FROM THE
EDITOR…
SCRIPTURE, THE CONSTITUTION,
AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CHURCH COURTS
By TE E. C. Case
In the concluding sentence of the foregoing article, our Chairman makes the
point that the Bible is to be the "rule of faith and practice" in the
courts of the Church of Jesus Christ just as in every other area of the life of
the Church or the life of the Christian. We certainly do not disagree with that
statement understanding the context in which it is made.
The quotation, of course is from the first ordination vow taken by even
office-bearer in the PCA: "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and
New testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God the only
infallible rule of faith and practice?" The vow is based on what is
taught in our Confession of Faith concerning the fact that "in all
controversies of religion" the Church is to make its final appeal to the
Scriptures (WCF 1:8). The Confession further states (1:10) that "The
supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and
all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and
private spirit, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can
be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Obviously, however, while Scripture is the only infallible rule of
faith and practice, and the supreme judge by which all controversies are to be
decided, and the court of final appeal in such matters, it is not the only rule
to which appeal is made, nor the only judge by which controversies are decided.
The Confession of Faith itself is such a judge of controversy, and frequent
appeal is make to the Confession in determining doctrinal controversies. In
fact, we may say that the Confession is the standard to which we make our first
appeal because the Confession is considered to be a faithful and helpful,
though not infallible, compendium of the doctrine of Scripture. We, as churches
in the PCA, have agreed to come together on the basis of this standard.
Similarly, the Book of Church Order is a set of rules to which appeal is
made, probably more frequently than to the Confession. None of us believes that
the Book of Church Order is infallible. Sometimes, we even wonder if it is very
good. Nevertheless, the BCO is a rule of practice in the church.
The same may be said of the standing rules of the presbyteries or the Rules
of Assembly Operation. These very much figure into the practice of the church
(and sometimes severely try the faith of her members).
All of this is to point out what should be obvious to everyone: that while
we have only one infallible rule of faith and practice, we do, in fact, have
many other standards and rules which bear witness to the faith of the Church
and regulate the practice of the life of the Church.
This is all quite important when it comes to resolving doctrinal and
practical controversies in the Church, especially where judicial matters are
involved. And, since ours is a system of courts, judicial matters are often
involved.
One of the issues addressed by the report of the Ad-Interim Committee on
Judicial Procedures touches quite significantly on this subject. Among the
features of the report as adopted by the Assembly is the requirement that men
who sit on the Standing Judicial Commission and hear judicial cases take
certain vows, by which they bind themselves to "judge according to the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America" and to recuse
themselves from any given case in which they may find that their view of the
issue at hand may be "in conflict with the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church in America." In the supporting grounds for the
adoption of these vows, the AICJP noted that, "The question underlying
these vows is not whether Scripture or Constitution shall be the final judge of
controversies -- our answer is without hesitation 'the Scriptures.' Rather, the
question is shall controversies be settled by the individual judge's private
view of the Scripture's teaching, or by an application of the Church's publicly
adopted view of Scripture's teaching as embodied in her Constitution. As
Presbyterians affirming a constitutional form of government our answer should
be without hesitation the latter" (Emphasis added).
Alas, however, there seem to be those who do hesitate about saying this.
Now, it may seem very pious to assert the primacy of Scripture, and to talk
about how we ought to bind ourselves to nothing but the Word of God, and to
assert certain ideas about private judgment and the priesthood of all
believers, and so forth. But we are convinced that in many cases, such talk is
reflective of a very dangerous, peculiarly American, approach to questions of
authority in the church.
American Christianity has, to a very great extent, been tainted by
individualism. To a greater or lesser degree, this individualistic approach to
Christianity has had its effect in almost every American denomination. In no
denomination is this influence more clearly seen, however, than in the Southern
Baptist Convention.
The Southern Baptists, with their peculiarly perverse ideas about what they
call the priesthood of the believer, have gone through quite a bit of
controversy and turmoil over the last several years because they found that
some of those who were exercising their "priesthood" were coming to
some very unsettling conclusions about certain truths of Scripture. Since there
is not the same sort of creedal arrangement in the SBC that we have in the PCA,
the resolution of the controversy has basically been carried out by managing to
get a majority of a certain viewpoint to attend meetings of their convention to
vote themselves control over the agencies of the convention. Continued control
is dependent upon being able to continue to turn out those majorities. For the
moment, the majority in the SBC is steering the denomination in a conservative
direction. But even the Baptists have discovered that a view of the priesthood
of the believer which amounts pretty much to allowing every man to do that
which is right in his own eves is not a very good idea.
The PCA ought to be taking notes of this. The notion that one fellow sitting
in his den with his concordance in one hand and Halley's Bible Handbook
in the other, is fully as competent a judge in matters of faith and
practice as the considered, well-studied, faithfully exegeted and applied
wisdom and testimony of the historic Christian Church may not have taken total
hold in the PCA. But there certainly is something of that in the concerns that
some apparently have about the vows that are now required of SJC members.
We are not going to go into a great deal of detail about this matter. But we
would recommend for your consideration an excellent paper on this whole
subject: Shepherds as Judges: The Judicial Responsibilities of Elders in the
PCA, written by T. David Gordon and appended to the report of the AICJP.
Gordon states the issues involved in this matter about as clearly as they could
be stated and demonstrates why such things as judicial cases must be handled on
the basis of the Constitution of the Church (which does not include the
Scripture, but is determined by the Scripture). The long and short of it is
that when a person comes before a court of the Church to have a question
settled, he is entitled to have that matter decided in accordance with the
rules commonly agreed upon by the Church.
It is troubling to hear expressions from the floor of the General Assembly
which seem to indicate that there are those who think that the conscience of an
individual ought to outweigh the provisions of the Constitution of the Church
in arriving at judicial decisions or settling other issues of controversy in
the Church. If the individual believes the Church has erred because there is
something erroneous in its Constitution, the thing to do is to set about to get
the Constitution changed. And, if the mind of the Church cannot be altered in
accordance with the views of that individual, then he is left with the choice
either of submitting to the wisdom of the collective body, or leaving.
Synods and councils (and presbyteries and General Assemblies) do err, and in
erring have sometimes committed egregious sins against individuals within the
body. But the antidote to that is not to allow every one to do that which is
right in his own eyes and expect the Church to go along or yield to such.
Denominations which have become oppressors of the truth rather than beacons
of it have become such, generally, because they have failed to uphold their
constitution at some point along the way. We have a good Constitution in the
PCA -- not perfect, not something to be carved in stone, or preserved unaltered
as the laws of the Medes and Persians -- but good. And whatever action is taken
in the courts of the Church needs to be taken in conformity with the
Constitution, and the agreed-upon interpretation and application of the Word of
God which is found therein, not upon the whims, however noble and even
reasonable, of any individual.
|
