What’s the difference between sectarianism and catholicity?

Without rehearsing everything that R. Scott Clark and Lee Irons have said, it seems to me that the problem with the Reformed and Presbyterian forms of subscription (focusing solely on church officers and seminary professors) can be distilled to this:

System subscription is manifestly necessary when a confession says more than it must. But the other edge of that same sword is that the system then depends upon the faith, education, good will, catholicity and commitment to all of those things on the part of the presbyters. Without them, I don’t see how to avoid ecclesiastical events like the Auburn Affirmation and its aftermath.

Now Clark may object by saying that the Reformed are exempt from this critique because they don’t practice system subscription. But that is true only formally. Lee Irons and Matt Morgan are absolutely right to press home the torturous truth that materially (or, to use Clark’s term actually) the Reformed do practice system subscription. Clark admits as much when he says:

Are there things in the Reformed confessions which are not of the essence of the documents themselves? Sure. We haven’t commonly called 1-2 Chronicles “Parlipomenon” for a very long time. I doubt that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews, but we haven’t required anyone to hold those views in order to be regarded as subscribing the Three Forms of Unity for a very long time. Indeed, Pauline authorship of Hebrews wasn’t universally accepted in the 16th century and it was probably a mistake (as I think Calvin suggested) to include that language in the Belgic. At least, unlike the Lutherans, we don’t confess anything about the power of garlic!

What else is not of the essence of the confessions? Well, I hesitate to make a list because I don’t know that there are many things in either the Three Forms or the Westminster Standards that Reformed people ought not to be expected to believe. I don’ t know that our churches were have been in the habit of confessing things that esoteric.

There are a few things to respond to here, but the main point is that the Reformed admit that there are things in the Confessions that are not of the essence of Reformed faith and practice. This is a de facto admission to the practice of system subscription.

The other thing to keep in mind as Clark objects to making a list of things non-essential in the confessions, is that words mean things. That is why, while the Westminster standards may be a more “mature” expression of the Reformed faith than the 3 Forms, they may also be the most damaging to Christian consciences—precisely because they say more than is necessary. For example, as Lee has already pointed out, Meredith Kline objected to the language of “some voluntary condescension on God’s part” in describing God’s covenant with Adam. Does Clark really mean that the theological development of Reformed minds was arrested in the seventeenth century at the conclusion of the Westminster Assembly? Or is it possible that Meredith Kline can develop Reformed covenant theology further and more carefully (with an ever-watchful eye on safeguarding the Pauline-Protestant doctrine of justification) in such a way that it calls into question the necessity, orthodoxy and biblical authority of the “voluntary condescension” language?

I believe such progress is possible. But before I offer my own suggestions regarding that progress, let’s look at one more thing.

Clark claims, “The system of doctrine contained in the Reformed confessions is not minimal or to be minimized. It is co-extensive with the documents themselves and that which is of their substance.” This would be a helpful solution if it were true materially or actually. But Clark has already admitted a few things that are not co-extensive with the documents themselves. Let’s look at a few more:

Belgic Confession Article 7 reads (in part):

Therefore, no other Writings of humans, however much gifted with sanctity, nor custom, nor any majority, nor antiquities, neither rules of the times nor succession of persons, nor any councils, nor finally any human decrees or statutes ought to be pitted against or held on par with these divine Scriptures and this naked truth of God, because the truth of God surpasses all things.

Now I grant that there is some circularity involved insofar as it is impossible to read the Bible as if we hadn’t learned what it says and means from a tradition. But the nature of systematic theology is such that as we develop one area, it requires the adjustment of other related areas to reflect that development. Clark’s point about the difference between various systematic theologies and the received confession of the Church is well-taken. But it doesn’t require the divorce of the two. It seems to me that such a divorce will inevitably lead to intellectual dishonesty, academic censorship, violated consciences or all three. I fail to see how a Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura (i.e., Oberman’s “Tradition 1”) makes the confessions immutable. Doing so could very easily lead to Oberman’s “Tradition 2” or “Tradition 3” which I think Longman was concerned about.

The challenge has already been issued about BC Article 4:

Again, there are canonical books of the New Testament: the Four Gospels, obviously blessed Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Fourteen Letters of Blessed Paul, and the Seven Letters of the Remaining Apostles, the Apocalypse of the Blessed Apostle John.

(I just realized as I worked on this, that there is some incredible irony here: The RCUS, of all communions, has changed the language of Article 4 to attribute 13 letters to Paul, leaving Hebrews standing alone!) Here, Clark’s own critical questions come home to roost. If subscribers of the BC do not have to mean what Article 4 says about the authorship of Hebrews, “it is necessarily subjective… what if a WTS prof defines “system of doctrine” differently? What if, by “system of doctrine” a WTS prof has a much [different list]? What if justification sola gratia, sola fide weren’t on the list or what if the Reformed doctrine of worship or what if the doctrine of the covenant of works (which the Westminster Confession mentions several times but which many contemporary “Reformed” folk have felt at liberty to reject) are not included?” What’s good for the proverbial goose…

But we haven’t exhausted the things that the 3 Forms say that not every intellectually honest Reformed theologian is eager to say. Take BC 36, “Of the Magistracy”:

Again, it is the duty of these, not only to anxiously preserve civil polity, but also to give true effort that the holy ministry would be preserved, and that all idolatry and adultery of the worship of God would be removed from the public square, that the Kingdom of Antichrist would be destroyed, that the Kingdom of Christ would be truly extended. Finally, it is of their duty to bring it about that the sacred word of the Gospel would be preached from everywhere so that everyone, in turn, can freely worship purely and venerate God according to the prescription of His word. Moreover, all people, of whatsoever status, or state, or respect they may be, ought to be subject to the lawful Magistrates, to pay tax and tribute to them, and to follow and obey them in all things that are not opposed to the word of God, and also to pour out prayers on their behalf so that God would deem it worthy to lead them in all of their actions, and so that we could truly lead, with all piety and honesty, a tranquil and quiet life under their very selves.

Does R. Scott Clark really mean to tell us that we are duty-bound to confess that God’s Word teaches that the civil magistrate is responsible to make provision for the Christian ministry? Does he really believe that it is Congress’ mandate from God to remove all idolatry and adultery of the worship of God from the public square? Does Congress have a hand in destroying the Kingdom of Antichrist or truly extending the Kingdom of Christ? Does he really believe that not only Congress, but all civil magistrates of all times and all places are charged by God with protecting the preaching of the Gospel and free, pure worship? If so, what happened to the theology of the cross? I thought we were aliens in this present evil age who are to identify with Christ’s suffering. In other words, I thought Christ taught us to expect to suffer at the hands of those like the State. One more thing that I have been wrestling with lately—if we are “to follow and obey them in all things that are not opposed to the word of God” then what advice does a Consistory give when a parishioner’s conscience is unclear about paying taxes that support violations of the Decalogue—for one specific example, in the case of conscription, what should a Consistory tell the parishioner who believes that the 6^th commandment is inviolable whether he wears a government uniform or not? This is more problematic than the other two, because this accounts for the majority of Aricle 36 of the BC.

But there is one more example that I would like to introduce. This one comes from Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 37:

37. What do you understand by the word “suffered?”

That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race;¹ in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice,² He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation,³ and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.⁴

¹ Isa 53; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Pt 2:2-4, 24, 3:18; ² Ps 22:14-16; Mt 26:38; Rom 3:25-26, 5:6; 1 Cor 5:7; Eph 5:2; Heb 10:14; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10; ³ Rm 8:1-4; Gal 3:13; Col 1:13; Heb 9:12; 1Pt 1:18-19; ⁴ Jn 3:16; Rom 3:24-26; 2Cor 5:21; Heb 9:11

On its face, this is in direct conflict with the Article 8 of the Second Main Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort. Now I know there are gymnastics one can do that go something like, “When I confess ‘x’ I really mean ‘y.’ But that is not the kind of subscription Clark is advocating. He wants officers to “embrace all that we confess with heart and mouth.” Does “all” mean all or some, or most?

So what is the solution? This is where I laud Clark for feeling the force of Lee’s argument:

I do think, however, that the tension that exists, of which this discussion is a symbol, between what we confess formally and what we confess actually, is a symbol of the need for a new confession to which we can all subscribe honestly and thoroughly.

I could not agree more, and I have been giving this project a little thought (though I’ll save that for another post). Suffice it to say, the new confession should achieve the co-extensiveness of system and document. That means the Reformed and Presbyterian churches must debate, not simply announce, what is and is not of the essence of the Reformed system. That way we will have a document that Reformed Christians will be eager to own as their confession.