Editor’s Note: Following is a blog post written by a PCA Teaching Elder, in fact by one of the 29 signatories to the Jeffrey Meyers Letter of Concern that is currently in the news. His post is followed by one of his respondents on the blog site.

The Presbyterian Church in America is a confessional church. This does not mean that it has created a document it places on par with Scripture, which can never be improved upon or amended, nor does it mean that every minister and elder must submit to every particular of its creed.

It does, however, mean that every minister and elder agrees that the sum and substance of that confession is a faithful and accurate statement of the faith delivered to us in the Word of God.

In the history of the Reformed world, many ministers have found adherence to a confession to be a theological straightjacket. The history of denominations seems to indicate that, with time, confessions themselves become mere relics, without any sort of binding authority.

I can appreciate that some men would not want to be bound by our confession, particularly in the way we have chosen to make it binding. Our denomination is a voluntary association, and such men probably would rightly find a more amenable home in a less conservative denomination, of which there are many.

As it is, ministers in our denomination vow to uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith and its two Catechisms. One might hope that we do this because we love it, and esteem it, not because we deem it perfect in the way Scripture is perfect. I don’t think a man has to own every aspect fleshed out in the Westminster Standards, but we do have to subscribe to them as containing the system of doctrine.

In my last post, I highlighted the case of a man who, in the estimation of myself, and at least 28 other PCA pastors, members, and elders, does not do that. The presbytery of which he is a member found differently –they have exonerated the man, and we await the full report. In the meanwhile, the same court, without any sort of process whatsoever, determined that we who signed the letter are all liars. I ask you to judge for yourself.

The aforementioned man, in 2008, publicly stated this:

When will modern Presbyterians admit that this 500-year-old document is no longer sufficient? Man, everybody in conservative Presbyterian circles talks as if Westminster was the high-point, and therefore the end-point of Reformation era creed-writing. But it often strikes me to be exactly the opposite—a sterile document that signaled the end of creative theological reflection in the Reformed churches. And what do we think? This 17th-century scholastic document will be enough for the next 100 years? 500 years? Silly. Just silly.

Notice the language: Not only does he think that our confession is sterile, and signaling the end of creative theological reflection in the Reformed churches.

Now, it did nothing of the kind, of course. There have been all sorts of creative theological expression in Reformed churches, much of it unfaithful to Scripture, but much of it within the bounds of orthodoxy. It is hard to see how any scholar of the history of the Reformed faith could read such a statement without laughing, if he considers for a moment names like Edwards, Warfield, Bavinck and Kuyper.

Yet, that is not the main issue. Let us grant that the Confession is as he says it is: sterile. Let us grant that the document will not be “enough” (enough for what is left unsaid) for the next 100 or 500 years. Let us grant that it is silly of us to think so.

How, then, could this man, in good faith, own this confession? Why, then, does he not find another voluntary association which is more open to theological development than he perceives his own to be? Why, instead, does he continue to say to certain groups of people that he loves the confession and is quite happy laboring under its dictates, and then, in open forums, goes on to deride not only the confession to which he has subscribed, but all who hold it dear?

I have been instructed by his court to treat his words charitably. That is, of course, a judgment call, and an implicit judgment that, in the past, I have not done so. Judge for yourselves. Put the most charitable interpretation on these words that you can. What is your thought?

Ken Pierce is a Teaching Elder in the PCA and serves as Senior Pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi. The post first appeared on his blog http://thequietprotest.blogspot.com and is used with permission.

*****************************************************

Following is one of the responses to this blog post:

Ken,

I think the reason he stays could be from a number of factors, which incidentally makes the issue harder to nail down so as to clarify.

(1) ‘System of doctrine’

If Meyers is coming at things like Peter Leithart, he’s probably perfectly candid in stating where he disagrees (or is ‘uncomfortable’) with the Confession. I’ve never seen an official list of Meyers’ scruples, but I have seen a number of Leithart’s mentioned on his blog (and elsewhere) over recent years. And the point is this — I don’t think either man see their scruples as placing them beyond the ‘big tent’ of the PCA.

IOW, (from their perspective) “OK, fine…I’m guilty of disagreeing with certain formulations as written in the Standards. But my ‘broader theology’ is still within the bounds of the Confessional Standards and Reformed theology. I haven’t violated the ‘system of doctrine’ that vowed to uphold!”

Now you and others might look at that as dishonest (if not delusional). But, when you look at it from their shoes, I think it explains (in part) why they don’t just up and leave. It’s because they don’t see their ‘new’ views as striking against the vitals of their 2nd ordination vow.

(2) Are GA reports binding?

But doesn’t the GA report “condemn” the FV? Well, sure….but then there’s the question of whether the report was binding.

Speaking for myself, I agree with the report. Had I been present in ’07, I would have even voted for the report! But I don’t think such reports are *binding* to the degree that men like Meyers are required to immediately vacate their PCA ordination! A report as such is more like a ‘view of the landscape’ –we had an opportunity to see that the majority of PCA elders attending GA in 2007 appear to be against the FV/NPP. But that was one GA. Until we attempt to change something constitutionally (thus requiring broader presbytery approval), I’m personally not exactly sure what the PCA really thinks about the FV (or NPP).

If anything, I think the Report provoked the right kind of response out of Peter Leithart. Dr. Leithart correctly perceived that the report stood against his views, so he immediately went to his Presbytery to ask for clarification on what that meant for him. Whether Meyers did something correspondingly similar in his Presby, I don’t know. I think that would have been the right course of action for one calling themselves a Presbyterian.

(3) A Sterile Confession?

As much as I disagree with the FV, Meyers comment about ‘old confessions’ raises a point that I can sympathize with. I think there are people in our midst that really think the original WCF is ‘the best’ confession possible, so much so that one can somehow freeze pristine Reformed orthodoxy somewhere around 1646. And thus, any subsequent ‘theological development’ must by definition be a step down! Sure, there was 1788, but that seems to be something of an exception. [And how many people secretly wish some of that language about the magistrate were back in the Confession? I’ve met a few of them in the PCA! But I digress…] But back to the main point…..since 1788, we haven’t really formally confessed anything new.

I read Meyers’ ‘sterile’ statement as a response to that kind sentiment. Of course, that’s not the universal anti-FV position; it might only be a minority. But it’s there, and I find it somewhat troubling when I hear people act like the FV issue is as simple as declaring it ‘unconfessional.’ The fact of the matter is that the FV or NPP weren’t on the table in 1646 or 1788. It’s our issue to deal with, not our Reformed forefathers! And if we can’t fight their bad exegesis with better exegesis, resulting in a ‘new confession’ that shows why it fails the ‘system of doctrine’ test, then we dishonor Christ’s Word as well as ironically demonstrate that we really aren’t as “Reformed” as our forefathers. With a new confession (whether it be a brief statement or a minor revision of the WCF to make things explicit), at least then Meyers has absolutely no basis to complain that we are still stuck in the 17th century.

But on the other end of things, the problem with Meyers comes in building a mountain out of a molehill, calling our Confession ‘sterile.’ Because if he really thinks that, then maybe he should seek a different denomination that actually confesses Covenant Theology in a way that agrees with him. That’s why I think it’s worth asking (if not pressing) why FV-sympathizers don’t take the Rich Lusk route and realign with the CREC, if only because it allows them to actually make good on what they want to confess.

I know for myself, if I was stuck under such a ‘sterile’ confession in a denomination causing me this much trouble via the way the confession was being interpreted AND if I discovered there was a much better denomination that understood that confession much closer to the way I believed myself….why would I not go? I have only myself to blame for picking the wrong denomination!

Matthew Morgan is a Teaching Elder in the PCA and serves as Pastor of New Presbyterian Church in La Jolla, CA. He blogs at http://beritolam.blogspot.com