The Freedom and Limits of Christian Reflection
Robert Letham
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 6, no. 2 (April 1997)
Recently in the pages of New Horizons tensions have emerged in a range of areas, from women in public worship to the days of creation in Genesis. Some have called for the OPC to be of one voice on all issues so as to present a powerful and united witness. Implied in such requests, it seems to me, is the notion that uniformity of belief is essential to the health of the church. Again, many readers of New Horizons assume that any view expressed by contributors must represent the official stand of the denomination. In this case, too, the apparent assumption is that a church will only print what it endorses absolutely. I will argue that such assumptions are mistaken. First, the biblical teaching on the church allows a wide area of latitude for discussion and disagreement within a common commitment to the faith. Secondly, a vigorous commitment to Scripture and the Westminster standards requires the OPC to maintain the Christian liberty that those standards equally vigorously defend. To support this argument we must fasten our seat belts and take an excursion backwards in time, to see something of the ecclesiastical and theological matrix out of which Reformed theology, and thus the Westminster Assembly, emerged.
The paradigmatic role of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (N)
This creed (popularly but erroneously called the Nicene creed[1]) did at least three crucial and inseparably related things. First, it charted the boundaries of the Christian faith, defining what is and what is not the belief of the Christian church. Second, it summarized what the church confesses. The creed has been adopted and followed in this by both Eastern and Western churches ever since. It is a truly ecumenical creed, ecumenical in its historic orthodoxy. Liberals cannot confess it with historical integrity. Truly orthodox Christians can. Third, it functions as a hermeneutical paradigm, a window through which we can view the world of creation and grace. Its structure evidences its focus—the triune God, the incarnation, the church and sacraments. In this it is followed by the Westminster Assembly, which sees God’s covenant as an outworking of the triune God and his decree, and goes on to an extensive discussion of church and sacraments.[2]
For our present purpose, we note the congruity between N, the Westminster Confession and Scripture on the nature of the church. N’s famous fourfold description (one holy catholic apostolic)—reflects Paul’s description in Ephesians 2:11-22. The church is one new man (unity: the church is one, not divided into a hundred thousand fragments) in which both Jew and Gentile are reconciled (catholicity: the church is found throughout the world) (14-18). It is founded on the apostles and prophets (apostolicity: the canonical writings determine the church’s belief and practice) (19) and is in Christ a holy temple of God the Father, indwelt by the Holy Spirit (holiness: it belongs to Christ) (21-22). The Westminster Confession traces these elements too in chapters 25 and 26. The neglected chapter “Of the Communion of the Saints” (ch. 26) points to our union with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus, entailing the inclusion in the church of others beyond the bounds of those adopting this Confession, a recognition of the current tension between what the church is and what it ought to be and what it will become. In chapter 25 it stresses the church’s unity, catholicity and holiness. Its apostolicity is entailed by the magisterial treatment of Holy Scripture in chapter 1 and the supreme authority of the word of God in all synods and councils in chapter 31.
We should hold together these four elements (unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity) at all times. Liberalism went wrong by undermining the apostolicity of the church, departing from the authority of Scripture. It wanted unity but without apostolicity no proper ecclesiastical unity can exist. Fundamentalism went wrong by stressing the purity of the church at the expense of its unity and catholicity. Its leaders argue for the authority of the Bible independently of church confessions, often make particular interpretations of biblical passages normative, and many tolerate no divergence from their teaching. This is a problem endemic in American society, with its stress on “rugged individualism.” As such, it is with us today with a vengeance. Here, Paul’s words are pertinent: “Submit to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph 5:21).
As liberalism breached the church by abandoning apostolicity, so Protestant splinter groups cease to be the church and become sects by breaching unity and catholicity.[3] For the OPC to be the church and not decline into a sect it must hold all four attributes together. In doing so, we will contend for the truth where this is necessary, and discuss freely and biblically within the boundaries of the Confession. There will be unity on systemic matters and lively debate on others. This the Confession itself allows, as we shall now observe.
Presbyterian confessionalism, Christian liberty and theological exploration
The Confession and Holy Scripture
The Westminster Confession teaches that the final authority in all controversies of religion is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. All church councils may err. Entailed is the possibility that the Westminster Assembly itself, while not strictly a church council, is capable of error. Thus Presbyterian office holders have subscribed to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. Both the Confession and our church order maintain Scripture to teach a system of doctrine. That system of doctrine is enshrined in the doctrinal documents of the Assembly.[4] The boundaries of our belief and confession are thus marked. The apostolicity of the church as expressed in N requires office holders to ensure that the system of doctrine is passed down in its integrity to succeeding generations, especially important in an age like ours, hostile to any unified or objective truth. The battle against liberalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was but one example. New challenges arise with successive generations.
The Confession and divergent views
On the other hand, the Westminster documents show the hallmarks of compromise in many areas.[5] That is inevitable, given the size of the body. First, it is evident in its chapter on assurance, where Thomas Goodwin’s distinctive views on the post-conversion sealing by the Holy Spirit had to be considered. Second, on the order of the divine decrees the Confession is clearly infralapsarian, although there were supralapsarians present (the prolocutor Twisse, for example). Thus while it affirms infralapsarianism, the other is not opposed. Third, the Confession is most readily interpreted as adopting amillenialism, but it is silent on questions disputed by pre- and postmillenialists. Since millenial views were rife in the England of the 1640s, this was no idle decision. Fourth, and most pointedly, the Assembly was a collection of disparate ecclesiologies. There were many Presbyterians but a handful of Independents had disproportionate influence. Moreover, Erastians were present and a group of Episcopalians were members of the Assembly but never took their seats. Above all, the gathering had been summoned by Parliament to produce plans for the reform of the doctrine, worship and practice of the Church of England. Hence the Confession’s ecclesiology has a certain elasticity. In addition, at the time Moyse Amyraut (a leading French Reformed theologian) had created a stir with his revisionist theology which, among other things, restructured the doctrines of election and atonement. Some Assembly members were disturbed that many of their colleagues were avidly reading Amyraut during Assembly debates!
In short, the Confession and Catechisms strenuously oppose Rome and to a lesser extent Lutheranism and the baptists, who at this stage were not as great a threat as they had been on the Continent.[6] Within the Reformed camp (which still included many Anglicans) it allows divergences.[7] The Assembly sought to preserve the unity and catholicity of the church at the same time as its apostolicity and holiness.
The Confession and erroneous views
Some may be surprised to learn that the Confession does not rule out some views that are plainly wrong! Here again we note its flexibility in points of detail that do not impinge on the biblical system of doctrine it contains. For instance, some opinions are exegetically wrong but confessionally acceptable. Preachers have often claimed that since, in John 21:15-17 there are two different verbs for love, agapeo and phileo, Jesus is drawing a fine distinction between true Christian love (agapeo) and a lesser form of tender affection (phileo), thus gently chiding Peter for his failure of discipleship. Linguistically, this is insupportable—the verbs were used interchangeably in the first century. However, preachers who make mistakes like this are not infringing the bounds of the Confession. Again, someone may not consider Paul calls Christ “God” in Romans 9:5. While there are very strong syntactical grounds that he did call him “God” in that passage, the Confession does not commit us to a particular exegesis of specific passages of Scripture. It is required we acknowledge that Scripture accords deity to Christ, but it is not required that we accept that Romans 9:5 does so, even though in my view it does. There are certainly plenty of other biblical supports for the deity of Christ.[8]
On a more far-reaching level, some opinions may be wrong theologically but acceptable confessionally. We saw how the Confession adopts an amillenial position. I find it difficult to see how premillenialism, amillenialism and postmillenialism could all be right (although it may be possible to combine elements of the latter two). At least one, possibly two, of these viewpoints may be wrong. But the Confession does not explicitly oppose any—although in the context of 1640s England it had every opportunity to do so. Again, supralapsarianism is neither excluded nor affirmed. This cannot be taken to the extreme that any wrong theological claim is acceptable according to the Confession! That is plainly not what I am saying. What this does show is that within the Reformed faith there is a certain latitude concerning positions, both exegetical and theological, that do not affect the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, which the Westminster standards contain.
Thus we should fix clearly in our minds the important distinction between what must we believe? and what may we explore? The Confession, besides setting forth truth and providing a hermeneutical window on the gospel and the world, defines boundaries within which faithful Christian reflection may take place—what we must believe. It commits us to the great landmarks of God’s grace and the paths that lie between—who God is, what this world is, who we are, our sin, God’s covenant grace, Christ and his work, the Holy Spirit, the church and sacraments, God’s requirements for our daily living, what he will do in the future. As to the tracts of land that lie within these markers there is scope for difference of opinion. Here are vast areas where we can explore, guided and directed by the Confession and, of course, Holy Scripture.
All this may be disconcerting to those used in independent circles to church leaders brooking no differences from their teaching, whatever it may be. Here is a situation where there will be debate and, on some issues, difference of opinion—where contributors to New Horizons may not necessarily reflect the official position of the denomination, if indeed there can be said to be one. It may help to remind ourselves of the church in Acts, where those at Berea subjected even the apostle Paul to critical scrutiny based on Scripture (Acts 17:11). It is possible to argue that where there is no such investigation no faith exists,[9] only a false security, a confession within the Confession, indeed a barrier to growth. The task of the Christian church is a dangerous one, from the human angle a risk. However, we face new challenges in each generation and can only do so effectively if we continually hone our resources and forge fresh answers, answers that arise from the old armory but forged anew in a changed battle. That requires of us deep commitment to the Confession and boldness in exploring new territory. It means committing ourselves afresh to the unity and catholicity of the church as well as to its apostolicity and holiness.
Endnotes
[1] There is no trace of it in the records of the Council of Nicea (325), although a creed adopted then may underlie it. The Council of Chalcedon (451) refers to it as the faith of the fathers at [the Council of] Constantinople (381), although we have no written record of its adoption there either. It is available in The Trinity Hymnal, 846. The major point of contention between East and West, the filioque clause “and the Son” added in the Western church, itself points to the crucial role the creed has played.
[2] I have argued elsewhere that evangelicalism has a different focus on Scripture, personal holiness, evangelism and world missions. These are all necessary and important elements of the Christian faith but overall evangelicalism is strikingly at variance with historic Christianity: “Is Evangelicalism Christian?” The Evangelical Quarterly 67 (1995):3
[3] There are cases where separation has been unavoidable. Luther was excommunicated by the Pope, while Calvin and other Reformers had to flee for their lives from Roman Catholic jurisdiction. However, their departure was enforced, and it was not a matter of their own choice. They constantly emphasized their harmony with the fathers, claiming that the Roman church of their day had departed from the historic faith. Similarly, Machen and others were suspended indefinitely from office over essentially procedural matters.
[4] That does not mean that the proof-texts of the Confession are authoritative. The were added reluctantly, at the insistence of Parliament, and produced hastily, often from memory.
[5] Compromise is good or bad, depending on the context. If you and your wife are not prepared to make compromises on anything, your marriage will soon run into difficulties.
[6] While a proliferation of sects had recently arisen, the great threat came from the high-church Erastianism of Charles I, with its perceived Rome-ward bias.
[7] On the diversity-within-unity of Reformed theology, see my article “Reformed Theology,” in Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (eds.), New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester / Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 569-572.
[8] Exegesis of a particular passage may, on occasions, have wide implications if it is the catalyst for the framing of doctrine held to depart from the Confession and thus from the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, but in such cases the real issue lies here, with the doctrinal departure, not with exegesis qua exegesis.
[9] Anselm, following Augustine’s motto fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeks understanding), held that Christian faith always seeks to deepen its understanding of its object.
Robert W. A. Wetham is pastor of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Wilmington, Delaware.