So Where's the Catholic Church?

The dominance of semi-congregationalist thinking in Reformed circles today is not only a betrayal of biblical, Reformed theology on the presbyterian nature of the church, but it is providing an opportunity for Romanists to latch onto it in order to draw Reformed Protestants to Rome.  This is illustrated in a couple of articles I came across yesterday on the "Called to Communion" website, a Romanist site dedicated to trying to persuade Reformed Protestants to convert to Romanism.

SO WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

One of the articles is entitled "Why Protestantism Has No 'Visible Catholic Church'." Throughout the article, the basic assumption is made that Reformed Protestants' conception of the organizational, visible church only extends to individual congregations or groups of believers and not to the worldwide church as a whole.  This assumption is not so much argued for (though it is supposed to be supported by a quotation from the Westminster Confession) as it is assumed as a starting point.  The article then goes on to draw the conclusion that there really is no concept of the "visible Catholic Church" in the Reformed faith, and that therefore Reformed Protestantism is at odds with the historic catholic affirmation of such a body and should drop the terminology from its usage.

But, as I show below, Protestantism itself has no visible catholic Church. It has only denominations, congregations, believers and their children. Within Protestantism there is not some one additional entity to which the term “visible catholic Church” refers, consisting of these denominations, congregations, believers and their children.

What allowed the authors of the Westminster Confession to believe sincerely that there was a “visible catholic Church” other than the Catholic Church headed by the Pope, was a philosophical error. This was the error of assuming that unity of type is sufficient for unity of composition. In actuality, things of the same type do not by that very fact compose a unified whole. For example, all the crosses that presently exist all have something in common; they are each the same type of thing, i.e. a cross. But they do not form a unified whole composed of each individual cross around the world. . . .

We can apply this same test to the term “visible catholic Church” in the Westminster Confession to see whether it refers to an actual entity or only to a mere plurality. The “visible catholic Church” is defined by the Confession as consisting of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children. If there were no actual visible catholic Church, but only the term ‘visible catholic Church,’ the Protestant denominations, the Protestant congregations, and the individual Protestant believers and their children, nothing in Protestantism would be any different. All the denominations, congregations,  individual believers and their children would be exactly as they are, if there were not, in addition, this entity referred to by the term “the visible catholic Church.” This shows that the term ‘visible catholic Church’ does not refer to an actual unified entity (i.e. the visible catholic Church), but is merely a name used to refer to what is in actuality a plurality of things having something in common, just as “Panapple” could be used to refer to all apples, even though in actuality there is not one thing consisting of all apples.

When we apply this test to the Catholic Church, by contrast, we find that in order to remove the whole and leave the parts, we have to change the world. This is because the Catholic Church’s hierarchical unity changes and orders the activity of her members.² And this is also true of a society, on account of its singular government.³ But what allows the removal of the “visible catholic Church” from Protestant ecclesiology, without changing anything else, is that Protestantism mistakenly denies the necessity of hierarchical unity for visible unity at the universal (i.e. catholic) level. Reformed Protestantism recognizes that local churches, in order to be visible, must be hierarchical. No one would say that the fact of there being believers in a city ipso facto constitutes a local visible church. But, this fact is arbitrarily set aside in Reformed ecclesiology’s conception of the visible catholic Church, through its denial that the “visible catholic Church” need be hierarchical. If the local church must be hierarchical in order to be visible, then Reformed Protestants must either form a worldwide hierarchy if they wish to affirm a “visible catholic Church,” or drop the claim that there is a “visible catholic Church” to which they belong.

What are the implications of Protestantism having no visible catholic Church? If Protestantism has no visible catholic Catholic, then given Protestantism, the catholic Church is only invisible. This entails that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is the set of all the elect. . . . And it is clear in the Matthew 18 passages that ‘ekklesia’ there refers to the visible Church, not a merely spiritual entity. Matters of discipline cannot be brought before the set of all the elect. This shows us that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which Christ speaks in Matthew 16 is not a mere set; Jesus was not meaning “upon this Rock I will build my set.”

Since, as I have shown above, Protestant ecclesiology has no visible catholic Church, and yet since from Scripture we see that the one catholic Church that Christ founded is visible, Protestantism must either give up the word ‘catholic’ in the Creed (as some Lutherans have done, replacing it with the word ‘Christian’), or seek reconciliation with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, the Catholic Church from which Protestants separated in the sixteenth century.

The author's argument here is absolutely valid and correct.  In the view he is critiquing, there really is no entity to which the phrase "visible catholic church" corresponds, at least on a formal, de jure level.  On a de facto, informal level, we can say there is one worldwide church, because the Christians of the world informally hang out with each other and work together to some degree, even joining into voluntary (but non-binding) confederations such as NAPARC and ICRC.  But there is no formal, organizational unity, no common council that binds all the churches together into one worldwide, universal (catholic) church.  As the author points out, the view he is critiquing here is biblically defective on this point, as the Bible clearly points out one worldwide church unified in a single worldwide organization.  There is no room in the biblical view for multiple, independent de jure denominations.

The problem with the article is that the author thinks he is critiquing classic Reformed theology, but he is really only critiquing the perverted, semi-congregationalist form of Reformed theology that is so dominant in Reformed circles today.  Historic Reformed theology affirms not a semi-congregationalist but a presbyterian view of the nature of the church and of church government.  In the presbyterian view, there is indeed one worldwide church.  Local congregations are bound together by participating in larger regional assemblies (often called presbyteries).  Presbyteries are bound together by participating in yet larger assemblies, such as national assemblies.  And all the national assemblies are bound together by participating together in a single, worldwide ecumenical or general assembly that represents and has binding authority over the whole church.

1. All governing assemblies have the same kinds of rights and powers. These are to be used to maintain truth and righteousness and to oppose erroneous opinions and sinful practices that threaten the purity, peace, or progress of the church. All assemblies have the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline reasonably proposed and the power to obtain evidence and inflict censures. A person charged with an offense may be required to appear only before the assembly having jurisdiction over him, but any member of the church may be called by any assembly to give testimony.

2. Each governing assembly exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters belonging to it. The session exercises jurisdiction over the local church; the presbytery over what is common to the ministers, sessions, and the church within a prescribed region; and the general assembly over such matters as concern the whole church. Disputed matters of doctrine and discipline may be referred to a higher governing assembly. The lower assemblies are subject to the review and control of higher assemblies, in regular graduation. These assemblies are not separate and independent, but they have a mutual relation and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate body.  (OPC Book of Church Order - Chapter XII, "Governing Assemblies")

Assemblies are of four sorts. For, either are they of particular kirks and congregations, one or more, or of a province, or of a whole nation, or of all and diverse nations professing one Jesus Christ.  (The Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland)

In the presbyterian view, there is no room for multiple, independent, legitimate denominations.  There is only one worldwide church.  Unlike in semi-congregationalism, in presbyterianism there is indeed a real entity which corresponds to the idea of "one visible de jure catholic church."

But we can only partly blame the author for his blunder here in thinking the Reformed faith is semi-congregationalist.  Unfortunately, such a non-Reformed view has greatly saturated the modern Reformed world.  If we want to stop giving a foothold to Roman apologists on this point, we need to reaffirm clearly a fully consistent presbyterian view of the church.

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS "SCHISM"?

The other article I read yesterday is entitled "Michael Horton on Schism as Heresy."  As the title suggests, the author of this article (who is the same person as the author of the previous article) takes Michael Horton, a popular modern Reformed theologian, to task for failing to distinguish the concept of schism from the concept of heresy.

The author recounts a conversation he had with Michael Horton in which he asked him this question:

So, what is it, exactly, in your opinion, that distinguishes a *branch within* the catholic Church, from a *schism from* the catholic Church? That is, how does one rightly determine whether a particular denomination is a *branch within* the Church, or a *schism from* the Church?

This question makes sense from both a Romanist and a Reformed presbyterian point of view.  If the author had asked me this question, I would have responded with something like this:  "A  branch within the church is a part of the church that is in full communion with the rest of the worldwide de jure catholic church, while a schism from the church is a church which, however orthodox it might be in other ways, is divided from full communion with the catholic church."

But here is how Horton answered the question:

With our confessions, I’d say that this is determined by proclamation of the true gospel and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution. While no church exhibits these marks with complete purity, bodies that reject the gospel or anything essential to it and substitute their own dogmas, duties, and discipline for Christ’s institution have separated themselves from the visible Church.

Do you spot the problem with Horton's answer?  The author certainly did:

I appreciate his reply, but I think it reveals a fundamental flaw in Reformed [and Protestant] ecclesiology. Horton’s reply defines schism from the Church as synonymous with heresy, and in this way eliminates the very possibility of schism from the Church [in the traditional sense of schism from as treated in the Church Fathers].

The author goes on to point out that the church fathers regularly distinguished between schism and heresy.  They are not the same thing.  And he draws some significant conclusions from this.

To the best of my knowledge, St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and all the Church Fathers who wrote about schism wrote about schism from as something conceptually distinct from heresy. Yes, any schism from the Church would invariably fall into some heresy, at least in order to justify its schism from the Church. But, nevertheless, schism from the Church referred to a particular Church’s (or smaller group’s) visible break in communion with the Catholic Church (even where that particular Church or group had not embraced any heresy), whereas ‘heresy’ always referred to a departure from the Apostolic faith, even if communion had not yet been visibly broken.

So, it seems to me that Michael has departed from the Church Fathers in this respect, by defining schism from the Church as heresy, and thus eliminating from his ecclesiology the possibility of schism from the Church [in the traditional sense of schism from]. And when schism from the Church is defined out of existence, one loses the possibility of recognizing whether one (or anyone else) is in schism from the Church; it becomes a meaningless question, a question that evokes a blank face, or an attempt to translate the question into the only definition of ‘schism’ one knows, namely, a question about heresy, which is then answered with an assurance that one is holding on to the biblical gospel and sacraments, and therefore that one is surely not in schism from the Church. . . .

What has happened, when a fundamental patristic concept is no longer even accessible or intelligible? This concept of schism from the Church dropped out of Protestant theology because the justification of the Protestant departure from the Catholic Church required an underlying radical change in ecclesiology, from an essentially visible catholic Church to an essentially invisible catholic Church with local visible expressions.

Once again, our author is clearly right.  Michael Horton answered his question not as a presbyterian should but as a semi-congregationalist must.  Semi-congregationalism has no concept of a worldwide organization of which all more particular manifestations of the church are a part, and so there is nothing for a church to be in schism from.  Therefore, the historic concept of schism simply drops out of existence and the word becomes simply a synonym for heresy.

However, once again, while the author's critique of Horton in this respect is right on, Horton is not representing historic Reformed presbyterian thought in this area.  In historic Reformed thought, there is one worldwide catholic church and all de jure churches are united together under common binding councils.  Therefore, it is quite possible to be basically orthodox but still to be in schism from the catholic church by failing to remain in full communion with her.  Matthew Vogan, a ruling elder in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, brings this out well in his excellent booklet, Undoing the Reformation: Schism:

Presbyterianism has drifted very far from the true concern of the Westminster Divines and the Second Reformation (represented by James Durham, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie) for the unity of the Visible Church. Merely exchanging greetings amongst competing denominations would not have satisfied these men because it is a practice that avoids any confrontation with the fact of schism and never seems to work towards genuine unity. The Westminster Divines were of an entirely different view. As James Walker records, the Congregationalists at the Westminster Assembly proposed a friendly co-existence and occasional communion with the Presbyterians which, while separate in government, would they claimed be “no plain and total separation, we shall be working substantially towards the same end.” This was resolutely declined with the explanation: “So, might the Donatists and Novatians have pled, and indeed almost all the separatists who have figured in the Church's history. Such separation was unknown in the apostles' time, unless it were used by false teachers: all who professed Christianity then held communion together as one Church. If you can join with us occasionally in acts of worship, you ought to act with us in joint communion, not in separated congregations. God's way of revealing truth to such as are otherwise minded, is not by setting men at a distance from each other. That you should be a distinct Christian organization, taking members from our Churches who may have scruples of conscience, is schism undoubted in the body of Christ.” Congregationalism was regarded as a schismatic principle (pp. 7-9).

Following the early Church emphasis on One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (apostolic relates to the doctrine taught), the Presbyterians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries maintained that the Universal Visible Church should be seen as one and that this oneness should be visible with National Churches forming provinces of one large empire across the world. This was particularly confessed in Scotland and at the Westminster Assembly. The historian James Walker summarises the position well: “True Churches of Christ, side by side with one another, forming separate organizations, with separate governments, seemed to them utterly inadmissible” (pp. 6-7)

Presbyterianism has no room for multiple, independent de jure denominations.  Under a presbyterian system, just as under a Roman episcopal system, when two denominations are divided from each other, both sides are rejecting the others' de jure legitimacy (though not necessary their de facto existence) as churches and at least implicitly accusing each other of schism.

Denominational walls are erected on a judicial level and the distinct jurisdiction of church courts is the final and fullest expression of separation. The setting up of rival Church courts from Kirk Session through to General Assembly is an express rejection of the jurisdiction of the Church courts of other denominations and is either schismatic itself or necessarily charges other bodies with the sin of schism. Persisting in such separation is either schismatic or else there is an implicit charge of schism against all those from whom separation is maintained ("'Reformed Scottish Presbyterianism: Reunion in the 21st Century?' - A Response," p. 6).

Reformed thought allows the possibility that trouble might come upon the church to such an extent that it might make impossible the formal unity of the church on a worldwide level.  For example, persecution could arise to such an extent that churches become incapable of being in contact with each other beyond a very local level.  Or a worldwide disaster could occur to such an extent that non-local communication could be cut off.  However, Reformed thought does not allow that churches able to recognize each other as de jure churches can ever remain independent from each other.  It is the intrinsic right and duty of all de jure churches to be united to each other in formal unity (see here, here, and here for more extensive argumentation on this point).

So the author's objection against the Reformed faith in this area fails, but it fails no thanks to many modern Reformed thinkers.  Interestingly, the day before I read this article, I had just written a blog article myself, entitled "'Schism' Is Not Just a Romanist Concept," in which I made much the same point that our author is making, writing in opposition to semi-congregationalist trends in the modern Reformed world.

I should briefly make one more point before I close.  If the Presbyterian view is that all de jure churches, by nature, are united to each other under binding councils, forming one worldwide organization, which denomination today represents the de jure catholic church?  My claim, held with high probability, is that it is the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  See here for some of my reasoning underlying this position.

In conclusion, again, aside from simply the motive of fulfilling our duty to remain faithful to biblical teaching regarding the nature of the church, we modern Reformed Protestants should be greatly concerned to recover the historic presbyterian vision of the nature and unity of the church in order to prevent Romanists from gaining a foothold on this point against the Reformed church and its members.  If we do not correct the error of semi-congregationalism, the Romanists will be only too happy to do so.

For more on these ideas, see here and in general here.

UPDATE 5/26/14:  Samuel Hudson, in his book entitled A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholick Visible (1658), cites approvingly the London Ministers who authored Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (The Divine Right of Church Government), a famous work defending presbyterian church government, on the difference between presbyterianism and independency (p. 125):

[T]hey [the London Ministers] only set down the difference between the Presbyterians and Independents there [in the preface to Jus Divinum] to be in this, that the Presbyterians hold that there is one generall Church of Christ on earth, and that all particular Churches and single Congregations are but as similar parts of the whole; and the Independents (say they) hold that there is no other visible Church of Christ, but only a single Congregation, meeting in one place to partake of all Ordinances.

The distinguishing characteristic of presbyterianism (at least in contrast to independency or congregationalism) is that presbyterians hold that there is a single visible catholic church on the earth, whereas independents hold that there is not one visible church on the earth (at least in a formal sense) but that there are only particular visible churches formally independent from each other.  Our modern semi-congregationalists allow for individual congregations to clump together in denominations, but, as the denominations exist independently from each other, we still have a form of independency rather than pure presbyterianism.

I highly recommend Hudson's book in general as a great defense of the presbyterian view of the universal visible church.

UPDATE 6/4/14:  In an introduction to Samuel Hudson's original treatise on the church, Essence and Unity of the Church Catholic Visible, found in the Anthology of Presbyterian and Reformed Literature, vol. 5, ed. by Chris Coldwell (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1992), the writer of the introduction compares episcopalianism, independency, and presbyterianism (pp. 4-5):

      Samuel Hudson (d. 1683) wrote his treatise The Essence and Unity of the Church Catholic Visible in the midst of the "grand debate" in the Westminster Assembly over the government of Christ's church.  The Assembly was divided into three factions, as was the nation as a whole.
      The first faction, that which might be called the episcopalian, took the view of church government that the bishops had served the church well in the past and could possibly do so again in the future.  Some, though certainly not all, maintained that episcopacy is the form of government taught in Scripture.  The majority of this faction, however, admitted that the best argument for episcopal church government was its long-standing use in the church.
      The second faction, that of congregationalism or independency, took the view that each particular church contains everything needed for the church within itself.  While relations with other churches are possible and at times even preferable, there is nothing in Scripture which demands a connection with other churches, according to this view.
      The third faction, that which carried the day at the Westminster Assembly and to which Samuel Hudson belonged, is that of presbytery.  By the time Samuel Hudson wrote, presbyterians had developed a view of jus divinum or "divine right" of church government.  By this, they meant that not only is connectionalism allowed and even preferred, it is commanded by implication in Scripture.  In their view, the congregationalists had virtually denied the catholicity of the visible church.

Presbyterianism holds that the entire catholic church visible is to function as one universal visible body, while congregationalism holds that it need not do so, but it is permissible for there to be multiple, independent, legitimate factions within the Christian world.  The presbyterians accuse congregationalism of in essence denying the existence of the catholic church visible because of this.  Since the semi-congregationalists deny the requirement for the whole church to be united in one body, this puts them in principle in the camp of the independents rather than the presbyterians, even though they hold that it is good (and maybe even required) for individual congregations to unite in more-or-less larger "clumps" of churches called "denominations."

UPDATE 6/9/14:  Here is a well-articulated comment from church historian James Walker:

The visible church, in the idea of the Scottish theologians, is catholic. You have not an indefinite number of Parochial, or Congregational, or National churches, constituting, as it were, so many ecclesiastical individualities, but one great spiritual republic, of which these various organizations form a part. The visible church is not a genus, so to speak, with so many species under it. It is thus you may think of the State, but the visible church is a totum integrale, it is an empire. The churches of the various nationalities constitute the provinces of this empire; and though they are so far independent of each other, yet they are so one, that membership in one is membership in all, and separation from one is separation from all . . . This conception of the church, of which, in at least some aspects, we have practically so much lost sight, had a firm hold of the Scottish theologians of the seventeenth century.' (James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland. Edinburgh: Knox Press, [1888] 1982. Lecture iv. pp.95-6.)

UPDATE 3/10/15:  In the Amazon.com description of the recent Romanist apologetics book against Protestantism by Devin Rose entitled The Protestant's Dilemma, we read this description of Protestantism:

What if Protestantism were true? What if the Reformers really were heroes, the Bible the sole rule of faith, and Christ s [sic] Church just an invisible collection of loosely united believers?

Obviously, this shows once again the Romanist confusion over the what the Protestant doctrine of the church really is, a confusion made somewhat understandable by internal lack of clarity on the doctrine of the universality of the visible church within Reformed circles themselves these days, despite the clear testimony of the Reformed doctrinal standards that there is indeed one catholic visible church.

In the introductory statement from the editor in the most recent (March 2015) edition of Ordained Servant, a periodical for church officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the editor makes this comment (this edition of Ordained Servant is devoted to the doctrine of church membership):

The modern world privileges informality with the mistaken idea that the informal is more authentic. So the written rolls of church membership and the vows to affirm the commitment of membership are seen as being unspiritual. This is a nineteenth-century Romantic ideal, not a biblical one, but cultural pressures persist, and the less people pay attention to their Bibles the easier world-conformity becomes.

And yet the denominationalist attitude within many Reformed circles today commits this very error--it denies any formal visible catholic church, and leaves us with only a bunch of visible particular churches or groups of churches (denominations) which have no formal governmental expression of their unity.

"Schism" Is Not Just a Romanist Concept

In the various conversations I have had regarding my writings and statements on presbyterian church government (see here for an example of these writings), I have had a number of arguments presented against my position (though I've had much more railing than careful argumentation, the truth be told).  Here is an articulation of one of these arguments:

Your third error is that your institutional view of apostolic succession is contrary to the very Westminster Standards that you are championing. The standards make no such distinction between de jure and de facto churches, but say that the catholic church is made up all those that profess the true religion and their children. . . . The standards recognize both the unity of the church and the particularity of the churches. There are more and less pure churches. The test is their purity of faith and practice, not their supposed line of descent.

This is, of course, an argument against the idea that when denominations are separated from each other, the side that is correct in remaining separate (assuming there is one) retains de jure authority while the other side loses it.  For example, the RPCNA is separated from the PCA.  One of the reasons for separation is that the RPCNA practices exclusive psalmody while the PCA doesn't.  Simplifying the situation for the moment and assuming these two were the only existing denominations and that this was the only issue that divides them, the RPCNA would be right in remaining separate from the PCA but not vice versa because exclusive psalmody is the correct biblical practice.  Their separation would entail that each denomination accuses the other of being schismatic and rejects its de jure legitimacy and authority, and in this case the RPCNA would be right, and therefore the RPCNA should be regarded as possessing de jure authority but not the PCA.

One of the underlying presbyterian principles here is that one must do things "decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40), and one cannot claim authority when one's authority is attained illegally and schismatically.  My interlocutor quoted above, on the other hand, believes, apparently, that it doesn't matter how a denomination came into being; so long as the denomination is sufficiently orthodox, it possesses de jure authority.  He doesn't seem to have a place in his thinking for the historic and biblical concept of schism.

At least, he seems not to have such a concept in his thinking when we are talking abstractly about separated denominations he has grown used to.  But I'll bet he'd recognize the concept if the situation were to occur more locally and closer to home.  Imagine this scenario in a local church:

Pastor:  Hi there, Bob!  How are things going today?

Bob:  Hi, Pastor!  Things are going well.  By the way, did I tell you that I have decided to be a pastor?

Pastor:  Really?  Would you like to come with me to the next presbytery meeting so that you can come under care and begin your training towards licensure?

Bob:  No, that won't be necessary.  I'll be a pastor tonight.  I've called some of the congregation to come over to my house at about 6:00 this evening (and you are invited too--that's actually why I've come to see you), when I will declare myself a pastor.  After that point, I'll receive into membership whomever wants to join me, and then we'll be a separate congregation.  I'd like to do that so that we can have a congregation that will celebrate Christmas, since I think that is important, and you and the rest of the session of this congregation don't seem very keen on it.

Pastor:  But you can't do that!  You can't just declare yourself a pastor all by yourself and draw people away from our current congregation to join you!  That's schismatic!  If you want to be a pastor, you've got to go through the proper channels by being officially licensed and ordained by the presbytery, and you've got to stay in full communion with the church.

Bob:  I thought you would probably say something like that.  Well, we can argue all day about the proper biblical method of starting a church, but I don't want to get into that right now.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  But it's OK.  You don't have to think of my new church as being schismatic, because, aside from the relatively minor difference over Christmas, the creeds of our churches will be nearly identical.  We'll be quite sufficiently orthodox to be considered as true a church as any you could think of.

Pastor:  I'm glad you're planning on being fairly orthodox, but that's not enough to claim the authority of the church.  If you don't do things decently and in order, you're being schismatic.

Bob:  Are you saying you won't consider us true Christians?

Pastor:  I don't presume to judge your heart.  But what I will say is that your course is wrong, and your church will lack legitimacy and proper authority if you establish it in this way.  You might be a group of regenerated people (though I'm very concerned for you, seeing that you are taking this course of action!), and thus be a church in a de facto sense, but you won't be a legitimate church de jure, because you have founded your church improperly and schismatically.

Bob:  Are you saying that you won't recognize us formally as a legitimate de jure church?

Pastor:  No, absolutely not!

Bob:  I think you've become confused about how the church works in the Reformed faith.  You sound almost Romanist, going on about "proper authority" and "doing things legitimately" and what sounds suspiciously like "apostolic succession."  But you've forgotten the Confession of Faith.  After all, as it has been wisely said, "Your institutional view of apostolic succession is contrary to the very Westminster Standards that you are championing. The standards make no such distinction between de jure and de facto churches, but say that the catholic church is made up all those that profess the true religion and their children. . . . The standards recognize both the unity of the church and the particularity of the churches. There are more and less pure churches. The test is their purity of faith and practice, not their supposed line of descent."  Since our new church will be basically pure doctrinally from your point of view, it will have full de jure legitimacy and full authority as a church.  To say otherwise is to go back to Romanism with its idea that "if you aren't united with us and do things our way and don't have proper descent, you don't have any authority."  But we're Reformed!  The true church is founded on fidelity to Scripture, not on some Romanesque theory of apostolic descent!

Of course, the problem with Bob's view is that he has distorted the true meaning of the Reformed confessions and thus mutilated a proper biblical understanding of church authority.  It is true that the Reformed faith places the legitimacy of a church in its fidelity to doctrine.  This position was taken, biblically, in response to the false Roman claims that there can be no true church unless it has been handed down without interruption from the original churches of the apostles, that it gains its legitimacy from union with the Roman Pontiff, and that God has preserved such an infallible succession in the churches.  The Reformed, on the other hand, maintained and maintain that succession can be broken, in which case a church can legitimately be formed by following Scriptural principles.  They maintain that succession is not infallible.  They maintain that union with the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for ecclesiastical legitimacy.

However, they do not go to the other extreme, the extreme Bob goes to, and say that there need be no concern for proper order in the church or that it doesn't matter how a church comes into being or whether it exists and acts schismatically so long as it is basically orthodox in doctrine.  This sort of thinking better fits an organization like Calvary Chapel than the historic Reformed faith.  Schism is not merely a Roman concept.  It is a biblical concept, a historic catholic concept, and a Reformed concept.  It is possible for a church to be basically orthodox in doctrine but still lack legitimacy because it was formed or exists schismatically.

I think my interlocutor would see this when we are discussing situations like that of Bob.  Where a lot of modern Reformed people go wrong, however, is that they fail to apply these same principles to the broader world of denominations.  Denominations, just like local churches, can be fairly orthodox in doctrine and yet still lack legitimacy because they were formed or exist schismatically.  It is not "mean" or "rude" or "schismatic" or "Romanist" to declare that we have an obligation to take schism into consideration in evaluating the right to exist of the various denominations out there, and to act accordingly in choosing which denomination we ought to be a part of.  To do so is simply to act in accordance with biblical and historic Reformed principles, and to properly pursue both the purity and the unity of the one church of Christ.

See more on this here.

A (Hopefully) Clear Explanation of the Regulative Principle of Worship

Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God. When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe
to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deuteronomy 12:28-32)

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.  (Westminster Confession of Faith 21:1)

These two passages, one from Scripture and the other from the Westminster Confession, well summarize the basic idea of the regulative principle of worship.  God is to be worshiped only as he has commanded and not in ways he has not commanded.

DEFINING TERMS

Although a lot of people have argued against this principle, it is actually quite common-sensical when its basic meaning is clarified, terms are defined adequately, etc.  So let's start by defining "worship."  There is a broader and a narrower meaning of the term "worship," and the regulative principle applies to both.  The broader meaning of "worship" is simply "service to God" of any kind.  Whenever we offer up to God that which is pleasing to him and which he has commanded us to do, we are engaging in "worship" or "service."  "Worship" or "service to God," then, in this sense, is nothing other than a synonym for "obedience to the commandments of God."  This broader idea of "worship" is specifically addressed in the Westminster Confession under the heading "Of Good Works":  "Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention" (WCF 16:1).

The narrower category of "worship" is the subset of the category of "good works" which has to do with specifically devotional acts.  Thus, in this sense, partaking of the Lord's Supper is an act of "worship" in a way that caring for the poor is not, because, while both are commanded, the former is a devotional act directed immediately towards God.

THE THREE CATEGORIES

There are three categories of activities that humans have the ability to engage in:  1. Things that are commanded.  2. Things that are indifferent.  3. Things that are forbidden.  The first and the last of these categories are pretty straightforward.  Our lives belong to God to do his will, and he has given us commands as to how we are to live.  When we obey these commands (which would include not doing things that are forbidden as well as doing things that are positively commanded), we do that which is pleasing to God.  On the other hand, when we do that which God has forbidden us to do (which would include both doing things positively forbidden as well as not doing things positively commanded), we do that which is displeasing to God.

The category of "things indifferent" requires a little more explanation.  The idea of "things indifferent" does not imply that there are things we can do for no reason at all, as if we are permitted by God to waste our lives by engaging in worthless activities.  This is too often what the modern idea of "entertainment" or "amusement" means.  In our modern western societies based on Naturalism (the idea that empirical nature is either all there is or at least all that we can know about), there is no concept that we are creatures of God who belong to him and who are obligated to live according to his will.  We are thought to be (as far as can be known) nothing other than accidental by-products of mindless processes, and therefore we owe no obligation to any standards higher than our own desires.  In this kind of an ideological context, the purpose of life is nothing more than simply to find a way to amuse ourselves until we die.  The centrality of "entertainment" to modern western culture is thus not surprising.

But this has nothing to do with what we mean by the category of "things indifferent."  Since our lives belong to God, we are to live them entirely for his glory and in the pursuit of doing his will.  "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).  However, sometimes there are a variety of legitimate ways to live for God in a particular area of life.  Almost always there is some flexibility as to how things are to be done, and that flexibility is more or less in some cases than in others.  For example, we are commanded by God to worship him in a public gathering of the church on the first day of the week (the Lord's Day).  But we are not told precisely at what times we are to meet.  Should our morning service be at 9:00 AM, or at 10:00, or at 11:00, etc.?  The Bible does not say.  So we do what makes the most sense.  And sometimes more than one option makes sense, and so we do whatever suits us best.

For another example, we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, help those in need, etc.  But this can often be done in many different ways.  Does this mean that I ought to be doing service in a soup kitchen downtown?  Perhaps.  But not necessarily.  There are other ways people are in need and other ways to help them.  I could give many more examples of this kind of thing.  This is what we mean by "things indifferent."  Situations often arise when more than one choice is legitimate, and in these cases I may choose to do what seems best.  Choosing option A is not a sin, but then neither is choosing option B instead.

The category of "things indifferent" is often relative to the various entities involved in doing the evaluating.  For example, I have more immediate control over my own life than do the elders of the church.  I am under the authority of church elders, but my own authority over my life (self-government) is much closer to my everyday doings and much more involved in the details of my life.  Thus situations often arise when, considering my own responsibility of self-government, I really ought to choose option A over option B and it would be wrong of me to choose option B, and yet my obligation here arises from very specific circumstances of my own life, personality, etc., in such a way that authorities more distant from myself ought not to issue commands in the matter.  For example, perhaps I know that I really ought not to have "just one more cookie."  I've had enough already, and it would be an inappropriate use of resources, bad for my health, etc., for me to have another one.  Relative to my own self-government, it is not an indifferent thing whether or not I eat another cookie.  But relative to church government, it should be viewed as a thing indifferent.  It would not be appropriate for the elders of the church to try to micromanage the diets of the members of the church to that sort of degree.

The relationship between things commanded (or necessary) and things indifferent is well expressed in the Westminster Confession:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.  (WCF 1:6)

CONFUSING THE CATEGORIES

So we have the three categories of commanded, indifferent, and forbidden.  I like to think of the regulative principle of worship, in its broadest sense, as simply the principle of keeping these three categories distinct.  We should not treat commanded things as if they are indifferent.  We should not treat indifferent things as if they are commanded.  We should not treat forbidden things as if they are commanded or indifferent, or vice versa.  And so on.  We can confuse these categories in two main ways:

1. We confuse the categories when, in our own lives or in our own thinking, we put things in the wrong category.  For example, the Scriptures nowhere command us to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (at least not in New Testament times).  Neither does it forbid us to go to Jerusalem.  Generally speaking, whether or not a person goes to Jerusalem is a thing indifferent.  If, then, I were to come to hold the opinion that it is a necessary duty for men to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and thus to feel myself duty-bound to do it, I would be in violation of the regulative principle.

2. We can also confuse the categories and violate the regulative principle by misusing our authority over others.  To use the same example, if a church session or council were to command or require members of the church to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem as a necessary action, the council would be abusing its authority, for what God has not commanded cannot be commanded by those to whom God has delegated authority.  God has not given authority to the church to simply make up commands out of its imagination and impose them on people.  As the passage earlier quoted from Deuteronomy 12 says, we are not to add to nor take away from God's commands.  Similarly, we are not to turn commanded things into things indifferent.  If the church were to tell members that they are not required to regularly attend worship or to receive communion (when otherwise qualified to do so), this would be a violation of the regulative principle, as the church has no authority to negate what God has commanded any more that it can require what God has not commanded.  I think the OPC's Directory for the Public Worship of God captures well how the proper use of church authority (and the same principle applies to all other human authority as well--civil, family, etc.) is bound up with respect for the regulative principle of worship:

God may not be worshiped according to human imaginations or inventions or in any way not prescribed by his Word, nor may the church require her members to participate in elements of worship that God's Word does not require. Only when the elements of worship are those appointed in God's Word, and the circumstances and forms of worship are consonant with God's Word, is there true freedom to know God as he is and to worship him as he desires to be worshiped.  (DPW IB6b)

Throughout the Scriptures, there are warnings against altering the law of God by adding to it or taking away from it--taking that which God has commanded and making it indifferent or forbidden, or taking that which is indifferent or forbidden and making it commanded, etc.  One classic example is Jesus's confrontation with the Pharisees in Mark 7:5-13:

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees both for adding to the commands of God by putting their tradition into the category of things commanded without warrant from Scripture, and for taking that which God had commanded in Scripture and making it a thing indifferent.  In short, the Pharisees violated the regulative principle of worship.

Another classic example is Paul's exhortation to the Colossians not to add to the commands of God either by going back to the ceremonial law of Judaism or by making up new traditions out of their own imaginations:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.  (Colossians 2:16-23)

Paul warns the Colossians that adding to the commands of God is not only wicked, but also useless.  The Colossians are tempted to think that God's Word doesn't provide sufficient aids to sanctification, and that the defect must be supplied by their own traditions; but Paul warns them that although their "will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body" might seem superficially to be able to advance the sanctification of man, in reality they cannot satisfy the flesh--that is, they cannot provide the needed sanctifying power.  God has given us all we need in his Word, and any attempted additions to this are not only useless but harmful.  As an analogy, we can imagine a recipe written up by an infallible cook.  Any changes made to that recipe by fallible cooks cannot help but can only harm the outcome, no matter how wise those changes may seem to their fallible minds.

CASE STUDY: EXTRA-BIBLICAL HOLY DAYS

In order to make the above discussion more concrete, let's apply it briefly to a particular case: the issue of extra-biblical holy days.

There were many holy days commanded for the people of God in Old Testament times.  However, as the Colossians passage quoted above illustrates, these holy days have been abolished in New Testament times, having been shadows pointing forward to Christ.  The only holy day commanded in Scripture for New Testament times is the Lord's Day on the first day of the week.  (This is not the place to go into an argument for this point, but see this article by Rev. Brian Schwertley for some good argumentation on the subject.)  Throughout the history of the church after the time of the apostles, however, various new holy days were introduced into the practice of the church, such as Christmas and Easter.  These days (and many others) were mandated in the church during the Middle Ages.  At the time of the Reformation, many Reformed churches abolished them, but the continental Reformed churches waffled back and forth on some of them for a while, eventually codifying a few of them into the regular practice of the church at the Synod of Dordt around 1618-19 (see this article by a continental Reformed minister for a historical account of how this happened).  The Reformed Church of Scotland, on the other hand, rejected all of them from the beginning and never embraced them.

So the question is this:  Is it in accord with the regulative principle of worship to observe extra-biblical holy days like Christmas and Easter?

Well, let's start by being clear as to what it means to "observe" a holy day like Christmas or Easter (we'll focus on Christmas to make discussion easier).  Let's describe this idea by dividing it into two parts:  1. For a person to "observe" Christmas means that he sets aside December 25 (at least in the west) in order to focus special attention on the birth of Christ.  2. For a church to "observe" Christmas means that the elders of the church set aside December 25 as a special day to focus on the birth of Christ, usually partly by means of having a special worship service on that day and perhaps commanding members to participate in it.

So is any of this in violation of the regulative principle of worship?  First of all, is there anything wrong with a person voluntarily deciding to spend December 25 focusing his thoughts on the birth of Christ?  No, there is nothing necessarily wrong with this.  What days or times we devote to thinking about some particular topic is, in general, a thing indifferent.  As long as we understand that it is a thing indifferent when we do it, there is nothing wrong with this (speaking generally--obviously, in some particular situations there might be something wrong with it relating to particular details of an individual's life).

But what if we begin to think of it as a thing that is necessary?  At this point, we are in violation of the regulative principle unless we can prove that God has commanded in Scripture that it is a duty to focus on the birth of Christ on December 25.  We cannot add to God's law by making a duty what God has left indifferent.  Sometimes we might be tempted to do this subtly:  "Well, observing Christmas isn't strictly necessary (such a harsh word), but it is really good for my spiritual life, such that my spiritual life would suffer and be significantly impoverished if I didn't do it."  Is it a thing indifferent to cause one's spiritual life to be significantly impoverished or to suffer?  Of course not!  Therefore this is simply a roundabout and disingenuous way of saying that the observance of Christmas is a necessary duty.  But can we really prove that from Scripture (either from what is "expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture")?  I don't see how.  Do we really have evidence that a person's spiritual life is incomplete if he doesn't celebrate Christmas?  Are we willing to say that all those (such as the historic Presbyterians and Puritans) who don't celebrate Christmas have had impoverished spiritual lives and have not been taking care of their spiritual lives as much as they should?  Without such evidence, we have to conclude that the idea that Christmas is an important part of one's spiritual life is not a Scriptural idea but one invented by human imagination.  And thus to think of the observance of Christmas in this way is to make commanded or necessary that which is indifferent, and thus to violate the regulative principle of worship.

Well then, is it a violation of the regulative principle of worship for the church as a body to observe Christmas?  Since the Scriptures nowhere command the observance of Christmas, and since the observance of Christmas cannot be proved to be necessary to fulfill some divine command that is present in Scripture, we must conclude that it is a violation of the regulative principle of worship for a church to command the observance of Christmas on church members.  There is no biblical reason why it is necessary to separate December 25 as a special day on which the focus should be placed on the birth of Christ, and so the church cannot require it or make it necessary.  Of course, the church also should not forbid church members from focusing on the birth of Christ on December 25, so long as they do not do it as a commanded duty but only as something voluntary.

But what if the church does not command members to participate in the observance of Christmas, but simply has a special worship service in order as a body to observe Christmas while leaving it voluntary for members to participate or not?  This may at first glance seem to allow the church to escape the difficulty, for it is not commanding its members to do anything.  But I think that if we examine this scenario more carefully, we will see that it involves a bit of double-speak.  If the church does something as a body under the authority of the church session, surely that involves a claim from the elders of the church that doing this thing is important for the church to do.  It would be ridiculous for the elders of the church to go through the trouble of putting together a special religious service and then, upon being asked why they are doing this, to reply, "Oh, for no good reason."  This would be a waste of the time and resources of the church.  When a church observes Christmas as a body, even when it does not strictly speaking require participation from members, it still sends a clear message that the observance of Christmas is an important thing for the Body of Christ to do, and this implies that those who do not participate are in some sense neglectful of their spiritual life.  They are not, strictly speaking, commanded to participate, but how can their non-participation be regarded when they are refraining from participating in something the church has declared is important enough to pursue as a body?  While the words say that participation is not necessary, the actions imply that those who do not participate are missing out on something that the church ought to be doing.

But cannot the church command days and times to be set apart for particular purposes in certain circumstances in order better to carry out the ministry of the church?  For example, would it violate the regulative principle for the church to set aside a certain Wednesday in February in order to deliver a lecture on some particular doctrinal topic?  No, this would not violate the regulative principle, because it is evident that sometimes circumstances arise in which the teaching ministry of the church requires some time to be set aside other than the regular Sunday worship services.  When this can be shown to be necessary, there is nothing wrong with doing it.  The problem with something like the observance of Christmas is that it involves in its very essence the idea that there is something special about the particular day and that there is some necessity to have a regular ritual in which that particular day is made the focus of special attention.  If a lecture is held on February 17, nobody thinks that this involves some kind of special observance of that particular day as special.  Its being set aside for a particular use is purely logistical in nature rather than being viewed as somehow necessary per se as a part of the ongoing worship and service of the church.  Of course, it is evident that these issues can be tricky and subtle, and that much care and discernment is required to think rightly about them.  We should pray to exercise such discernment, but we should not make the difficulty of some particular cases an excuse to throw discernment out the window and just do whatever we want.  The case here is parallel to that of ethics.  There are cases of ethics that are difficult and require much careful thought and great discernment, but that cannot be used as an excuse to throw ethical discernment out the window and declare that "anything goes."

Of course, we can also add to the above discussion the fact that the New Testament specifically condemns the idea that it is necessary to observe holy days outside the Lord's Day.  I have already referred above to Colossians 2:16-23.  We can add to that Galatians 4:8-11:

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

So we can say that the Scriptures not only do not command holy days outside the Lord's Day to be observed, but they positively forbid the counting of such days as objectively special or holy.  But notice that we arrived above at this conclusion without having to refer to passages that positively condemn the idea of the necessary observance of extra-biblical holy days.  Although these passages confirm our conclusion, we already knew it was correct simply on the basis that the Scriptures nowhere command the observance of such holy days.

In light of a clear investigation of the facts regarding the observance of extra-biblical holy days like Christmas, the position taken by the historic Reformed Church of Scotland, as expressed in the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, seems warranted:

THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.

The disagreement between the continental Reformed churches and the heirs of the Reformed Church of Scotland on this matter has for the past few centuries created a barrier to full unity between these two traditions.  A more careful application of the regulative principle of worship is in order to help resolve the schism.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the regulative principle of worship is much more straightforward and rooted in Scriptural common sense than many people think.  I remember when I used to struggle with this issue, I had trouble understanding why worship could only consist of things commanded in the Scriptures.  Can't we love God with all of our lives, even when we do things that are indifferent rather than commanded?  Yes, of course we can, and should (actually, we are required to do so, as I showed earlier).  The regulative principle of worship does not mean that I can never do anything indifferent to the glory of God.  It simply requires that I keep the three categories of commanded, indifferent, and forbidden distinct.  I can glorify God by means of something indifferent.  What I cannot do is glorify God by turning something indifferent into something commanded (or vice versa, etc.).  For example, I am free to sing man-made hymns to the glory of God.  This is not a bad thing to do at all.  What I can't do is treat the singing of man-made hymns as if it is a duty I am commanded to perform or as if it were something that is per se pleasing to God (in such a way that God would be displeased if I didn't do it).  Nor can I make it a duty for others to do it or command or require them to do it.  Why?  Because the singing of man-made hymns is nowhere commanded in Scripture, nor does it follow by good and necessary consequence from any command of Scripture.  (Of course, I have here raised a contentious issue.  I will not deal with it at this time, however, but refer readers here as a starting point for further investigation.)  The regulative principle of worship is not some immensely complex theological construct.  It is nothing more than the realization that God is the ultimate moral authority of the universe and that we exist to please him, and that therefore only he ultimately can declare to us what our duty is (and what sin is), and we have no right to add to it nor take away from it.

One Gigantic Kirk-Session

THE FACTS

1. All governing assemblies have the same kinds of rights and powers. These are to be used to maintain truth and righteousness and to oppose erroneous opinions and sinful practices that threaten the purity, peace, or progress of the church. All assemblies have the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline reasonably proposed and the power to obtain evidence and inflict censures. A person charged with an offense may be required to appear only before the assembly having jurisdiction over him, but any member of the church may be called by any assembly to give testimony.

2. Each governing assembly exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters belonging to it. The session exercises jurisdiction over the local church; the presbytery over what is common to the ministers, sessions, and the church within a prescribed region; and the general assembly over such matters as concern the whole church. Disputed matters of doctrine and discipline may be referred to a higher governing assembly. The lower assemblies are subject to the review and control of higher assemblies, in regular graduation. These assemblies are not separate and independent, but they have a mutual relation and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate body.  (OPC Book of Church Order - Chapter XII, "Governing Assemblies")


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.  (Form of Presbyterial Church-Government)

In the biblical, presbyterian form of church government, there is only one church.  This church is made up of all those who have made a credible profession of the true religion throughout all the world and their children, together with all the officers (elders and deacons) whom God has given to serve and to shepherd them.

Although there is only one church, it is evident that the church contains too many members and is spread out too far apart for the entire church to function as one organized body in all its functions at all times.  (For example, just imagine trying to bring the entire worldwide church together in a single place for public worship on the Lord's Day!)  Therefore, the one church is divided into subgroups which allow it to carry out its functions more efficiently.

IT is lawful and expedient that there be fixed congregations, that is, a certain company of Christians to meet in one assembly ordinarily for publick worship. When believers multiply to such a number, that they cannot conveniently meet in one place, it is lawful and expedient that they should be divided into distinct and fixed congregations, for the better administration of such ordinances as belong unto them, and the discharge of mutual duties.

The ordinary way of dividing Christians into distinct congregations, and most expedient for edification, is by the respective bounds of their dwellings.

First, Because they who dwell together, being bound to all kind of moral duties one to another, have the better opportunity thereby to discharge them; which moral tie is perpetual; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.

Secondly, The communion of saints must be so ordered, as may stand with the most convenient use of the ordinances, and discharge of moral duties, without respect of persons.

Thirdly, The pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together, as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency.

In this company some must be set apart to bear office.  (Form of Presbyterial Church-Government)

As the church is divided up into smaller subgroups of members and officers, this leads to the situation described in the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government, where the church is "governed by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical, and synodical."  At the smallest level, we have the local congregation, with its members and officers.  Each congregation has officers who are appointed specifically to bear rule over that congregation.  Presbyterians typically call these officers the "kirk-session" or the "session."  Therefore, not all church officers have jurisdiction over every congregation.  This would cause confusion and disorder.  Officers should focus primarily and immediately on their own peculiar charges.

However, the fact that we must thus subdivide the membership and rule of the church for logistical purposes does not negate the fact that there is only one worldwide church.  Members have more immediate fellowship with other members in their own congregations, but they are still united in formal communion with all the other members of the church scattered throughout all of the congregations.

Likewise, although elders have immediate and primary charge over their own congregations, yet they are still part of a larger ruling body of elders who are over the entire church.  This is manifest by the fact that they are not to function in complete isolation from each other.  They are to come together in larger governing bodies, such as regional presbyteries, to share rule over the broader church.  The most comprehensive, and thus the highest, governing body in the church is the general assembly, or the ecumenical council, which is the body of all the elders engaging in rule over the entire worldwide church.

Assemblies are of four sorts. For, either are they of particular kirks and congregations, one or more, or of a province, or of a whole nation, or of all and diverse nations professing one Jesus Christ.  (The Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland)

Or, to put it another way, the entire church is governed by one gigantic kirk-session, which breaks up into smaller sub-group kirk-sessions.

As the OPC Book of Church Order indicates, the purpose of the eldership, and of all its assemblies, is "to maintain truth and righteousness and to oppose erroneous opinions and sinful practices that threaten the purity, peace, or progress of the church."  Thus, if members engage in erroneous opinions or sinful practices, the congregational session is to discipline them.  If the members believe this discipline to be unjust, they can appeal their case to a larger or higher governing body, such as a regional presbytery, which can affirm or overturn the decision of the session.  If an elder on a particular session engages in erroneous teachings or sinful practices, he can be disciplined by the session acting as a whole.  If an entire session goes astray, it can be disciplined by a regional presbytery, etc.  In all of these ways, the unity and purity of the church are preserved in a logistically efficient manner.

THE IMPLICATION

I have put forward the above facts in order to shed further light on an argument I have made a number of times previously in other articles (such as here and here).  My argument is that in a presbyterian system of church government, when two or more denominations are separated from each other, the implication is that these denominations are rejecting each others' de jure authority as churches.  More specifically, they are rejecting the legitimacy and authority of each others' church courts (assemblies).  Therefore, the very idea that there can be multiple de jure denominations (which is held by many professing presbyterians today) is inherently un-presbyterian.

The basis for this claim should be evident from what has been said above.  There is only one church.  There is one worldwide body of elders who have oversight over the church.  By virtue of being a de jure officer in the church, each elder has authority that the other elders must recognize.  He cannot be excluded from exercising that authority in the assemblies of the church.  Modern Presbyterians understand this well with regard to the level of sessions or regional presbyteries.  They all recognize that the following scenario, for example, is unjust and unbiblical.

Bob, Steve, John, and Dave are elders on a local session.  They are meeting together this evening for a session meeting.  Bob, Steve, and John are there, but Dave is absent.  "Where's Dave?" asks Bob.  "Oh, I didn't invite him to come to the meeting tonight," responds Steve.  "Why not?" asks Bob.  "Well, I think he's a bit weak in some areas of doctrine and practice, so I don't think we should allow him to exercise authority on the session."

What's wrong with this scenario?  The problem is that Dave has already been recognized as an elder on the session!  His de jure legitimacy and authority as an elder has already been granted.  It would be perfectly fine for the session to decide not to ordain a particular person to office--that is, to refrain from granting de jure authority as an elder to him--on the grounds of errors or weaknesses in doctrine or practice.  However, it is quite another thing to treat a recognized de jure officer as if he has no authority by excluding him from participation in the governing assembly.  This is to act unjustly, by treating him as if he does not possess an authority which he does in fact possess.

We could portray a similar scenario at the presbytery level:

Sessions A, B, C, and D are all part of a regional presbytery, which is currently meeting.  A, B, and C are present, but D's representatives are absent.  "Where are the representatives from Session D?" asks the moderator of the presbytery.  "Oh, we decided not to invite them," responds the stated clerk.  "They're a bit shaky in doctrine and practice in some ares, and we don't trust them to exercise authority in the presbytery."

Of course, this scenario involves the same problem as the previous one.  It is fine and good for a presbytery to decide not to receive a particular congregation and its local session into the presbytery--thus giving that session authority in the presbytery--on the grounds of problems in doctrine or practice.  However, it is quite another thing to have already granted de jure status to a particular session and then treat them as if they have no de jure authority by not allowing them to exercise their rightful authority in the appropriate manner as a part of the regional presbytery.

Modern professing presbyterians typically get these two kinds of scenarios.  But many start having problems when we begin dealing with different denominations.  Perhaps the best way to bring this out is to portray another scenario involving a general assembly meeting.

Denomination I is having a general assembly meeting.  The general assembly is the highest assembly recognized by Denomination I, and thus represents the whole church.  One of the commissioners raises his hand.  "Yes, what is it?" responds to assembly moderator.  (Yes, if this were real, it would be much more formal.)  "Where are the representatives from Denomination II?" asks the commissioner.  "We didn't invite them," replies the moderator.  "We do not grant them the right to exercise authority in this assembly.  There are doctrinal and practical concerns we have about them that keep us from uniting with them at this time."  "So we don't accept their de jure authority?" asks the commissioner.  "Oh yes, we definitely grant the de jure authority of their church courts," replies the moderator.  "They certainly have true authority to function as officers and assemblies in the church.  We simply don't invite them to exercise their authority in our general assembly."  "But," protests the commissioner, "there is only one church!  If Denomination II's church courts have de jure legitimacy and authority, then we must be able to join with them in exercising joint authority in an assembly in which we both share.  If we make this current assembly our highest assembly, and yet exclude them from it, we have excluded them from sharing with us in the overall rule of the whole church, which is their right as de jure officers and assemblies."

The commissioner is surely right.  All legitimate, active church officers and assemblies, by right, have the authority to participate together in a common assembly over the rule of the whole church.  One section of the one church of Christ has no right to refuse to join in a common assembly with any other section of the one church.  If two denominations refuse to join in a common governing assembly, it can only mean one of three things:  1. They have abandoned the presbyterian form of church government and thus the biblical unity of the church.  2. They have decided to be unjust by refusing to treat each other as their respective proper legitimacy and authority would dictate.  3. They do not grant to each other de jure legitimacy and authority as active officers and assemblies in the church.  There are no other possibilities.  Thus, the idea that there can be multiple, independent de jure denominations is incompatible with presbyterianism.

We can show this in another way as well.  As we have seen, the job of the eldership of the church is to guard the purity, peace, and progress of the church.  Church courts are to discipline members, officers, and lower courts which engage in erroneous opinions or sinful practices.  Although there is some confusion about how to do this in some modern Reformed circles due to the influence of latitudinarianism in much of the modern church (see here), most modern Reformed churches understand this task to a significant degree.  For example, if a local session in a Reformed denomination were to embrace credo-baptism, it would typically be disciplined by the presbytery exercising oversight over it.  This makes sense, because there is only one church, only one body.  Church shepherds are not to be concerned solely for doctrinal and practical integrity within their own immediate congregations, for "there should be no schism in the body; but . . . the members should have the same care one for another.  And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Cor. 12:25-26).  And "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9).

And yet this same care is not shown across denominational lines.  For example, the RPCNA practices exclusive psalmody.  They believe this to be required by the biblical doctrine of the regulative principle of worship.  Within the RPCNA, this practice is enforced.  If a session were to embrace uninspired hymn-singing in public worship, its overseeing presbytery would discipline it.  However, the RPCNA church courts never attempt to enforce discipline against other denominations that don't practice exclusive psalmody.  Why is this?  If the RPCNA and, say, the OPC, both possess de jure legitimacy and authority, then the RPCNA general assembly ought to call for a formal trial of the general assembly of the OPC over exclusive psalmody to take place within the over-arching assembly that binds both denominations together.  But, of course, there is no such assembly.  Either this means that the RPCNA and the OPC do not recognize each others' de jure legitimacy and authority, or it means that they have decided to be unjust or to abandon pure presbyterian church government.  The fact that they allow each other to embrace doctrinal and practical positions that they themselves reject (and enforce discipline against in their own assemblies) shows that they do not accept each others' full de jure legitimacy and authority within a presbyterian context.

For more, see here and here.

UPDATE 7/25/13:  To put the above argument very succinctly:

When a person becomes an elder in the church, he does not just become an elder over a particular congregation.  He joins a worldwide body of elders who govern the entire worldwide church.  Therefore, he has an inherent right to participate in the general assembly, the over-arching governing body of the church (though this may be by means of representation, as particular sessions send representatives to presbytery, presbytery sends representatives to the national assembly, etc.).  And this over-arching governing body has the task of preserving the unity, peace, and purity of the entire worldwide church--though it does this to a great degree by means of smaller divisions of itself such as national assemblies, regional presbyteries, and local congregational sessions.

Therefore, to refuse to have all elders and governing assemblies in the church represented in the highest governing body of the church, or to have two highest governing bodies that are independent of each other, is un-presbyterian.  But that is what denominationalism does.

UPDATE 8/12/13:  The OPC Form of Government, Chapter III, articulates a beautiful description of the collegiate nature of church authority in presbyterianism.  No room for multiple independent denominations here!  De jure officers do not function independently, but exercise their rule jointly as part of an eldership ruling over the entire church.  Therefore, to exclude certain men (such as officers from other denominations) from having a place at the table in the governance of the whole church is to treat them as having no de jure authority as officers in the church.

Those who join in exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction are the ministers of the Word or teaching elders, and other church governors, commonly called ruling elders. They alone must exercise this authority by delegation from Christ, since according to the New Testament these are the only permanent officers of the church with gifts for such rule. Ruling elders and teaching elders join in congregational, presbyterial, and synodical assemblies, for those who share gifts for rule from Christ must exercise these gifts jointly not only in the fellowship of the saints in one place but also for the edification of all the saints in larger areas so far as they are appointed thereto in an orderly manner, and are acknowledged by the saints as those set over them in the Lord.

Government by presbyters or elders is a New Testament ordinance; their joint exercise of jurisdiction in presbyterial assemblies is set forth in the New Testament; and the organization of subordinate and superior courts is founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God, expressing the unity of the church and the derivation of ministerial authority from Christ the Head of the church.

Let's Play "Pin the Denomination on the De Jure Visible Church."

The Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland well sums up the presbyterian nature of the church.  Take a look at the outline below of the various parts of the one visible church of Christ de jure, and figure out where your denomination's general assembly (or synod) fits into it. Then pick another denomination and figure out where it fits into it.  After you do this, read what I say below the outline.

Chapter 7 - Of the Elderships, and Assemblies, and Discipline

1. Elderships and assemblies are commonly constituted of pastors, doctors, and such as we commonly call elders, that labour not in the word and doctrine, of whom, and of whose several power has been spoken.
   
2. Assemblies are of four sorts. For, either are they of particular kirks and congregations, one or more, or of a province, or of a whole nation, or of all and diverse nations professing one Jesus Christ.
   
3. All the ecclesiastical assemblies have power to convene lawfully together for treating of things concerning the kirk, and pertaining to their charge. They have power to appoint times and places to that effect; and at one meeting to appoint the diet, time, and place for another.
   
4. In all the assemblies a moderator should be chosen (by the common consent of the whole brethren convened) who should propose matters, gather the votes, and cause good order to be kept in the assemblies. Diligence should be taken, chiefly by the moderator, that only ecclesiastical things be handled in the assemblies, and that there be no meddling with anything pertaining to the civil jurisdiction.
   
5. Every assembly has power to send forth from them of their own number, one or more visitors to see how all things are ruled in the bounds of their jurisdiction. Visitation of more kirks is no ordinary ecclesiastical office in the person of one man; neither may the name of a bishop be attributed to the visitor only; neither is it necessary to abide always in one man's person; but it is the part of the eldership to send out qualified persons to visit pro re nata.
   
6. The final end of all assemblies is, first, to keep the religion and doctrine in purity, without error and corruption; next, to keep comeliness and order in the kirk.
   
7. For this order's case, they may make certain rules and constitutions appertaining to the good behaviour of all the members of the kirk in their vocation.
   
8. They have power also to abrogate and abolish all statutes and ordinances concerning ecclesiastical matters that are found noisome and unprofitable, and agree not with the time, or are abused by the people.
   
9. They have power to execute ecclesiastical discipline and punishment upon all transgressors and proud contemners of the good order and policy of the kirk; and so the whole discipline is in their hands.
   
10. The first kind and sort of assemblies, although they are within particular congregations, yet they exercise the power, authority, and jurisdiction of the kirk with mutual consent, and therefore bear sometimes the name of the kirk. When we speak of the elders of the particular congregations, we mean not that every particular parish can, or may, have their own particular elderships, especially to landward; but we think three or four, more or fewer, particular kirks may have one eldership common to them all, to judge their ecclesiastical causes. Albeit this is meet, that some of the elders be chosen out of every particular congregation, to concur with the rest of their brethren in the common assembly, and to take up the delations of offences within their own kirks, and bring them to the assembly. This we gather from the practice of the primitive kirk, where elders, or colleges of seniors, were constituted in cities and famous places.
    
11. The power of these particular elderships is to give diligent labours in the bounds committed to their charge, that the kirks be kept in good order; to inquire diligently of naughty and unruly persons, and travail to bring them in the way again, either by admonition, or threatening of God's judgments, or by correction.
    
12. It pertains to the eldership to take heed that the word of God be purely preached within their bounds, the sacraments rightly ministered, the discipline rightly maintained, and the ecclesiastical goods uncorruptly distributed.
    
13. It belongs to this kind of assembly to cause the ordinances made by the assemblies provincial, national, and general, to be kept, and put in execution; to make constitutions which concern to; prevpon[2] in the kirk, for the decent order of these particular kirks where they govern; providing they alter no rules made by the general or provincial assemblies, and that they make the provincial assemblies foreseen of these rules that they shall make, and abolish them that tend to the hurt of the same.
    
14. It has power to excommunicate the obstinate.
    
15. The power of election of them who bear ecclesiastical charges pertains to this kind of assembly, within their own bounds, being well erected and constituted of many pastors and elders of sufficient ability.
    
16. By the like reason their deposition also pertains to this kind of assembly, as of them that teach erroneous and corrupt doctrine; that are of scandalous life, and, after admonition, desist not; that are given to schism or rebellion against the kirk, manifest blasphemy, simony, corruption of bribes, falsehood, perjury, whoredom, theft, drunkenness, fighting worthy of punishment by the law, usury, dancing, infamy, and all others that deserve separation from the kirk. These also who are found altogether insufficient to execute their charge should be deposed; whereof other kirks would be advertised, that they receive not the persons deposed.
    
17. Yet they ought not to be deposed who, through age, sickness, or other accidents, become unmeet to do their office; in the which case their honour should remain to them, their kirk should maintain them; and others ought to be provided to do their office.
    
18. Provincial assemblies we call lawful conventions of the pastors, doctors, and other elders of a province, gathered for the common affairs of the kirks thereof; which also may be called the conference of the kirk and brethren.
    
19. These assemblies are instituted for weighty matters, to be treated by mutual consent and assistance of the brethren within the provinces, as needs requires.
    
20. This assembly has power to handle, order, and redress all things omitted, or done amiss, in the particular assemblies. It has power to depose the office-bearers of that province for good and just causes deserving deprivation. And, generally, these assemblies have the whole power of the particular elderships whereof they are collected.
    
21. The national assembly, which is general to us, is a lawful convention of the whole kirks of the realm or nation where it is used and gathered for the common affairs of the kirk; and may be called the general eldership of the whole kirk within the realm. None are subject to repair to this assembly to vote but ecclesiastical persons, to such a number as shall be thought good by the same assembly; not excluding other persons that will repair to the said assembly to propose, hear, and reason.
    
22. This assembly is instituted, that all things either omitted or done amiss in the provincial assemblies may be redressed and handled; and things generally serving for the weal of the whole body of the kirk within the realm may be foreseen, treated, and set forth to God's glory.
    
23. It should take care that kirks be planted where they are not planted. It should prescribe the rule how the other two kinds of assemblies should proceed in all things.
    
24. This assembly should take heed that the spiritual jurisdiction and the civil be not confounded to the hurt of the kirk; that the patrimony of the kirk be not diminished nor abused; and, generally, concerning all weighty affairs that concern the weal and good order of the whole kirks of the realm, it ought to interpose authority thereto.
    
25. There is, besides these, another more general kind of assembly, which is of all nations and estates of persons within the kirk, representing the universal kirk of Christ; which may be called properly the general assembly, or general council of the whole kirk of God. These assemblies were appointed and called together specially, when any great schism or controversy in doctrine did arise in the kirk, and were convoked at the command of godly emperors, being for the time, for avoiding of schisms within the universal kirk of God; which, because they appertain not to the particular estate of one realm, we cease further to speak of them. 

Did you try to find your denomination plus another one in there?  Hopefully you noticed that it is impossible.  This outline does not have any room for multiple de jure denominations.  That is because presbyterianism has no room for multiple de jure denominations.  The idea of there being multiple de jure denominations is not presbyterian but semi-congregationalist in nature. Multiple denominations don't fit because the church courts of different denominations are independent from each other, while presbyterianism does not allow for independent church courts in the visible church.  Also, different denominations usually have somewhat different standards of doctrine and practice.  And yet presbyterianism requires that purity of faith and practice be preserved by the eldership of the church. Sessions keep local congregations pure, presbyteries keep churches under them pure, national assemblies keep churches under them pure, and ecumenical or general international assemblies keep national churches under them pure.  This system does not allow for purity to be kept only at the presbytery level or the national level while divergence from purity is tolerated beyond it.

If we want to be presbyterian in the manner of the Second Book of Discipline, we are going to have to rethink much of what we do in the modern Reformed world.

For more, see here and here.