The RPCNA claims her roots in the historical Reformation, started by the nailing of the ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenburg church by Martin Luther. Once the Reformation was in full swing, there was an overwhelming cry for the church to be open to the need for continual reformation. From Luther's initial claim that salvation was by faith alone, not by works, and that the church could not "sell" forgiveness for sins through the practice of indulgences, the Reformation led to study and insight into the sacraments, the authority structure of the church, the separation between ecclesiastical and secular authority, and many more.
It would be naive to believe that the church prayerfully and scripturally considered each issue with Christian charity towards those who held divergent views, but there was at least a concept that any stated position of the church was subject to scrutiny, no matter how strongly held.
Again, the RPCNA would probably consider the Westminster Assembly to be a worthy model - ministers from different beliefs and backgrounds came together to debate and agree on a common set of core principles that would establish the beliefs of the church. Yet, even the reverence that is reserved for the Westminster Confession of Faith does not preclude prayerful and scriptural consideration, and as the RP church has done, clarification and disagreement with principles held by the Assembly.
Unfortunately, the more deeply held a belief is, and the more power derived from that view, the more difficult it is to prayerfully and scripturally evaluate it. In fact, many views that have changed throughout RPCNA history have not been a result of deep, scriptural analysis, but rather a changing of the guard. This is the definition of "conservative" - a person or organization that is resistant to change - not necessarily resistant because it is true but resistant because it is change.
For example, perhaps 60 years ago, members of the RP church were not allowed to drink alcohol at all. It was also a violation to own any business that profited from the sale of alcohol. I'm not sure when that was overturned, but I do know that when I was a child in Sunday School, certain teachers were insistent that we children said the WCTU pledge - a vow not to drink alcohol - before each class.
About 30 years ago, alcohol was allowed for membership, but forbidden for ordained officers. Certain men took exception to vowing to abstain from alcohol, and war broke out, not surprisingly between the old guard - the WCTU generation who felt alcohol in any form was sinful and the new generation of elders and pastors who felt otherwise. The church had to wrestle through all sorts of issues, including whether these men who rejected these vows were appropriately ordained.
At the same time, a few women challenged the denominational position on women elders. Despite having their paper rejected and calls for church discipline, the denomination made a very interesting statement - that the church ought to have a forum to deal with controversial matters prayerfully and scripturally without the specter of church discipline.
This principle was, albeit grudgingly, applied when deeply held convictions of a capella and exclusive psalmody were challenged with papers. It was applied as "closed" session meetings were considered, when grape juice was challenged as the proper element of communion.
But... a generation passed and the need to provide an avenue for reformation was squashed by the newly minted need to enforce doctrinal purity. A doctrinal purity that was at odds with the RPCNA Constitution - specifically, rejecting the parity between pastors and elders, rejecting that deacons are non-authoritative officers, and rejecting that women can be deacons.
As a consequence, issues that are outside the "new RPCNA doctrine" have been met with strong opposition, not only in rejecting papers, but now the Diet of Worms - style recant or else... As the world is waking up to the evil of sexual abuse, RPTS was commanded to take a strong stand - against using sexual abuse as a grounds for divorce. Not surprising, since domineering is not grounds for being deposed, but insubordination is.
It would be naive to believe that the church prayerfully and scripturally considered each issue with Christian charity towards those who held divergent views, but there was at least a concept that any stated position of the church was subject to scrutiny, no matter how strongly held.
Again, the RPCNA would probably consider the Westminster Assembly to be a worthy model - ministers from different beliefs and backgrounds came together to debate and agree on a common set of core principles that would establish the beliefs of the church. Yet, even the reverence that is reserved for the Westminster Confession of Faith does not preclude prayerful and scriptural consideration, and as the RP church has done, clarification and disagreement with principles held by the Assembly.
Unfortunately, the more deeply held a belief is, and the more power derived from that view, the more difficult it is to prayerfully and scripturally evaluate it. In fact, many views that have changed throughout RPCNA history have not been a result of deep, scriptural analysis, but rather a changing of the guard. This is the definition of "conservative" - a person or organization that is resistant to change - not necessarily resistant because it is true but resistant because it is change.
For example, perhaps 60 years ago, members of the RP church were not allowed to drink alcohol at all. It was also a violation to own any business that profited from the sale of alcohol. I'm not sure when that was overturned, but I do know that when I was a child in Sunday School, certain teachers were insistent that we children said the WCTU pledge - a vow not to drink alcohol - before each class.
About 30 years ago, alcohol was allowed for membership, but forbidden for ordained officers. Certain men took exception to vowing to abstain from alcohol, and war broke out, not surprisingly between the old guard - the WCTU generation who felt alcohol in any form was sinful and the new generation of elders and pastors who felt otherwise. The church had to wrestle through all sorts of issues, including whether these men who rejected these vows were appropriately ordained.
At the same time, a few women challenged the denominational position on women elders. Despite having their paper rejected and calls for church discipline, the denomination made a very interesting statement - that the church ought to have a forum to deal with controversial matters prayerfully and scripturally without the specter of church discipline.
This principle was, albeit grudgingly, applied when deeply held convictions of a capella and exclusive psalmody were challenged with papers. It was applied as "closed" session meetings were considered, when grape juice was challenged as the proper element of communion.
But... a generation passed and the need to provide an avenue for reformation was squashed by the newly minted need to enforce doctrinal purity. A doctrinal purity that was at odds with the RPCNA Constitution - specifically, rejecting the parity between pastors and elders, rejecting that deacons are non-authoritative officers, and rejecting that women can be deacons.
As a consequence, issues that are outside the "new RPCNA doctrine" have been met with strong opposition, not only in rejecting papers, but now the Diet of Worms - style recant or else... As the world is waking up to the evil of sexual abuse, RPTS was commanded to take a strong stand - against using sexual abuse as a grounds for divorce. Not surprising, since domineering is not grounds for being deposed, but insubordination is.
