16 July 2020

Membership Chaos within the Confessional Presbyterian Context (Part 1)


This brief statement on membership caught my eye while perusing New Horizons, the OPC monthly that I continue to follow even though I departed the OPC about twenty years ago. My early Christian days were in connection with that denomination and while I would never even consider regularly attending another one – I still follow its trajectory and movements and though the numbers grow fewer, there are still people I know (or knew) within its fold.


Membership was always a vexatious issue within the context of Confessional Presbyterianism as there is a great deal of theological ambiguity, confusion, innovation and sometimes dishonesty that flows from their denominational tradition – and they are by no means alone.
This piece presented nothing new but instead rekindled many frustrations and reminded me of at least one reason why I washed my hands of that clique. And thus I use it as a foil – as a means to challenge assumptions and recast the discussion.
The article begins:
New Horizons Dec 2019
OUR MEMBERSHIP VOWS Making a Public Profession by Glen J. Clary
To be welcomed into all the privileges of full communion in the church, we must publicly profess our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ before God and his people. In the OPC, that profession of faith occurs when we publicly affirm the five membership vows that we have examined in this series.
From the beginning we find a statement of confusion as the church refers not to the Church universally speaking or even to a local congregation (or church) per se – but rather to a church congregation that is part of a Presbyterian denomination (the OPC). Since the denomination is extra-Scriptural we are being tacitly informed that this whole discussion, yea the categories of discussion will largely belong to this contrived extra-Scriptural category – an order that is inserted between the Scriptural categories of the Universal Church and particular congregations.
But it's not even that simple as this model must necessarily interact with God-established rites and ordinances and thus, as they are fused with this ecclesiastical tertium quid – they too will change and be subject to modified definition. Biblical sacraments are transformed into denominationally informed and contextualised sacraments.
The five vows while not entirely void of Scriptural content are nevertheless extra-Scriptural – again a tacit acknowledgement that in terms of Presbyterian ecclesiology the Scriptures are not sufficient. Baptism, the God ordained sign and seal that visibly speaking (at the very least) marks out a Christian from the world is apparently not a sufficient means to bring someone into the Church. The OPC needs to add further stipulations and also generates a novel rite – the vow ceremony of public profession.
What's wrong with that? It's not in the Scripture and it's redundant. Baptism is already provided as the means of public profession of faith and this is publically re-affirmed whenever the Church meets as it celebrates the Lord's Supper – or at least is supposed to do so. The affirmations in the vows are largely superfluous, already binding on anyone who professes to be a Christian – anyone that has been united to Christ by the seal of baptism.
So by introducing a ritual that binds the believer to the extra-Scriptural ecclesiastical structure (Presbyterianism in the form of the OPC) the actual meaning of baptism and the call to Christ-like obedience is necessarily confused if not downgraded as this rite functions as a rival, if not a usurpation of baptism and seems to suggest that somehow a Christian has not been properly obligated to Christ-likeness without the inclusion of this oath. Again, it's redundant, a repeat of baptism sans the water.
The vows themselves are also problematic because they utilise ambiguous language with regard to the Church. In the Presbyterian system the actual essence of the Church and its authority rests in the regional presbytery – a creation of their tradition. The Scriptural usage of the term 'presbytery' refers to the local council of elders. In the Presbyterian tradition, they have swapped the Biblical term with their term 'session' or 'consistory' in the Continental tradition. What they call the presbytery is a regional body of clerics and it is this body that has the power to ordain, declare congregations valid or invalid, grant the right to celebrate the sacraments and it is the seat (and first tier) of their hierarchical bureaucracy with its judicial process. Strictly speaking under their system the individual congregation and its status as a church or non-church rests within the power of the presbytery. Hence it is (as Congregationalists have long argued) a pluralised form of hierarchical clericalism or episcopacy. By Congregationalism I refer to the New Testament model which consists of a plurality of elders – not the sometime democratic, sometime tyrannical and unscriptural system of most Evangelical churches.
The vow the would-be member takes is in submission to this regional-denominational body and the 'member' binds himself to pray for its peace, flourishing and the like. It's a vow no honest Biblicist could ever take. And it's a fact that many Presbyterian clerics all but hide from those taking the vow – only admitting it when pressed. Of course the average congregant isn't going to know to ask the question as they are subjected to a bevy of extra-Scriptural appeals and even some bait-and-switch marketing tactics with regard to the supposed Biblical nature and benefits of 'membership'. The true nature of the system is obscured and I believe this is done deliberately as many Christians would (out of Biblically informed intuition) hesitate if not recoil were it all laid out for them.
And in vowing to submit to that order and pray for its peace – the 'member' is often binding himself to a bureaucratic structure and ecclesiology he is largely ignorant of. Many if not most vow-takers believe they are joining their local congregation but in fact they are swearing fealty and submission to a body of clerics – most of whom they will never see or interact with and yet this body exercises considerable control over the local congregation and lays claim to a percentage of its finances.
If you have not yet made a public profession of faith in Christ but desire to do so, let me encourage you to talk to your pastor or an elder about becoming a communicant member. The session of the church will want to examine you in order to ascertain that you possess the doctrinal knowledge requisite for saving faith in Christ, rely on the merits of Christ alone for salvation, and are determined by the grace of God to live a Christian life. As you pursue communicant membership in Christ’s church, remember that he promised, “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).
If you haven't made a public profession then you're not baptised. If you are baptised you're already publically under obligation 'to live a Christian life' regardless of their made up vows.
The fact that the nominal churches of Western Christianity have made a mockery of this doesn't change what the Bible says. Like it or not the less-than-committed, worldly Cultural Christians that surround us will be held to account and they need to be reminded of this. They stand condemned and their baptisms only further condemn them. Obviously the vast majority of them will, if challenged, simply walk away. In which case let them go. If they won't repent and submit to God's Word we don't want them in the churches anyway. We treat them as what they are – apostates.
Because of Presbyterianism's two-tier membership system (of communicant and non-communicant members) they effectively tie their own hands – creating a kind of halfway membership – a point others have made in the past. The Scriptures know of no distinction between a Christian and a Communicant Christian. All Christians are in communion with Christ. The Lord's Supper is the outward (and yet spiritually beneficial) rite associated with the essence of salvation – our Union with Him. Communion conveys this grace (or blessing) and provides a means in space and time for us to experience the realities of eternity and share in its fellowship. The truth is the Church has no right to turn away anyone who has been baptised and has a credible profession. Elders should certainly talk to and interact with visitors or people that give sign of regular attendance. This is in addition to the shepherding role with regard to the larger flock. This does not give them the right to innovate and create novel structures which they think helpful or more efficient – or even represent better elaborations of their theology. As such they have no right to bind such obligations on believers requiring them to swear vows in some made up public ritual – all the more when the Scriptures already address these points.
The employment of Matthew 10 within this framework is a non sequitir as it begs the question regarding the membership system itself.
Taking the membership vows is a very special moment in a person’s life; we publicly acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our Lord and Savior. Confessing Christ, however, is not something that we do only once but something that we do throughout our Christian life. The Christian life is a life of Spirit-produced faith. And that faith, which is a confessing faith, is also a living faith that produces obedience to the triune God (Rom. 1:5; James 2:14–26).
A very special moment and yet repeatedly in my arguments with Presbyterian clerics I am told that it's not a ritual or ceremony. Fine then, it's a very special moment. We should be confessing Christ from the moment subsequent to our baptism – in an age appropriate way of course. We wouldn't expect a three year old to provide theological elaboration but we can see conscience at work, the desire to do good and at the very least an effort toward outward obedience. To be honest, it isn't all that different with adults. People can learn formulae but at the end of the day whether they are believers or not is something we will see with their lives. Didn't Christ say as much when speaking of trees bearing fruit and abiding with Him? We freely and eagerly admit this implies assembling with a local congregation and submitting to its leaders.
To grow and stay alive we must feed on Christ via the Word – the Spirit-inspired text and the rites that are commissioned and activated by it. By the Word and in the right context, ordinary water, bread and wine are transformed into spiritual elements rightly ranked among the mysteries of the gospel and Kingdom. 
There is great confusion at this point over the intellectual ability to take vows and participate in this ritual and unfortunately this plays out in the question of communion. Let us avoid the lame analogies commonly heard among the Reformed and Presbyterians on this point. Not long ago I heard seminary professor Scott Clark use the analogy of driving a car. You wouldn't let an infant or young child drive a car until they're old enough and learn the rules – or so he argued.
Right, and so under that reasoning it follows that the very old should also be excluded from communion as they reach a point in which their faculties disqualify them from driving.
Thus, it follows from Clark's reasoning that those unable to properly elaborate the theological finer points should be withdrawn from the Supper and returned to 'non-communicant membership' – whatever that is. When they can no longer answer crisply and clearly they should of course be cut off.*
These analogies are wanting as they are un-Scriptural. These categories do not exist. Children and the elderly are part of the Church. Baptism brings one into the Church and Communion (something that should take place every time the Church meets) publically renews and confesses that faith and binds the congregation together with Christ and the heavenly triumphant body already seated in the Presence. For the simple and intellectually feeble, that simple but profound and spiritually efficacious rite may be the one thing they really can understand.
How many congregations have I been in and have watched the young children pained over their exclusion? They didn't understand the sermon but they got the message clearly – this thing the Church group is doing is not for you. You're not part of it. Of course I also watch many of them parrot the motions of feeding and drinking, so badly do they want to express their participation. It's heartbreaking and all the more as the practice of exclusion is unbiblical – rooted in the Latin theological tradition (which Magisterial Protestantism perpetuated) and the tragedy that is denominationalism and the confusion it has engendered over questions regarding the definition of the Church and the nature of its membership. The membership system is meant to delineate the body but instead it shatters and fragments it. It is schismatic with regard to the larger Church and even foments schism within its own ranks – its real ranks, not merely its bureaucratic membership rolls.
----
* Clark has also made statements such as – just because someone is in the covenant, that doesn't make them a Christian.
Indeed when speaking of election we can say that not all who are Israel are of Israel. Not everyone who is outwardly in covenant is in the actual covenant. Not everyone who has visible membership in the holy community is of the predestined elect.
And yet, the statement is also very misleading as it is impossible to speak of someone being in covenant and yet not being a Christian. It's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. If they're in the covenant they must be in some sense part of the body – they are Christians. Whether they are elect are not is actually immaterial in terms of the normative operations of the Church. That baptised person in covenant is a Christian until they are put out of the Church or apostatise. Many people would be put out or would walk away if the Church was actually faithfully preaching the Word and calling people to account. Since this doesn't happen very often, the result is that there are hordes of people out there that are worldly and lost and yet are allowed to go on thinking that they're still in union with Christ.
The Scriptures give us hindsight when it comes to certain specific persons. Ishmael and Esau were in the covenant, they had the sign applied to them. They were part of God's people and yet we also know they did not finish their race and were not of the elect. But that doesn't mean that prior to their apostasy they weren't part of God's people. Though it's an anachronism we can say they were Christians for a time. The language of the New Testament does not preclude this category though some believe it to be in conflict with the doctrine of election – which for Reformed theologians is the real dilemma. In fact the New Testament is replete with warnings and exhortations against apostasy. Why? Because it's real. People that are Christians can turn their backs on the faith and cease to be part of the Body.
And even using a term like election is not so simple because in the New Testament 'elect' and 'election' is sometimes used in reference to that outward temporal covenant membership just mentioned. If you're baptised and part of the Church – you are in covenant, you are elect.
Clark is trying to absolutise these terms and restrict them to these tight, packaged theological definitions and yet in doing so he strips them of their Biblical meaning and the nuance and duality they exhibit within the text. It's a theologically coherent package but unfortunately that's just now how the Bible presents these concepts.
Clark and Clary are both paedobaptists but they operate under craedobaptist assumptions. For them the baptism of a believer's child is little more than a dedication with water. What really matters is the dry (second) baptism of membership.