David Cassidy is Correct: The Uncouth Should Not Prevail in the PCA, Part Two
Who Should Stay and Who Should Go Now?
Introduction
“It is the duty of a pious man to withdraw from all private intercourse with the wicked, and not entangle himself with them by any voluntary tie; but it is one thing to shun the society of the wicked, and another to renounce the communion of the Church through hatred of them.” 1
I concluded the first part of this article by asking:
If it should come to it that full subscriptionists and system subscriptionists, by virtue of no longer holding to the same doctrines as ‘fundamental’ cannot remain in community, then shouldn’t one of the two groups leave, and, if so, which should it be?”
In conversation about the current rifts in the PCA, I carefully avoid the subject of which of the two groups should leave. As a full subscriptionist, I certainly have no desire to leave a denomination the majority of whose founders (so I have believed) were full subscriptionists. That said, I have no desire summarily to kick out the system subscriptionists, and do not know how it could be done even if I wished to do so. I do not believe the necessary process exists, neither would I want it to do. That said, I cannot pretend to believe that both parties can co-exist indefinitely, not because I want it this way, but because the logic of the relative positions will in the long run simply make it impossible. Someone will likely have to be “converted” or leave; each side, necessarily, thinks it should be the other. The sense one gets from listening to system subscriptionists is that the full subscriptionists think the system subscriptionists should leave and will if possible force them out. But there is that same sentiment on the opposing side. Recently, fellow PCA elder, Derek Radney, put it in no uncertain terms to me in a Twitter exchange:
I’m not interested in arguing [about full] subscription. That decision has been made by the PCA. That’s why I said guys like [you] won’t back off but keep fighting. If [you]want [full subscription], go elsewhere. Let us get [to] work & quit suggesting [system subscriptionists are] compromising the fundamentals of our system.2
My argument is not that system subscriptionists are compromising the fundamentals of our system of doctrine. My argument is that nothing about system subscription can logically prevent subsequent generations from compromising the fundamentals, or even redefining what those fundamentals are. This is settled history.3 To put it more briefly, only full subscription can put a check on the devolution from a fundamental-affirming denomination to a fundamental-denying one. I would further argue, to the point about the PCA having made the decision about full subscription, that if David Cassidy is correct, that the prohibition of teaching exceptions to the Standards is “de facto” full subscription, then the PCA’s decision was at least tacitly in favor of full subscription.4 I would further argue therefore, and applying the logic of David Cassidy and Derek Radney,5 that it is those who differ from this decision of the PCA who must stop or leave, that it is therefore the system subscriptionists who should stop or leave.
Slow Change May Pull Us Apart
This is not animus on my part. It is logic: the sad fact (and it is a sad fact) is the current agreement of full and system subscriptionists on the fundamentals of the system of doctrine is incidental, and cannot last if both schools, especially the system subscriptionists, remain consistent. Allow me to illustrate by a comparison. Liberal and conservative jurists read the same Constitution. But they have two different views of it. Conservatives take a textual approach, while liberals approach the text as a living, breathing document.6 In practical terms, liberals and conservatives do not apply the same Constitution: it does not say the same things to them. Any agreements to which they arrive are accidental: it just so happens that the textual approach and the living document approach occasionally but not necessarily lead to the same conclusions.7 A similar state of affairs holds between full and system subscriptionists. There is a practical, dogmatic difference between (i) holding to the Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures and (ii) holding to the “fundamentals of the system of doctrine” but not everything in the Standards.8
Now, it needs to be admitted that David Cassidy is mistaken. Prohibiting the teaching of exceptions is not de facto full subscription: the same denomination which authorized this prohibition denied (in 1993) having been founded as a “strict” subscription denomination.9 In tenor, the denial expresses something like, “Um…we never actually said we were leaving the PCUS to found a strict/full subscription denomination, so we’re not a strict subscription denomination.” The Assembly went on briefly to explain how subscription has been a debate since the “Adopting Act'' of the Synod of 1729. So, somehow, being aware of this debate, the PCA, contrary to all reasonable expectation, decided not to end the debate, repeating the errors of the PCUS, by not definitively resolving the matter of subscription, which created the problems which led to the secession from the PCUS in the first place.10
As much as I would like the PCA to be full subscription denomination, the fact that the PCA officially denies being founded as a full subscription church is a serious problem for full subscriptionists. We shall find ourselves swimming upstream. As Tim Keller recently observed, full subscriptionists are the minority in the PCA; and this, barring a full subscriptionist revival, will likely continue to be the case into the foreseeable future. So, to the question at hand, one might answer that, should the time come, the full subscriptionists, as a matter of judicial ruling, should leave: since the PCA denies having been founded as a full subscription denomination, the weight of authority is on the side of the system subscriptionists. Derek Radney and his set are correct.
But members of that set should not celebrate too vigorously, because since the PCA is not explicitly a full subscriptionist denomination, it also is not explicitly an orthodox denomination either: its current set of non-negotiables are little more than a theological gentlemen’s agreement. As long as system subscriptionists remain gentlemen, all will be well. But orthodoxy is not a gentlemen’s agreement; and — settled history — it cannot be enforced by such agreements. We’ve seen this movie before.
So, full subscriptionists should not head for the exits just yet. The current generation of system subscriptionists are not theological liberals; and while one might correctly think their approach to subscription opens the door, they themselves have not walked through that door. I can think of no precedent in church history, no canon of any council, which would justify censuring people as heretics or heterodox, not because they are heretics or heterodox but because they have opened the door to heresy or heterodoxy. Warnings about slippery slopes may be warranted, but there is no provision for disciplining or maligning someone for (arguably) opening the gate to those slopes.
I don’t think anyone should leave; and I don’t think anyone should want anyone to leave. I certainly do not think full subscriptionists should leave. I’m not always sure that they should have left the PCUS. Whether or not that is true, one thing that is true is that, unlike the National Partnership, full subscriptionists in the PCA seem not to have made clear what our motivation is. System subscriptionists, after almost two decades (since the CoMission protest at 21 GA) seem not to know what problem, if any, full subscriptionists are attempting to solve.
Many years ago Tim Keller argued against full subscription on the grounds that it cannot solve the problems which full subscriptionists (supposedly) intend for it to solve, chiefly, the PCA’s unity problem. “My thesis,” he writes, “is that even if we came to a consensus of subscription-with-no-exceptions – it would really not get to the heart of our rift.” He goes on to list five issues to which full subscription would offer no solutions: (i) worship; (ii) inter-church relations; (iii) creation; (iv) women; (v) missions. He correctly points out the fact that other Presbyterian bodies which have adopted full subscription have split over these issues (for example, the Free Church of Scotland, which split over the issue of exclusive Psalmody).11
The first thing that ought to strike one about Keller’s thesis is his description of full subscription as subscription-with-no-exceptions. One can’t help wondering how a system subscriptionist would react to seeing his position described as pick-and-choose-your-fundamentals.12 The second thing to notice is that it’s really a strawman argument. I won’t claim to know every full subscriptionist in the PCA, but I do not know a single full subscriptionist, by acquaintance or reputation, who embraces full subscription on the basis of a conviction that it will get to the heart of, and close, the rifts in the denomination.
The point of full subscription is not to solve problems. We embrace full subscription because we believe it is right to do so, more faithful to the Standards. Period. What we want is not so much to fix a unity problem, but to close a breach that should not have been left open, a breach we believe was left open unintentionally, the result of oversight. And we see no reason to regard the matter as closed. It is perfectly acceptable for a court in the PCA, being better informed and persuaded, to reverse itself. It’s a difficult prospect to envision, especially since full subscriptionists are a minority in the PCA. But there are reasons to believe it is worth pursuing. The real issue is how best to do so, beginning with the spirit in which we do so. And I think we can learn some valuable lessons from the example of Maximus the Confessor.
Maximus, the Typos, and Us
St Jerome, speaking of the Council of Constantinople (359), is believed to have written that, “the whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.” The Council had crafted a “codicil” to the Nicene Creed, which rejected Nicea’s use of the term substance (since it is not used in Scripture) and affirmed of the Son that, while being the only-begotten son of the Father (and God of God), He is “similar to the Father who begat him.” It might surprise one to learn that this council was called to resolve the Arian controversy — again. Also surprising: Constantinople (359) was held after a previous Council (Seleucia, 358) met and split over the divinity of Christ. Thirty-four years after the formulation of the Nicene Creed, the church was still arguing – and still split – over the divinity of Christ; at least four subsequent councils were held on the issue after it was supposedly resolved at Nicea. In fact, it was not until the first ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381) that the orthodox view finally gained the ascendancy; so for almost 350 years this debate, in one form or another, went on until it was finally resolved. It should be noted that during the period of time we are talking about it was always the heretics who ended up withdrawing, not the orthodox – not even when they were in the minority.
For most of church history, the heretics were the ones to withdraw. The “Protestant Model” is new. But then, the Reformers did not withdraw as much as they were driven out, which is putting matters too kindly, given the punishments with which they were threatened from those who, on a reformed view, rejected orthodoxy. No confessional minority in Protestantism – certainly no confessional minority in the PCA – has had that set of problems. And for that reason, I think we – full subscriptionists – without exaggerating the present conflict, should be guided by the example of Maximus the Confessor during his conflict with the monothelites.
Here, in brief, is what happened.
In 648, the Byzantine Emperor, Constans II, issued an edit, called the Typos (an abbreviation of typos tes pisteos, “the pattern of the faith”). The purpose of the edict was to shut down all debate on the question of whether Christ has two wills, one human and one divine, or a single will. Those who insisted on a single will (monothelites) did so based on the fact that Christ is a single person: one person, one will. Against the monothelites were the dythelites, who asserted that Christ has two wills, based on the fact that Christ, although a single person, possesses two natures: two natures, two wills. This – that is, dythelitism – is the orthodox view. The division in the Church was causing divisions in the empire, and Constans II needed to find a way to put this issue to rest. The empire was still in a period of almost non-stop warfare. In 642, a mere six years before the Typos was issued, the Muslims completed their conquests of Syria, Egypt and some of the richest parts of the Byzantine empire. The division caused by the controversy was a detriment to the empire's ability to defend its territories against Islam.
The Typos had been preceded, in 638, by Emperor Hercalius’s exthesis tes pisteos (the exposition of the faith), requiring acceptance of the monothelite view. Maximus disobeyed the edict, took up the gauntlet and became a defender of the orthodox view, converting not just lay people, but priests and bishops as well. Constans II, seeing that his father’s edict did not have the intended effect, issued the Typos, not to foist any particular view, but to shut down all debate on the subject: the Typos forbade teaching either the monothelite or the dythelite view, requiring that any teaching be limited to the decrees of the five ecumenical councils. Maximus disobeyed this edict as well, and became the chief spokesman for the orthodox view.
When arrested and tried, Maximus insisted that his only motivation was the truth of the orthodox view. He insisted that he was not against the emperor as such, that he didn’t even think it was for him to decide whether the emperor was a good man or a bad man, or whether the bishops were good men or bad men. “They may be good, they may be bad; God himself will judge them, but one thing I know: what they’re forcing me to believe and to do, I cannot do. Therefore I cannot sign these documents and I cannot behave in such a way that would show that I did.”
To Maximus, it was not a controversy over personalities, but orthodoxy: “We believe it’s not true because, it’s not according to the holy Scripture; it’s not according to the teachings of the holy Fathers; and it’s not according to the received doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils.”
The officials told him he could just sign onto the Typos, and not talk about it. They told him they wouldn’t enforce anything. He could believe anything he wanted to believe, and that would be acceptable. But Maximus couldn’t accept that offer: “I and those with me cannot do that. We can’t sign something that we don’t believe in and then not tell anybody, just for the sake of some kind of unity which won’t be a unity at all. It’s not enough for a Christian to hold a true faith in their heart; they also have to confess it with their lips. So those who are defending the Gospel and the Church’s traditional teachings of the councils and canons, have to say publicly that we do not think that what we’re being asked to do is correct.”
Eventually, in the proceedings, Maximus was asked: “Why do you hate the emperor, if you are a Christian?” Maximus replied, “I don’t have any hatred for anybody. I say only that this is not correct.” The next tactic was to accuse him of causing divisions and strife in the Church by his stubbornness and obstinacy. Maximus explained that he and his followers really had no choice; besides, the divisions were already there. “More importantly,” he said, “the decree is not right and we have to stand up and say that we believe that it is not right.”
He was then threatened with punishment according to both imperial law and Church law. Again, Maximus said, “I have no choice. I cannot obey the edict because it’s not according to the Gospel. This does not mean that I hate the Patriarch of Constantinople or the bishops with him or the emperor. It’s not for me to do that, but it’s also not for me to affirm what they have written because it is not true.”
The next attempt to cajole Maximus into affirming the Typos was to accuse him and his followers of believing that only they will be saved and all others perish. Maximus answered, “I don’t judge who’s saved or not saved. I don’t judge who is good or not good. I don’t even judge who is true and who is false. But I do judge what I believe to be true and good according to the Scripture and tradition of the Church. I cannot deny those because I would deny the Scriptures and the Councils and even my own conscience. As to who will be saved, that is up to God. I don’t condemn anybody now and I don’t hate anybody now. All I’m saying is: I cannot do what the emperor and the bishops are demanding of me.”
At a certain point in the proceedings, Maximus brings up the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. “In the holy Scriptures,” he said, “when the people in Babylon worshiped the golden idol, and God’s people were told by their captors that they had to worship the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had built, these young men refused to worship the idol because it wasn’t the true God, and they couldn’t worship it without violating the Scriptures. When the people in Babylon worshiped the golden idol, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego refused. When they were threatened with being thrown into the fire, they didn’t revile the king. They gave the king the respectful greeting, ‘O King may you live forever’, and accepted his judgment. They refrained from condemnation of anyone.”
“And so,” he continued, “God forbid that I should judge anyone or say that I alone will be saved! God forbid that I should set myself up as the judge of anyone, to say that I alone will be saved. I will never do such a thing. It’s God’s business. But nevertheless, I would rather die than violate my conscience and my convictions by betraying the Orthodox faith in any particular detail as it is witnessed in Scripture and in the doctrines of the councils of the Church.”
Maximus was then asked how he thought he and his little band of dythelites could resist what was, at least at that time, the judgment of the Christian world, to which he replied, “The whole world may enter into communion with the Patriarch, but I will not. The Apostle Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit anathematized even angels who preach a new Gospel and introduce novel teachings.” Finally, his persecutors turned to matters of doctrine and asked, “Is it really necessary to confess two wills and two operations in Christ?” “It is absolutely necessary,” he answered. “If we are to hold fast to Orthodox doctrine, then we have to accept this particular formulation, which is denied by the Typos…and that is why we cannot sign it.”
He was next accused of being contumacious. “You’re too stubborn. You can believe what you want in your own heart, but just sign it, give it your own interpretation, don’t discuss it any more, and peace will come to the Church. This is why the emperor commands that there be no discussion of things that give rise to differences of opinion.”
At that point, Maximus began to cry and said, “I do not wish to grieve the emperor, who is a good man and loves God, but I fear more to anger the Lord by keeping silent about what he commands us to confess. If as the Apostle says, God has set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, then it is clear that the Lord speaks through them. All of holy Scripture, the writings of the teachers of the Church, and the decisions of the Councils proclaim that Jesus Christ, our incarnate Lord and God, has power to will and to act according to both natures, to both his divinity and to his humanity. He lacks no property pertaining to the Godhead or to the human nature, except sin. If he is perfect in both natures, and deficient in nothing proper to them, then it is evident that the mystery of the Incarnation is utterly distorted by anyone who fails to confess him to have all of each nature’s innate properties by which and in which he is known, his natures are known, and he is therefore confessed and truly God and truly man.”
One would think this, at long last, would be persuasive. One would be wrong. For them, the correct doctrinal position was not as important as unity. “But,” they continued, “there remains the primary point at issue.13 Because of you, many have broken communion with the Church of Byzantium.” Maximus naturally and correctly objected: “Who can say that I have ordered anyone to break communion with the patriarchate of Constantinople?” Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, replied, “The fact that you are not in communion with us turns many away.” In other words, if Maximus would just change his behavior, other people would fall in line, because they respected him.
“There is nothing more burdensome than to suffer the reproach of conscience,” said Maximus to the Patriarch, “and nothing more desirable than conscience’s approval. But my conscience is telling me that this is not according to the Scripture, the canons, the Councils, and the teachings of the Church. And may God forgive those who prompted our lord the emperor to issue the Typos, thrusting upon him – a stranger to all heresy – the responsibility for their impiety.” It is important to note here that Maximus, who had been arrested for disobeying the emperor’s edict, defended the emperor, and indemnified him against wrong-doing on the grounds that the edict was predicated upon counsel from men who should know better. His counsel to Constans, had he been asked, would have been to do as his grandfather, Heraclius had done: when Heraclius learned that many bishops refused to accept the Ekthesis, he cleared himself of responsibility for it by sending letters to all the churches, explaining that the Ekthesis was not his, but that of Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, whose counsel he had followed.
In the end, they tore out his tongue at the very root, hoping “to staunch the flow of divine teachings that was drowning heretical error and to reduce the elder to silence.” They did the same to his disciple, Anastasius; and then they sent both men back to the dungeon. Subsequently, they also chopped off the hands of Maximus and Anastasius so they could neither confess by speech or by written word. And then, because it was not enough to take tongues and hands, they paraded the tongues and the hands of Maximus and Anastasius through the streets of Constantinople.
Eventually, they sent Maximus out into exile, where he lived for about three years, dying at around age 78. Less than twenty-five years later, Maximus and his followers were vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 680-81).
Conclusion
So what’s the lesson for us – for those of us in the PCA, who are in the minority, and fully convinced that our opponents are in error, regardless of their motives (about which, let’s be honest, we can only speculate)? It’s a very simple lesson. The wishes of the Derek Radneys and David Cassidys aside, we should continue pressing for a full subscription denomination. It’s true that the PCA did not declare itself a full subscriptionist denomination; but, strictly speaking, the Church had not declared itself a dythelite body until over two decades after Maximus and his followers had been punished for confessing that view as the orthodox view. We regard the PCA’s failure to declare itself a full subscriptions denomination as a tragic oversight, given the reasons for secession from the PCUS. That said, the denial of being a full subscription denomination is not an affirmation of system subscription.14 It is also the case that, at the same General Assembly which supposedly closed the door on full subscription, the door was actually left open.15
Responding to overtures from Mississippi Valley Presbytery (Overture 8) and West Carolina Presbytery (Overture 16),16 requesting the appointment of an ad interim committee on doctrinal subscription, the minority report argued for negative answers to both overtures, offering the following explanation:
The request for a study committee was entertained by the Assembly last year [30 GA, 2002] and was voted down. Why? We would suggest that after 25 years of debate, the fathers and brethren wanted to come to some resolution on this matter and move on. To have finally approved the amendments to BCO 21 this year and to immediately re-open debate with a study committee seems unwise for the peace and progress of the church, and inconsistent with our actions both at last year’s General Assembly and at this General Assembly, and with the super majority of votes by Presbyteries seeking to put this matter to rest. We would advise living with Good Faith subscription for a few years and then, when we have some experience to study, we can see if there really is interest in convening a new study committee.17
Two things are worthy of note: (i) the appointment of a study committee was voted down because the fathers and brothers wanted to come to “some resolution” to the subscription issue and “move on;” and (ii) the minority recommended living with good faith subscription for a few years. Regarding (i), it usually never works very well in practical effect to take some action with the idea of achieving “some resolution” and “moving on.” Regarding (ii), it’s been almost twenty years, and in this time we have seen that good faith subscription is virtually indistinguishable from system subscription.18 It’s been more than “a few years” and if it was permissible for the minority to recommend this few years, then no one need be apologetic about returning to the issue and requesting a study committee, or any other course of action. This is the Presbyterian Church in America, not the Roman Catholic Church: we may resolve issues in and through our courts; but we recognize that our courts may err and that some of our acts must occasionally be revisited and reversed.19 (Well, full subscriptionists do anyway. One can only suppose that system subscriptionists may take exception to the Confession’s view of courts, synods and councils, as not being fundamental to our system of doctrine.)
From the refusal of Maximus to have a negative word to say about his opponents, even in the midst of torture, we should draw the lesson that while system subscriptionists hold a position on subscription with which we disagree and which we think poses a danger down the road, the issue is subscription, not the system subscriptionists themselves. There is this habit that some full subscriptionists have fallen into of referring to system subscriptionists as “liberals” or “progressives” and similar pejoratives terms. Now, they may very well be those things in some sense, but if by “liberal” we mean engaging in the same denials of orthodox doctrines as the modernists of the twentieth century then they are not liberals and we should refrain from employing the term when referring to them. As to “progressive”, the term usually refers to the political sphere. If the issue is subscription, then the term “progressive” is illegitimate: if subscription is the issue, then calling them progressives is out of line. Finally, as much as we may believe that system subscription opens the door to denials of orthodox doctrine, it is a sin to accuse men who themselves do not deny those doctrines of doing so. Opening the door to liberalism is not the same as being a liberal oneself. Again, if the issue is subscription, then that is the issue to argue about; and, on that point, it is legitimate to argue against system subscription on the basis, among others, that it opens the door to liberalism just so long as we do not accuse system subscriptionists of being theological liberals simply because they are system subscriptionists.20
We probably can’t do much about being accused of hating anyone; but let’s make sure we don’t hate anybody. Let’s make sure we don’t attack anybody. A full frontal assault on system subscription is in order: we believe it harmful to the PCA. But an attack on system subscriptionists is unacceptable. Let’s just try to do as Maximus did. First of all, let’s try to be correct in our claims and teaching, avoiding exaggeration, misdirection and strawmanning. If we make slippery slope arguments, let’s make sure we steelman our opponents’ arguments, to the extent logically possible. Let’s credit those opponents with also desiring what they regard as best for the PCA and limit our arguments to why we believe they are mistaken, without accusing them, even if only tacitly, of nefarious purposes; and we can do so without backing away from a perfectly good thesis. We simply believe they are wrong on subscription, and the end results of system subscription.
As to our opponents, let the Cassidys in the PCA accuse us of us being unconcerned with dogma, of being hostile, fearful, aggressive, and domineering – and other Ninth Commandment violations. (Let’s just make sure that isn’t us, and that we repudiate any of us who are.) Our reply need be only that we are not hostile, certainly not fearful, except maybe fearful of losing the PCA to liberalism – however many years or decades that may be from now. But history suggests this is not an irrational fear. Certainly, we may be aggressive. But what of it? What kind of man isn’t at least somewhat aggressive in defending what he loves? Besides, calling people hostile, fearful, aggressive, and domineering isn’t exactly a slap upside the head with a tulip. Moreover, note that these pejoratives tell us nothing about the merits of any particular view of subscription. We may very well be hostile, fearful, aggressive, and domineering, although we should not be. But we are correct about subscription; and that is what matters. We can always stop being hostile, fearful, aggressive, and domineering. But it won’t change our minds about full subscription; and it won’t change our opponents’ minds about us: the fact is, simply being full subscription is probably enough to earn us the aforementioned pejoratives. What is important for full subscriptionists is that we not respond in kind, much less initiate this sort of behavior, the sort of behavior Cassidy described at the beginning of his article:
A friend and colleague in ministry is moving from the Presbyterian Church in America to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a move not all that uncommon in the relationship between these two vibrant denominations. Allow me to quote him, “And what was the first reaction to my announcement that I was excited to join the EPC (with no reference at all to the PCA)? A message from a PCA guy who I do not know saying he was excited that I was leaving the PCA. Lovely.”
The message wasn’t “Thank you for all your years of faithful labors; I am so excited about your next chapter, praying for your fruitfulness.” No, it was more like, “Just writing to let you know how excited I am that you’re finally taking your impure self out of of my pristine pasture. Don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out.”
This is not the way.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.15.
This is the reason, after reading the late Gary North’s, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), I am no longer a system subscriptionist.
See Minutes 29 GA (2001), pp. 137-38; cf. Minutes 14 GA (1986), p. 331, “Constitutional Inquiry #5,” which provides, in relevant part: “When a man is ordained with the allowance of exceptions to his full acceptance of the PCA standards, he thereby obtains (1) approval of his suitability to function within the ordained office, and (2) liberty to believe and live in some way not fully in accord with some portion of those standards. This allowance of exceptions…does not warrant his teaching or preaching of that matter which constitutes an exception to the standards. Nor does it warrant such propagation and/or practice as to disturb the peace and purity o f the church...." Emphasis added.
That is: prohibition of teaching exceptions is de facto full subscription (Cassidy); therefore, the PCA has tacitly decided that it is a full subscription denomination and those who disagree with this decision should leave (Radney).
While not strictly relevant, here, I believe it can justly be argued that, as to the Constitution, conservatives are full subscriptionists and liberals are system subscriptionists. Justice Breyer’s (and before him Justice Brennan’s) jurisprudence and comments in the course of interviews can help us understand this better, I think.
An illustration of two different approaches leading to the same conclusion: A physician prescribes a medication to two different patients. One of the patients takes the medication simply because the physician has strongly recommended it. The other patient takes the medication because the space aliens told her to. Here is a case in which two people are led to the same conclusion for two different reasons.
I don’t see how system subscription can prevent system subscriptionists from adopting some of the views expressed in an article by Derek Brown about updating the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. See Derek Brown, “Updating the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: A Proposal,” The Gospel Coalition, 15 March 2022, and the reply to Brown by the editorial staff at Defending Inerrancy, “Should the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy Be Revised?” 20 March 2022. Moreover, if system subscriptionists adopt Standpoint Epistemology or engage in a “higher criticism” of the Standards as having been generated by dead, white males and begin reading the Bible and the Standards through “marginalized” eyes (per Miguel de la Torre), then the fundamentals of the system of doctrine may not survive: having been developed by white people they can be critiqued as having been developed to protect white supremacy, slavery and, per Beth Barr and Kristin DuMez, the subjugation of women.
See Minutes, 21 GA (1993), 21-61 (“Personal Response to Protest on CoMission Agreement”), pp. 165-168.
See Minutes, 1 GA (1973), “A Message to all Churches of Jesus Christ Throughout the World,” pp. 40-43. It could be argued that had the PCA wanted explicitly to declare itself a full/strict subscription denomination, there are ways she could have done so. On the other hand, it could be argued that the founding fathers did not think it needed to be explicitly stated, given the reasons for leaving the PCUS in the first place. This would not be too different from the USA founding fathers not thinking to explicitly provide for secession on the grounds that it was silly to think that free states, having recently gained their independence from the British Empire, would then turn round and enter into a union they would never be permitted to leave. I do not believe it coincidental that subscription became an issue after the reception of the RCPES: the aforementioned 1993 CoMission Protest (which elicited the reply from GA that the PCA was not founded as a strict subscription denomination), specifically addresses the RCPES permission of “pictures of Jesus”. Certainly, even if the PCA had been founded as a strict subscription denomination, the RPCES seem to have been unaware of it, and the joining and receiving can be understood as a sub silentio overturning of that decision. Put another way: Even if the PCA had been founded as a full subscriptionist denomination, the joining and receiving of the RPCES, put an end to that.
See Tim Keller, “How Then Shall We Live Together: Subscription and the Future of the PCA,” (June 2001, revised).
In fairness, Keller more accurately described the two views in his first paragraph: “It is commonly said that there are two alternative views of confessional subscription which are influential in our Assembly – “Full Subscription” and “System Subscription”. The ‘Full Subscriptionist’...believes that “all of the doctrines in the Confession and Catechisms...are all part of the ‘system of doctrine’” to which the ordinand subscribes.... While the [Full Subscription] position “does not require the adoption of every word…” it does require “adopting every doctrine or teaching” On the other hand, the ‘System Subscriptionist’... believes that there are “parts of the Standards which might not be deemed as fundamentals of the system…. In short – the [Full Subscriptionist] insists every doctrine is part of the ‘system’ and the [System Subscriptionist] insists that some doctrines are not part of the system.”
Note well: the issue for the Patriarch and his acolytes, is unity, at the expense of correct doctrine.
Unless the only alternative to full subscription is system subscription. But to make that argument is to imply that Good Faith Subscription is simply system subscription in all but name. Honestly, I think that is the case: the same people who advocated for system subscription have been quite happy with Good Faith Subscription. Of course, that could be coincidental.
When I originally posted this (1 April 2022), this sentence said, "It is also the case that the same General Assembly which supposedly closed the door on full subscription, actually left that door open." In a recent thread Derek Radney pointed out that the way I crafted this argument makes it appear that "the door" (as I am calling it) was left open by an act of the Assembly. This is not true, and I acknowledge that I gave this impression. In the same thread, however, I actually put it differently; that is, in that thread, I did not claim (nor did I intend to do) that it was the Assembly itself that recommended living with Good Faith Subscription for a few years and then revisiting the issue. The accurate way to have put it in this article was that the door was left open at that Assembly, rather than by the Assembly. In the Twitter exchange that we had, I denied (because it's true) claiming that the court decided to revisit the issue, clarifying that what the court did do was adopt a recommendation containing the advice to "[live] with Good Faith subscription for a few years...," distinguishing -- so I thought -- the adopted recommendation from the grounds for the recommendation (which grounds included the aforementioned advice).
To be more precise, my argument is that the door to revisiting the issue of GFS was left open by the committee members who advised living with GFS for few years and then revisiting the question of forming another study committee. An argument for the formation of another study committee need not entail that the committee's advice -- the grounds -- were adopted by the Assembly, only that the advice was not, and is not, irrelevant to the question simply because it was not adopted (nor could have been). So, while the reasoning/grounds are not binding upon a subsequent court (because not adopted) they are part of the record and can nevertheless be persuasive. One can justly argue that if the elders who recommended a negative answer to an overture thought it might be legitimate to revisit the issue in "a few years" then it is neither illegitimate nor divisive for a group of elders, after "a few years", to attempt to do so. Anyone (including a system subscriber such as I was at the time) following along should have been able to predict that the way GFS was advanced (as Mississippi Valley Presbytery explained in Overture 8 at 31GA) would not resolve things. In complaining about the process, MVP pointed to "the wise counsel" of 22GA "with respect to the question concerning subscription...," in which the Assembly outlined a process -- which was ignored -- for addressing the subscription issue (Minutes 22GA, 233-34). It could be argued that, in ignoring the "wise counsel" of 22GA, 31GA sub silentio reversed 22GA on the aforementioned process. On the other hand, it could be argued that, regarding the process outlined by 22GA, someone has some questions to answer - at least two:
1) Why was that process ignored by 30GA? and
2) Why were MVP's concerns about that process also ignored?
And even if there were good answers to those questions, those aren't the only issues —maybe not even the most important. MVP also pointed out the proposed amendments did not define "an exception", and cited CCB Advice on Overture 4 at 30GA, in referring to this lack as a "fatal" flaw (Minutes 30GA 100). This "flaw" still remains. When Overture 10 was affirmed at 30GA (answering by reference Overtures 3, 11, 24, 29, 31, 32), the minority (defeated) cautioned that O10 needed to be "improved by further study and refinement," as “[m]uch of its...language is new to our Constitution and unlikely to settle...matters...." Presciently, the minority expressed concern "that either passage or defeat of Overture 10 at this time may well unintentionally provoke needless and harmful discontent across the church" (emphasis added). The minority's call for a study committee was consistent with the aforementioned process outlined by 22GA. And had that process been followed we might perhaps have gotten an improved version of GFS. Ah, but no, the fathers and brothers wanted to put the whole nasty business behind them and move on. "The issue is resolved because muh 31GA." Well, it was not resolved because muh 22GA, which outlined a process for treating this issue with much more care and attention to detail. This is the process to which Overture 8 (at 31GA) appealed. The Assembly’s adoption of the minority report was simply GA ignoring its own process. One can only speculate, of course, but perhaps one reason for the minority's advice to live with GFS for a few years, is that they understood that the division would not truly be healed (because 22GA's "wise counsel" was ignored). I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Haste makes waste, and the haste in which the subscription issue was "resolved" only made it certain that contention would continue. And so, paraphrasing the Ghost of Christmas Past, "That these things are as they are, do not blame us."
The foregoing having been said, I also acknowledge that there may be a problem with saying the door was left open. I hope, with this corrective explanation in place, my intent is clearer. I continue to employ the phrase for lack of better at present.
See Minutes, 31 GA (2003), pp. 185-190.
Minutes, 31 GA (2003), pp. 190-191, emphasis added. One might say the motivations of the fathers and brothers at 30 and 31 GA were similar to those of Emperor Constans II: let’s put an end to this destructive conflict and then move on. Later we can revisit this issue of subscription…if enough people want to do.
A reminder to the reader: As I confessed in Part One, I originally supported good faith subscription precisely because I understood it to be a weak form of full subscription and, by virtue of that fact, an allowance for system subscription, which was my view of subscription at the time.
To wit: “All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” Westminster Confession of Faith, 31.4.
There is a sense in which system subscriptionists are liberal: their approach to the Standards is liberal; and I believe this is a legitimate claim. That said, inasmuch as the term fundamentalist has a history of meaning a (belligerently) conservative approach to orthodoxy, the term liberal has a history of meaning, the (equally belligerent) denial of orthodox doctrines, we should avoid employing these terms. Let’s be honest: we did not appreciate David Cassidy’s use of the term neo-fundamentalist; so we should refrain from responding in kind. See Part One of this essay.