Selective Subscription and the 9th Commandment

Like most, I woke up yesterday totally unaware that Metro New York Presbytery had requested an investigation of Teaching Elder and former General Assembly Moderator, Dr. Dominic Aquila.  The basis for the request was an article posted on The Aquila Report, written by a someone in another denomination, that was critical of a minister in that presbytery.  Metro New York Presbytery alleged that Dr. Aquila had broken the 9th Commandment by publishing that article and requested that the court holding jurisdiction, Rocky Mountain Presbytery, conduct an investigation.  At their meeting earlier this week Rocky Mountain Presbytery voted to exonerate Dr. Aquila - Here and Here. 


A similar situation has unfolded in Siouxlands Presbytery with investigations being launched into the blogging of some of in that presbytery on the grounds that they have violated the 9th Commandment.  Two of three ministers facing these allegations were cleared of any wrong-doing -- Here.  The third may go to trial.


What's striking to me is the selective use of the Westminster Standards in going after people who have written critically about the theological views of certain ministers.  Instead of presbyteries taking these reports seriously and investigating their substance they have chosen to go after the whistle-blowers in order to silence them on the grounds that they have broken the 9th Commandment (see WLC #144 and 145 - Here).  Thus, I have coined a new term to describe this use of our confessional standards: Selective Subscription. 


When men who are charged with protecting the church from theological error choose to look the other way or drag their feet they are employing Selective Subscription.  When these same men choose to investigate a blogger because of the tone of his writing instead of looking into the allegations, they are employing Selective Subscription.  When men focus on the technicalities of the 9th Commandment and are unconcerned that a minister might be teaching something that "is hostile to the system" or that "strikes at the vitals of religion" (BCO 21-4 and RAO 16-3.e.5.d) they are engaged in Selective Subscription.  In the end Selective Subscription to the 9th Commandment is a tool to deflect attention from the issues at hand, to silence critics, and "to strain gnats while swallowing camels" (Matthew 23:24). 

Of late, I've been mulling over John 1 and Jesus' encounter with Nathanael.  When Philip told Nathanael that he had found the fulfillment of Moses' teaching and that it was embodied in the person of "Jesus of Nazareth," Nathanael replied, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" A short time later Nathanael met the person he had just insulted (yea, slandered).  Jesus greeted him with these words: "An Israelite in whom their is no deceit (guile)!"   What's interesting is that Jesus doesn't whip out the 9th Commandment and say to Nathanael, "How dare you insult me and the town where I am from!"  Rather, he looked at the substance of what was said and saw it as a reflection of a man who was a straight-shooter.  Though he was insulted he turned the other cheek and actually complimented Nathanael for being forthright, though a little uninformed.  

Jesus' response is 180 degrees opposite the response of those who are quick to use the 9th Commandment to cry foul.  Why won't they see the merit of what has been written and with charity, seek to investigate the substance?  Why won't they overlook the tone of someone's words who might be as blunt as Nathanael or who might simply be exasperated by the parliamentary maneuvering to deny what is apparent to many?   

In closing I point you to a piece written by Dr. Carl Trueman, reflecting on the Church of Scotland and the news (May 2009) that it ordained a practicing homosexual.  He laments the fact that for decades conservatives in that church looked the other way while all sorts of things were allowed to take root.  In his final paragraph he captures the essence of what defending the faith looks like: 

"The policy of ceding church courts to the liberals has proved disastrous. I feel for friends caught in the crossfire in Aberdeen but, as I said earlier, a petition is too little too late. These battles are not won by petitions which have no ecclesiastical status; nor are they won by preaching to the converted at large Reformed conferences or to congregations of the faithful in the big C of S churches. They are won by the nasty, brutish, hard labour of fighting in the church courts, face to face, toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with those who would seek to take over session, presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies for evil."

Note: I am not calling anyone evil or a theological liberal.  The point of quoting this paragraph is the final sentence and what contending for the faith looks like.   

Trueman: Being Presbyterian in the Church of Scotland

By now, I'm sure that many have heard about the ruling in the Church of Scotland to allow a practicing homosexual to assume the pastorate in one of its churches. Some have cried 'Foul' as if this has never happened before while others have argued that it is the natural result of abandoning the Scriptures on lesser issues.

Dr. Carl Trueman, who has already weighed in on this issue, has posted his response to this decision. Note: you won't find this at the Ref21 blog where his other comments were posted. Here is his rationale...

To avoid creating further grief for my colleagues at Ref21, I have posted my thoughts on the Church of Scotland decisions over at Scott Clark's place. Thanks to Scott for accommodating me.

What I appreciate about this post is his concern for Presbyterian polity and handling things through the courts of the church. Indeed, as he argued in his earlier posts, evangelicals in the Church of Scotland abandoned the courts of the church long ago in exchange for being left alone. They figured that they could sidestep thorny issues (the ordination of women, challenges to the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.) and all would be fine as long as those doctrines stayed outside the four walls of their individual churches. Trueman rightly points out that this is not Presbyterianism but rather the mindset of an independent church operating within a Presbyterian denomination. Now that a practicing homosexual has been allowed to serve as a pastor in the Church of Scotland in spite of a petition with 12,000 signatures speaking against that possibility, these 'independent' Presbyterian churches want to act even more independently. Trueman rightly questions their motives and argues that they are not really Presbyterian at all.

You can read the entire article at this link: Trueman: Being Presbyterian in the Church of Scotland « Heidelblog. In particular I encourage you read the final paragraph.

Presbyterian Church in America - Statistics

My denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America has just published its statistics for the five year period from 2003 - 2007. You can see those figures, in chart form, by clicking on this link: Presbyterian Church in America Statistics

An analysis of those figures has been published by the Presbyterian Layman, a conservative voice in the PC-USA. That article can be accessed by clicking on this link: The Layman Online. Of note is this paragraph:

The PCA figures cover a five-year period, from 2003 through 2007. During that period, the denomination increased its communicant membership from 256,224 to 271,495, a gain of 5.9 percent. During the same period, PCUSA membership declined by 284,235, a loss of 11.4 percent and more than the total membership of the PCA.

The Joy of Presbyterianism

An unusual title, to say the least. Many of a congregationalist bent don't understand the polity (church government) of Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Most find it too cumbersome.

Over at Reformation 21 Blog Dr. Carl Trueman has written a short piece extolling the Presbyterian form of church government. He gives two reasons:

1) Freedom of conscience is safeguarded (WCF chapter 20).

2) The presbytery (regional governing body) affords protection and guarantees a fair trial.

I too can attest that there is great strength in our form of government. There is freedom alongside oversight. There is protection along with accountability.

You can read the rest here: The Joy of Presbyterianism - Reformation21 Blog

Church of Scotland - Reformation21 Blog

Over at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Reformation21 Blog, I found an interesting discussion concerning the state of affairs in the Church of Scotland. A struggle is breaking out concerning the issue of homosexuality amongst the clergy. A number of evangelicals in that church are signing a petition against a change in church law.

At this blog are differing views about the petition and its effectiveness. On one side are men like Dr. Phil Ryken, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, who defends the evangelicals and has also signed the petition. He defends the evangelicals in the Church of Scotland for taking a stand on this important issue, which is, in his words, 'a watershed issue'. Click here to read his entire post.

On the other side are men like Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, who feel that it is too late for a petition. He argues that the Church of Scotland lost its footing long ago when it began to tolerate deviations from historical creeds and confessions. He argues that the debate was lost when evangelicals surrendered the church courts to those holding liberal views in exchange for the freedom to preach freely in their particular churches. Furthermore, he considers homosexuality not to be the watershed issue Ryken thinks it is -- it is, in fact, the end result of a long chain of human rebellion.

Having just come back from presbytery and preparing for General Assembly in a few weeks I found this quote from Carl Trueman very helpful. I say this because of the on-going debate in the PCA about the topic of 'deaconesses' (which are not prescribed by our constitution):

"The policy of ceding church courts to the liberals has proved disastrous. I feel for friends caught in the crossfire in Aberdeen but, as I said earlier, a petition is too little too late. These battles are not won by petitions which have no ecclesiastical status; nor are they won by preaching to the converted at large Reformed conferences or to congregations of the faithful in the big C of S churches. They are won by the nasty, brutish, hard labour of fighting in the church courts, face to face, toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with those who would seek to take over session, presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies for evil"
(click here here to read Trueman's entire post).

I have tremendous respect for both men and their posts are charitable and gracious. Personally, I side with Trueman on this one. Whose side do you take?

Review of Presbytery Minutes

Today I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the minutes of three presbyteries in preparation for General Assembly. To the uninitiated it might seem as exciting as watching paint dry but let me assure that it is an important part of being Presbyterian. We believe in the connectional nature of the church: that pastors, elders and congregations are mutually accountable to one another. This is something that congregational churches lack because such churches, by definition, are autonomous: any denominational motion or resolution is nothing more than pious advice and non-binding.

The process actually began earlier this spring as all 75 presbyteries were required to send a copy of their 2007 minutes to the national offices in Atlanta. Those minutes were then sent out to people like me who have experience in reviewing them. Ideally, all 75 sets of presbytery minutes will have had a first reading completed by the time our committee convenes (there are about 40 people from all across the country serving on this committee. Each presbytery can only send one representative and he is not allowed to review his presbytery's minutes.). Then a second reading takes place with a completely different reader. Both sets of notes are then compiled into one report for each presbytery by a recording clerk. Then each report of all 75 presbyteries is reviewed by the committee as a whole. Once this process is completed then a report is sent to the floor of General Assembly for approval.

Another part of this process is that each individual presbytery is also notified as to the committee's findings. "Exceptions of Form" are relatively minor things and require no further action. "Exceptions of Substance" are more serious and require a formal response from the presbytery to be reviewed at next year's General Assembly. Of the minutes I reviewed I found several exceptions of substance. Most notable were instances of receiving a minister into a presbytery without actually conducting a transfer exam: in one case the man was coming from another denomination and the presbytery conducted the wrong sort of transfer exam (they acted as if he was already a member of the PCA).

For those unfamiliar with Presbyterianism a similar process occurs at the local level: each and every church has its minutes reviewed annually by members of the presbytery. Again, this isn't a lot of fun but it is necessary. It ensures proper compliance to denominational standards but it also ensures that the rights of the individual church members are not trampled.

To my friends in congregational churches I can only wish that your church records would be reviewed in the light of day by independent sets of eyes. Maybe you would rest a little easier knowing that your churches' records are being audited by others outside the local body.