article is called "Parish Evangelism: Rediscovering Focus in Evangelistic and Pastoral Effort."  It is a very interesting call to return to a more parish-focused model of church ministry.  I think his thoughts warrant careful consideration.  There is definitely something to be said for re-implementing, to some degree, a more region-based, local concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, both in terms of the church's ministry to members as well as to non-members and non-Christians.  He's also written about this here (starting on p. 9).

Rev. Ives is minister of the Presbyterian Reformed Church in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

John T. Pressly on Church Fellowship

I've mentioned Rev. John T. Pressly's article on Church Fellowship [ed. Link is broken - here is one that works] in a couple of other places on this blog, but I wanted to make a more up-front recommendation of it.  Rev. Pressly was a United Presbyterian minister, and the article was published in 1865.  It is one of my favorite articles on the church, as it very clearly and succinctly articulates a biblical perspective regarding the adoption of creeds, the requirements of church membership, the error of latitudinarianism, the meaning of denominational separation, and the principles of church fellowship given the fact of denominational divisions.  His clear articulations shed much light on these issues.  I don't agree with everything he says, and some of his article focuses on some things peculiar to the United Presbyterian denomination of his time, but, overall, I think his article is enormously helpful in providing clarification on the principles of the unity and authority of the church and how to understand these things in an age of widespread denominational division.

So enjoy!

Why Does My Regional Presbytery Not Include All the Churches in the Region?

I recently came across an article by Dr. D. Clair Davis.  Much of the article is problematic as it adopts a strong latitudinarian point of view, but he also makes a few comments that point out the real meaning of denominational separation in a Presbyterian context:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” “I believe in the holy catholic church.” What can that possibly mean? I am a Presbyterian; I believe that when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus he was really writing to all the churches there. But when I go to my presbytery meeting, who’s there? The churches just like us, that’s who. No Baptists, no Lutherans, no Pentecostals—yes, no Catholics either. . . .

It’s easy to stand in front of a classroom and pontificate: “this is how we’re right and they’re wrong. What makes us special is how we’re different.” It’s a lot harder to do a seminar where everyone talks and I have to listen. What if what really makes us special is that we’re good listeners? What if we can hear God’s Word better in what others are saying, than in listening to ourselves talk? What if we want our presbytery, at least one of our presbyteries, to be all the churches within a couple miles of us?

Dr. Davis highlights the reality that the delineations of a presbytery are regional.  There is one catholic church, and all churches are to function in mutual submission to each other, and this is manifested regionally by the union of local churches in a presbytery.  Thus, the presbytery should include all local churches.  But, of course, the reality is that the professing Christian world is denominationally divided.  In the Salt Lake City area, where I live, there is an OPC, several PCAs, Lutheran churches, Anglican churches, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox, Latter-day Saints, etc., etc.  And yet the OPC church is part of the Presbytery of the Dakotas, which consists of all the OPC (and none other) churches within a larger geographical area.  The PCA, etc., are similarly divided from the other groups.

So if the presbytery includes all local churches, what does it mean when local churches are not united in one presbytery?  It means that at least those churches that acknowledge the duty of churches to be united in formal communion and mutual submission do not recognize the legitimacy and authority of the churches they are not in communion with.

Though Dr. Davis seems to lean strongly towards latitudinarianism, he does a service by using clear language to bring out the true meaning of denominational separation, a meaning that too many in the modern Reformed world seem to want to avoid seeing clearly.

For more, see here.

Thomas M'Crie against Denominationalism

Thomas M'Crie's justly famous work, The Unity of the Church, is an excellent treatise on church union and communion and schism, both in terms of laying out the theoretical principles and giving good practical advice.

I've already referred to and quoted M'Crie in my article on latitudinarianism (see the end of the article for an extended quotation) with regard to his opposition to that idea (latitudinarianism being the concept that the church ought to refrain from maintaining unity and discipline within itself over Scriptural doctrines and principles that are considered "less important" than other ones).  Immediately after his attack on latitudinarianism, M'Crie attacks another unscriptural method of trying to preserve the unity of the church:

Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the former, but proceeding on the same general principle, has been zealously recommended, and in some instances reduced to practice, in the present day. According to it, the several religious parties are allowed to remain separate, and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them. This plan is liable to all the objections which lie against the former, with the addition of another that is peculiar to itself. It is inconsistent and self-contradictory. It strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the Church, and confirms schism by law: while it provides that the parties shall remain separate, at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them.

By defending such occasional conformity, English Dissenters at a former period contradicted the reasons of their dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to their opponents: for where communion is lawful, it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord's table, and then going away and maintaining communion, through the remainder of the year, on their own separate and contradictory professions. Nay, it has of late become the practice to keep, in the same church, an open communion table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day, and a close one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day; while the same ministers officiate, and many individuals communicate, on both these occasions. And all this is cried up as a proof of liberality, and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party.[9]
 
It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable [that is, latitudinarianism or the idea he has just been describing]. By the former, that church which is most faithful, and has made the greatest progress in reformation, must always be the loser, without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates. It behoves her profession and managements to yield, and be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed. And thus, by a process opposite to that mentioned by the Apostle, those who have built on the foundation "gold, silver, precious stones," are the persons who shall "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:12, 15). By the latter, all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost, without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction; purity of communion is endangered; persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches; and a faithful testimony against errors and abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented, is held up to odium and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as tending to revive old dissensions, and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity. 

What M'Crie attacks here is that very same semi-congregationalism or denominationalism that has infiltrated so much of Reformed thinking these days.  "We don't need to be united.  We can just continue to exist as one, big, happy group of independent Reformed denominations, getting along nicely and working together without having to be in mutual submission to each other."  The problem, as M'Crie points out, is that it "strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the Church, and confirms schism by law."  If two denominations--say, the PCA and the OPC--are close enough that they can accept each other as legitimate churches, with legitimate ministries, to whom it is appropriate to recommend people for membership, etc., then they ought to be united in one denomination, for it is schism for them to continue divided.  If, on the other hand, there is warrant for continued separation, they must regard each other as having something wrong with them which warrants refusing to recognize their authority by being in mutual submission to them in common councils.  If the OPC, for example, regards the PCA as being in a bad enough state to warrant remaining separate from them, they ought not at the same time to be approving their ministry, recommending people to them for membership, or in general treating them like a good, legitimate, non-schismatic, Reformed church, for this attitude and practice undermines the claim to have a basis for continued separation.

I am reminded of James Durham's comments from his famous work, Concerning Scandal:  "[B]y way of precept there is an absolute necessity of uniting laid upon the church, so that it falls not under debate ‘Whether a church should continue divided or united . . .' more than it falls under debate whether there should be preaching, praying, keeping of the Sabbath, or any other commanded duty."  Therefore, two churches accepting each other as legitimate and as having authority must be united to avoid meriting the charge of acting schismatically.

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has articulated the right attitude regarding the implications of denominational separation:

The Synod . . . desires to state that in terms of its Constitution, this Church has taken up a separate position from other Churches in Scotland in order to maintain a testimony to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures as the Word of God and in order to adhere in its practice to that Word as its supreme standard, and to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is based upon the Scripture, as its subordinate standard. This separate position is justified because, and only as long as, it is necessary.

Accordingly, conduct giving the impression that there is no obstacle to association with other Churches undermines the necessity for a separate position and is therefore inconsistent with loyal adherence to the Free Presbyterian Church, and is consequently disapproved of by this Church.

So what does this mean for how individuals ought to relate to denominations that are wrongfully separate from the FPCS (which is to say all other denominations, for there is no just ground of separation from the FPCS, for otherwise it would not have a right itself to separate existence)?  The FPCS catechism makes this clear:

146 Q. When should individual believers separate from the fellowship of others?
A. The Scriptures enjoin believers to withdraw themselves from those who are professed brethren and who walk disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6), so when men have so rejected sound doctrine, right government, and discipline, or have introduced superstitious worship, or are maintaining a schismatic position, and when an orderly correction of these evils fails, then believers are to separate from such.

There may still be informal fellowship, but there must not be the kind of formal connection which would imply that there is no reason for continued denominational separation, for, as M'Crie said, "where communion is lawful, it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism."

For more, see here, here, and here.