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.
6 comments:
Based on Synod reports, it appears that there was a mixed verdict on the appeal.
The suspension of privileges was sustained. It is considered okay for a presbytery to 'take the next step' when a paper disagreeing with the status quo is received. That is mostly what I'm writing about - that the door has been opened to a presbytery using questioning and charges to prevent certain doctrinal changes.
The subsequent insubordination charges were overruled. I guess that means that it is not within the authority of an elder to rule that someone must change their beliefs?
It appears clear that a "belief/subscription" standard is being upheld for some doctrines because it was noted that neither Bruce nor Ron had taught against the doctrine.
I wonder if these upheld charges now give members the right to complain to the church against elders who believe or teach against RP doctrines. For example, in the Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery, elders who reject the very same section of the constitution (believe that women deacons are unscriptural) also feel that their public rejection of the doctrine gives them the ability to publicly teach against the doctrine. I have witnessed sermons and personal conversations with elders where that RP doctrine was publicly rejected.
Just wanted to leave a not saying that I really appreciated stumbling across this blog as I've experienced much of what you document here in RP contexts. Moving into other churches that were similar theologically (on paper) but much more grace-filled was eye-opening and reduced tremendous burdens for me. Thanks again for writing.
Thanks, I found the same to be true outside of NAPARC. Maybe some NAPARC churches have grace in their teaching, but I've consistently found a message of authoritarianism and legalism.
Did I read that correctly- that RPTS stands against sexual abuse as grounds for divorce? So, they are ok with a man sexually abusing his wife?
It's unclear. There was a paper that called the RPCNA to reject abuse as grounds for divorce - specifically against George Scipione who was teaching that at RPTS. The paper was forwarded from the Atlantic Presbytery with approval and sent to a study committee at Synod. The result of the study committee was essentially saying that abuse was not grounds for divorce.
What happened at Synod is completely unclear. The committee recommendations were rejected and the committee dissolved.
I don't know what line of argumentation led to the rejection of the committee recommendations. One line of reasoning I read was that each session has traditionally dealt with divorce, but again, all that is recorded in the minutes is that the recommendations were rejected.
To be crystal clear, RPTS was teaching that many forms of abuse WERE grounds for divorce. A pastor in the Atlantic Presbytery disagreed - he claimed that abuse was not grounds for divorce. He initially contacted RPTS requesting that they administratively discipline the professor, which they refused, and then he worked through the church courts to accomplish the same goal.
Post a Comment