Pastor: Well, we have the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, even though they predate theistic evolution. We tried to have a statement declaring the special creation of Adam passed at the national level of the denomination, but that failed. Now we’ll have to wait to see if anyone teaches theistic evolution and then wait for a judicial case to be decided for there to be anything definitive.

Last evening I saw this story by The Presbyterian Curmudgeon (linked here via The Aquila Report).  The article has the somewhat offensive title of “Grown-ups Prevail at the PCA General Assembly.” The author of the blog, Orthodox Presbyterian Church pastor Matthew Kingsbury, begins by being critical of Presbyterians making statements in General Assemblies, but makes an observation that I would basically agree with:

The Westminster Standards cover a great deal of doctrinal ground, and I (for one) think it unlikely a committee-penned statement on, say, justification will be any more clear than the Confession, Larger Catechism, and Shorter Catechism.

However, Pastor Kingsbury links to the website of Peter Leithart; I’m not sure if he’s a fan, but I would be interested to know why he does so. My point of agreement with him is that the Westminster Standards are comprehensive and clear and have full authority, and ministers and elders do take vows to subscribe to them. Confessionalism is vital to Presbyterianism.

However, there is one major deficiency in the Standards: they do not have the ability to travel through time into the future. Thus, various movements and challenges and heresies will arise over time that will seek to undermine what the Standards teach — things the Standards might teach about, but don’t directly address. Pastor Kingsbury cites justification, which is a good example. It is hard to think of a more precise statement than what is found in question 7o of the Larger Catechism:

Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Yet, as clear as this statement is, the errors of Federal Visionism have arisen within the very churches which claim to hold to the Westminster Standards. Therefore, in order to address such concerns, sometimes church courts will make official statements. Sometimes these come through committees, sometimes they are made on the floor of the assembly, sometimes they come through memorials/overtures sent up by the presbyteries. There is nothing unusual about this.

But the pastor objects. He writes (emphasis in the original):

Thus, the cockles of my curmudgeonly heart (if, in fact, a curmudgeon can be said to have a heart) were warmed when the 40th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in American rejected an overture that it make an in thesi declaration against theistic evolution on the ground that Scripture and the Westminster Standards do so with sufficient clarity. …[T]he Assembly has taken the very grown-up position that presbyterians need not restate what they’ve already stated, no matter how many people insist it is VERY IMPORTANT that they do so. Let the Baptists issue statements; we’ve subscribed to a confession.

The implication seems to be that is is apparently childish and baptistic to support such a declaratory statement. Those in the minority of the PCA on this vote (roughly 40% of the assembly) were not being “grownup” and possibly behaving like Baptists.I would like to ask him if he thinks the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church was being childish and baptistic for passing a memorial on the historicity of Adam at its most recent meeting of General Synod (see here). The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America likewise has the following very precise statements in its Testimony concerning this very issue:

The account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is history, not mythology. … The theory of evolution which assumes that chance happenings are an explanation of the origin and development of matter and living things is unscriptural. … We deny that man evolved from any lower form of life.

For the record, the ARPC and the RPCNA are far older denominations than either the PCA or the OPC. It’s not that older means better — far from it — but since we are talking about who is being “grownups,” it is probably a necessary observation. At any rate, the RPCNA Testimony explains why such statements, if not necessary, are certainly prudent within Presbyterianism:

The Westminster Confession of Faith is one of the historic creeds of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America believes that this Confession is based on, and subordinate to, Scripture. The truth it presents is of inestimable value for contemporary society. However, changes in the application of truth are needed because of changing situations in each generation. Some current topics of vital importance for the Christian Church were unknown in the 17th century. Therefore, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America presents its Testimony applying Scripture truth to the contemporary situation.

Once again, the Westminster Standards are not a time machine. They were written two centuries before Darwinism and natural selection and 19th century attacks on Scripture. Should they be sufficient to address these issues? Yes, but we all know perfectly well that the history of Presbyterianism is littered with ministers and elders who took took vows to affirm the Standards and yet openly taught against them. To say, “we don’t need statements, we already have the Confession” is almost along the lines of “We don’t need creeds, we have the Bible!” It fails to realize that there are those who might interpret statements differently from others, even if they claim to be biblical and/or confessional. There might be a “baptistic” sentiment here, but I think the pastor is mistaken where it is coming from.

The pastor’s solution is a valid one, however: judicial process. Yet, such a process takes time and money, plus a willingness to see such processes through to the end. Sometimes it takes years to settle such a case. In the meantime, ministers are allowed to stay in positions where they can still teach God’s people. At the very least, a statement like the one opposed by the pastor serves a helpful purpose: it is a theological line in the sand that shows where a denomination stands on a particular issue that has arisen within the church. Sometimes the issue is more pressing than the time needed for a trial will allow. Within the PCA, issues over BioLogos may have been behind the overtures. In fact, a representative from BioLogos was allowed to conduct a lecture at the PCA GA (see here and here for instance). Where I was raised, when the fox is in the hen house, most folks don’t wait for a cloud of feathers and an ensuing trial to settle the matter; they go ahead and protect what is valuable to them. Sure, there are other ways to solve the problem, but you might have a lot fewer chickens because of it.

Sometimes issues arise that require strong statements from Presbyterian bodies. There is nothing childish or baptistic in that approach. God’s people should be guarded by their leaders. If a product is potentially harmful to my child, I expect to see a warning label. It is not exactly comforting for someone to tell me that I first need to wait on a lawsuit to settle the matter.

There is much more to this than quibbles over Presbyterian polity and abstract discussions over theological principles. On a practical level, it concerns me how a pastor would address this issue at the local church level. Consider, for example, someone who has been visiting the church for a few weeks who begins to inquire about church membership. Perhaps he will ask a question on the issue of creation. Consider the following two situations:

First Scenario

Visitor: Pastor, I’m interested in church membership, but I first want to know where the denomination stands on the issue of creation.

Pastor: Well, we have the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, even though they predate theistic evolution. We tried to have a statement declaring the special creation of Adam passed at the national level of the denomination, but that failed. Now we’ll have to wait to see if anyone teaches theistic evolution and then wait for a judicial case to be decided for there to be anything definitive.

Second Scenario

Visitor: Pastor, I’m interested in church membership, but I first want to know where the denomination stands on the issue of creation.

Pastor: I’m glad you asked. Our General Synod recently passed a memorial that affirms the special creation of Adam. As a matter of fact, it was our church that wrote the memorial and our presbytery that sent it along to the General Synod, where it was passed overwhelmingly.

I shall leave the reader to decide which is the better option, but under one of those, I wouldn’t expect to see the visitor back next week.

Near the end of the blog post, the pastor writes this statement:

The practical impotence of in thesi declarations is why I think them corrosive to the Church’s well-being.

After reading that, a friend of mine (a pastor in the PCA) commented, “How can he claim something to be ‘impotent’ and ‘corrosive’ at the same time?” It’s a good question, one that requires some thoughtfulness. Most of the blog post is thoughtful enough (though I disagree with the conclusions). It should not, however, devolve into condescending name-calling. There is nothing grown-up about that.

Tim Phillips is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and currnelty serves as pastor of Midlane Park ARP Church in Louisville, Kentucky.  This article is taken from his blog, Gairney Bridge, and is used with his permission. 

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]