Exception ≠ Revision
A Critical Response to "Reformed—Theological Vision Part Six" (A4MR)
The Alliance for Mission and Renewal has published a theological vision for what it believes will promote the PCA’s unity, faithfulness, and flourishing. This article seeks to engage positively, but also critically, with the sixth installment of that theological vision.
I want to begin by wholeheartedly affirming, with great gratitude, the desire of the author and of the Alliance for Mission and Renewal to make the Westminster Standards central to its vision for the PCA. The PCA was founded as a continuing, confessional church because the PCUS had departed from its heritage of confessional fidelity. Yet that history also reminds us that a denomination may continue formally to possess a confession long after it has ceased to believe, teach, or apply it faithfully.
A4MR makes this point by quoting Ian Hamilton’s reflection on the liberal drift of the Church of Scotland:
“You would be out of your tiny mind if you think a church’s orthodoxy can be guaranteed by its professed confessional standards… How did the church drift so quickly? It was pride. The moment you think yourself to be something in the eyes of God, you become nothing.”
I gladly affirm Hamilton’s warning. The mere existence of a confession cannot preserve a denomination. Confessional documents do not guard the church merely by occupying a place in its constitution. They must be believed, taught, applied, and defended by godly officers. A confession may remain formally adopted while becoming dust-covered, unused, and practically irrelevant. Nevertheless, this is not an argument for making the Standards less determinative. It is an argument for ensuring that they remain the church’s living and functioning confession.
The history of Seven Springs Presbyterian Church, where I am blessed to serve, illustrates this danger. Our congregation’s story began in the mid-1870s, and we have worshiped in our present building since 1901. By the 1970s, the building remained the same, the congregation remained, and the denomination still formally confessed the Westminster Standards. Yet the PCUS was drifting increasingly from the truths it professed.
The pastor I followed, Thomas B. Sullivan Jr., was ordained and installed in 1973. On June 4, 1978, the congregation voted forty-eight to zero to seek dismissal from the PCUS. On September 14, 1978, Seven Springs was dismissed to Westminster Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. The church building had not changed. The Westminster Standards formally confessed by the denomination had not disappeared. But the denomination had increasingly ceased to use those Standards as its governing confession. Seven Springs did not leave because the PCUS possessed no confession; it left because the denomination was departing in doctrine and practice from the confession it still professed.
The Presbyterian Church in America stated in their Reaffirmations,
Nevertheless, some Presbyteries and Sessions have not disciplined themselves to require adherence to these standards. Moreover, the General Assembly has seated members not ordained under these requirements, and it has appointed and continued Committees that have not always adhered to these standards.1
This is why I strongly agree with A4MR that commitment to the Westminster Standards is “vital to our ongoing fidelity, unity, and witness.” The Standards must not be hidden in the sitemap of a congregation’s or denominational website, nor treated as an appendix that can be quietly ignored. They must function as the church’s public confession: preached and taught in our congregations, used in the examination of officers, applied by our courts, and defended against error. Otherwise, the confession may remain on our shelves while the church walks steadily away from everything it confesses.
While affirming this truth and reality, there is a difference in degree regarding what we mean when we say that the Standards are vital to our fidelity, unity, and witness. While we share a common bond with those of the catholic Christian Church, and while we share a common bond with the Reformed tradition and its wide variety across different cultures, we find ourselves as a particular branch, in a particular denomination, with a particular set of standards, written down for us in black and white.
Subscription
I do not seek to unpack the whole dilemma of subscription, which is historically diverse. At the founding of American Presbyterianism, the ministers who gathered in the colonies brought with them different understandings of confessional subscription.2 The Scottish tradition practiced a strong and comprehensive subscription; the Irish had wrestled with qualified subscription through the Pacific Act of 1720; and among English Presbyterians, there was significant resistance to mandatory subscription, as demonstrated at Salters’ Hall in 1719. These traditions converged in the Adopting Act of 1729, which affirmed the Westminster Standards while permitting stated scruples to be judged by the courts of the church. Although the Adopting Act was unanimously approved, its precise meaning was disputed almost immediately and has remained a matter of historical discussion.
The same diversity appeared at the PCA’s 2001 pre-Assembly conference on subscription. Tim Keller,3 Bryan Chapell,4 David F. Coffin Jr.,5 and Joseph A. Pipa Jr.6 presented distinct accounts commonly described, respectively, as system subscription, good-faith or vital-to-the-system subscription, articles-of-unity or logically consistent subscription, and full or strict subscription. Those papers help identify the range of views then under discussion, but none of them is itself part of the PCA Constitution.
I do not intend to provide a complete exposition of the PCA’s position on confessional subscription.7 There remain various understandings and practices concerning what Good Faith Subscription entails.
My definition of Good Faith Subscription is something along the lines of;
“Good Faith Subscription in the PCA means that a Presbytery may receive a man who sincerely receives and adopts the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, while granting him a stated exception judged not to be hostile to that system or to strike at the vitals of religion.”
A longer definition might be,
“Good Faith Subscription in the PCA means that a Presbytery may receive a man who sincerely receives and adopts the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, even though he has stated specific differences from those Standards. Those differences must be disclosed by the candidate and judged by the Presbytery. If the Presbytery determines that the stated differences are acceptable under the constitutional standard, the man may answer the ordination vow in the affirmative in good faith. Granting such an exception allows the man to take the vow honestly; it does not revise the Standards, make his exception the doctrine of the PCA, or place his view alongside the Standards as an alternative constitutional position.”
The heart of Good Faith Subscription is not the granting of an exception, but the candidate’s ability to take the ordination vow honestly. BCO 21-4 requires him to disclose his specific differences so that Presbytery may determine whether, notwithstanding those differences, he can in good faith sincerely receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.
Following the Granting of Exception
My purpose in this article is narrower: to consider what a presbytery does when it grants an exception and whether that action carries the consequences the author assigns to it.
The article’s account reflects a recognizably Keller/Chapell interpretation of subscription. Many identify Chapell’s 2001 paper with Good Faith Subscription itself because his proposal bore that name and because the later constitutional language came to be described by the same shorthand. That historical association is understandable, but it is important not to conflate the proposed rationale with the text adopted by the church. The PCA did not adopt Chapell’s paper as an authoritative interpretation of subscription. It adopted the particular language now found in BCO 21-4.8
That language governs whether a candidate may take the ordination vow and how a court judges his stated differences. It does not say that granting an exception recognizes the candidate’s position as a legitimate alternative doctrine of the PCA. Nor does it provide a comprehensive account of what follows concerning the officer’s teaching and practice. This omission is especially notable because other overtures proposed more explicit directions concerning whether a difference could be held, taught, or practiced. Those proposed details were not incorporated into BCO 21-4. That history does not settle every question that arises after an exception is granted, but it does prevent us from treating Chapell’s full rationale as though it were the constitutional text adopted by the PCA.
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.
Because the candidate must declare specific differences, Good Faith Subscription can reasonably be understood to presume that he agrees with the Standards in those places where he has stated no difference. Yet this concerns the scope and integrity of the officer’s personal subscription. It does not mean that the church’s system of doctrine is whatever remains after his exceptions have been subtracted. If that were so, every officer would possess a personalized confession, and the PCA would have as many practical standards as she has officers. The Westminster Standards remain the church’s adopted exposition of the system; the exception identifies a bounded difference that the court has judged not to disqualify the man from taking the vow.
The author of the A4MR article, 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 Standards are not being amended, reduced, or redefined in light of the candidate’s granted exception. BCO 26-1 states that the PCA Constitution consists of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms together with the Book of Church Order, “all as adopted by the Church.” Granting an exception is not the same as what is adopted by the Church. BCO 29-1 consequently identifies these Standards as the PCA’s “standard expositions” of Scripture regarding faith and practice (Cf. BCO 21-5 Q1). An individual officer’s exception is not part of the PCA Constitution and does not become an alternative doctrinal standard of the church, nor an approved interpretation of the Scripture according to the PCA.
The Standards are certainly fallible and amendable (WCF 31.3, BCO 39-3). Scripture alone is infallible and unbreakable (John 10:35). We cannot make a motion at our General Assembly to strike a passage of Scripture. We can, however, make a motion to strike or amend any portion of our Confession and Catechisms. The church is always open to reform according to Scripture and has a specific process through which that reform is to occur: amendment of the Constitution. In this constitutional process, the church may correct her subordinate Standards when persuaded from Scripture that they are wrong. BCO 26-3 requires the approval of three-fourths of the General Assembly, three-fourths of the presbyteries, and final enactment by a subsequent Assembly. That is the church acting corporately to reform her confession. A presbytery granting an exception to an individual officer is a fundamentally different action.
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.
The candidate also vows to be subject to his brethren in the Lord (BCO 21-5 Q4). His exception does not remove him from the continuing oversight of the church or place his private judgment alongside the Standards as an equally authoritative PCA position. It permits him to hold his stated difference while serving within a church whose public doctrine remains what she has constitutionally adopted. Even if a majority of officers hold a similar exception,9 the Standards of the Church do not change unless they are amended through the constitutional process. Otherwise, the PCA would function with two standards: the written Standards adopted by the Church and an unwritten standard formed by the accumulation of granted exceptions, of which we have no public record.
The PCA does not publicly state that, because the Westminster Standards are the standard exposition of Scripture, we are open to reform merely because we grant an exception. We allow a man, because of his conscience, to state his difference so that he can make a vow before God without his fingers crossed behind his back, but instead boldly affirm that the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.
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.
Holding, Teaching and Practicing
What does granting an exception do? At a minimum, it allows a man to hold a particular difference without being disqualified from office on that account. That difference remains his private judgment rather than the church’s adopted confession. 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 (e.g., Covenanter (1646) vs American Revision (1788)) 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 and serve in the PCA. 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, particularly if it disturbs the peace, purity, and unity 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 a similar 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.
This is why I am grateful for publications such as Great Commission Publications, which seek to provide churches with resources from a confessional perspective. Many of the stated differences that I hear maintain that the Confession goes too far. However, the reverse is not that failing to follow the exception is therefore sinful.
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, wise, or orderly 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.
Conclusion
I am tremendously grateful for this interaction and for the opportunity to consider the truth of this matter. Our disagreement is not whether substantive exceptions may be granted; I affirm that they may. My position is therefore not a strict subscription. Nor do I need to characterize the article as advocating a bare subscription to the system. We stand near one another as we discuss whether a candidate with a stated difference may take the vow. We part ways over what the granting of that exception means and what consequences follow after the man becomes an officer.
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. 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.
David W. Hall, ed., The Practice of Confessional Subscription (Oak Ridge, TN: Covenant Foundation, 2001).
Minutes of the Thirty-First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (2003), especially the enactment of BCO 21-4 and the disposition of Overtures 5, 6, and 20.
Generally speaking, no two candidates state their differences in precisely the same way, because each candidate must declare his own differences in his own words. The court is therefore judging the candidate’s difference as stated by that candidate. Although many candidates may share a similar reservation concerning a particular phrase or proposition, for example, “recreations” in WSC 60, this does not necessarily mean that they have all been granted the same exception in the same sense or to the same extent.