The Alliance for Mission and Renewal has published a theological vision for what it believes will promote the PCA’s unity, faithfulness, and flourishing.
I do not intend to provide a complete exposition of the PCA’s position on confessional subscription. There remain various understandings and practices concerning what Good Faith Subscription entails. My purpose is narrower: to consider what a presbytery actually does when it grants an exception and whether that action carries the consequences the author assigns to it.
The constitutional provisions commonly described as Good Faith Subscription principally address whether a candidate may sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards despite a stated difference. BCO 21-4 explains that a candidate is not required to affirm “every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms.” The word “our” is important. The candidate is not merely evaluating an interesting historical document. He is declaring a difference from the Confession and Catechisms adopted by the PCA as her own doctrinal Standards.
This allowance does not mean that the candidate affirms only those portions of the Standards from which he has not declared a difference. Rather, with his stated differences disclosed and judged by the Presbytery, he sincerely receives and adopts the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. He first affirms that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, are “the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” He is then asked: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”
To protect the integrity of this vow, BCO 21-4 requires the candidate to identify the specific instances in which he differs from the Standards. The Presbytery then judges those differences. It may grant an exception only when the declared difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion. The action of the Presbytery allows the candidate to take his vow honestly before God, without concealment or mental reservation.
The author, however, assigns a broader meaning to this action. He writes that by granting an exception, the PCA publicly declares itself “open to reform” on that matter because “there may be a legitimate biblical basis for a different view.” This is the inference I dispute.
In granting an exception, the Presbytery does not determine that the Standards may be wrong or that the candidate’s view is a legitimate alternative doctrine of the PCA. It determines that his stated difference does not prevent him from sincerely receiving and adopting the Standards as containing the biblical system of doctrine. The object of the Presbytery’s judgment is the candidate’s ability to take the vow, not the truth or possible error of the church’s confession.
The distinction, therefore, is between what the church adopts and what the church permits. The PCA adopts the Westminster Standards as her constitutional doctrine. A presbytery may permit an officer to serve despite a limited stated difference. The latter does not modify the former.
Following the candidate’s vow, there are three major matters that I think the candidate needs to articulate and that the Presbytery may need to help him understand when he takes his vow: the ability to hold a doctrine contrary to the Standards, the ability to teach a doctrine contrary to the Standards, and the ability to practice a doctrine contrary to the Standards. Those three different levels need to be understood.
What does granting an exception do? At minimum, it allows a man to hold a particular doctrine without being disqualified from office on that account. That doctrine remains his private judgment rather than an adopted judgment of the church. The PCA does not affirm his position merely by granting the exception, for the position remains contrary to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America. The more difficult questions concern what liberty he has to teach or practice that difference and what limits a court may properly impose.
The second matter is the ability to teach. A presbytery may allow a man to teach his stated difference, and, where wise and prudent, I would encourage presbyteries to do so. The variety of views within the Reformed tradition can be helpful, even when we do not affirm every view in every detail. Nevertheless, permission to teach an exception does not transform that exception into the church’s doctrine or relieve the officer of his duty to represent the church’s Standards honestly and sympathetically.
There needs to be an understanding, again, of what has happened. A man has been granted an exception to hold that position. He has entered a confessional household whose doctrine predates his arrival and remains the church’s public doctrine, unless amended. He needs to show respect and wisdom toward the denomination that has received him, but also toward those in the pew. Some households do not allow people to wear shoes inside. You take your shoes off when you walk in the door. Although that might not be the practice in your house, you need to understand that it is gracious to do so when you are in the house of another.
Therefore, I believe that a man’s private judgment concerning a specific instance or difference does not grant him the liberty to publicly undermine the doctrines of the church. He should state his conviction honestly while clearly distinguishing it from the PCA’s adopted doctrine. He may explain that this is his own interpretation of a particular passage and that the Standards of our denomination teach differently. In doing so, he honors both his conscience and the confessional household in which he serves.
If he believes the difference is significant enough to warrant changing the Standards, I encourage him to seek that change through the courts of the church. But he is the one with the stated difference. For the peace, purity, and unity of the church, the standard should remain the standard unless it is changed through the proper constitutional process. A granted exception does not automatically render the mere teaching of that exception subject to discipline. Neither, however, does it suspend WCF 20.4 or the officer’s vows concerning the peace, purity, and unity of the church. If the manner or content of his teaching becomes a scripturally provable offense under BCO 29-1, violates lawful oversight, or becomes destructive to the external peace and order that Christ has established in the church, the proper court may call him to account.
An exception is not immunity from discipline, though any discipline must rest upon Scripture as interpreted in the Standards (BCO 29-1) and proceed according to the Constitution of the Church.
Finally, there is the ability to practice. I believe this is where we need the most help as a denomination. Our denomination has specific views and interpretations of Scripture, and we need to seek unity around them. Even if every member of a Session personally holds the same stated difference, I believe it is for the good of those in the pews to seek to uphold what is taught in Scripture as summarized in the Standards.
Let me use an example to explain what I mean. Some might say, “To draw an image of Jesus in his humanity is not sinful. It is for didactic purposes, for teaching and instruction.” While I disagree, many who hold this view do not believe that such images are required. They might be helpful, but their use is not positively required by Scripture.
I therefore encourage brothers to think carefully about this, particularly for the denomination’s health and integrity. There may be people in your pews who uphold the Standards, even though they are not required to affirm them in their membership vows, and who seek to teach their children according to the Word of God without displaying images of Jesus. I do not believe it is helpful or wise for a Session to approve a curriculum that violates our Standards and, more importantly, could trouble the conscience of a young child or their parents.
I believe that granting an exception does not permit the practice of that exception. Indeed, I would say that it does not change the Standards in a way that would allow a court to act contrary to them.
I believe that, over time, the difference between these positions will have a lasting impact on the denomination. When we say that the Confession is vital to the fidelity, unity, and witness of our church, we are saying more than that it defines a broad field within which competing positions may be treated as equally Presbyterian. The PCA has adopted a standard, and good faith did not alter what she adopted. A person’s exception does not become that standard, amend that standard, or stand beside it as an alternative standard of the denomination. Rather, a man is granted an exception so that, with his difference honestly disclosed and judged, he may sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. We may share the same hope for a faithful and flourishing PCA, but these different understandings of an exception set us upon different paths, and those paths will lead to different outcomes.
