Proto-Protestantism: The BCO or Presbyterianism's Canon Law

17 November 2022

The BCO or Presbyterianism's Canon Law

https://rfbwcf.substack.com/p/does-the-bible-trump-the-bco

The Book of Church Order (BCO) is utilised in various forms by various Presbyterian denominations and as such represents a fluid canon (or authoritative body of laws) that is parallel and in some cases equal to Scripture and functionally can often supersede it.

Its creation and employment represent a rejection of the Sufficiency of Scripture and as such the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as taught in a Confessional and Denominational Presbyterian framework requires a qualification as the concept is limited at best, and in some capacities the faction's claim to this doctrine ought to be questioned. Recent attempts to spin this reality and differentiate between Sola and so-called Solo Scriptura are unconvincing and frankly even embarrassing.

The BCO is an attempt to put a form to substance – the substance in this case is the coherent product of philosophical speculation and deduction also known as Presbyterian polity.

But in reality, it is but a form at best and because of its inherent fluidity it always remains an empty form that has to be applied in a context and a magisterial body – which in Presbyterianism is the contrived regional body of clerics they refer to as the Presbytery. Like the term 'bishop' which has been hijacked by High Church movements, the term 'presbytery' exists in the New Testament, but not as they use it. Functionally, it becomes a political tool for the wielding of power by bureaucrats within the denominational polity – once again comprised of its clerics (for the most part).

It's often used as a means to work around Scripture, override it, and shut down valid questions and concerns raised by any who would question the ruling order and the tradition, as it's being interpreted in that context. As such it functions as a parallel authority, rule – or canon.

No, someone will protest. I've misunderstood its nature and utility. The BCO is about operations and procedures – which is exactly what I said above. Who controls these, controls the polity and like any document it must be interpreted. And because (as the author Biese so proudly declares) it cannot be easily dispensed with, it functionally has the same authority as Scripture. We're back to questions of magisterium and canon law.

I can argue a point of Scripture and a Presbyterian will say, 'Good point' or 'I have to think about that' or even 'You might be right!'

But to argue against the BCO? No, there's no bending that.

They can say what they will and lie to themselves, but the BCO is canon law. It's the agreed upon order constructed by the polity based on scripture, reason, tradition, and precedent – and as such it is a functional rejection of the doctrine of Sufficiency and at best, a watering down of Sola Scriptura. It is the fruit of a magisterium producing law. As much as they want to escape the conclusion, this product is (functionally) canon.

Biese makes an appeal to the Westminster Confession, to the same passage that includes the oft invoked (and more often abused) 'good and necessary consequence' passage – in this case the reference is to 'circumstances'

...which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (WCF 1:6).

But apparently this means that bureaucrats through the employment of parliamentary procedure have the power to make these rules, even if the end result is like hanging a Sherman tank from a coat-hook. And I say 'bureaucrats', for this process is undertaken by officer-members within denominational structures which are nowhere sanctioned by Scripture, even when such factions are in fact condemned. It must be emphasized that their exclusionary nature cannot claim to speak for the Church. No Christian should consider anything issued by a denominational body (such as a Presbytery) as binding, and productions such as a BCO must be rejected outright.

What we have is bureaucrats operating within a financially ordered hierarchical polity who (ostensibly) by the light of nature and Christian prudence bind consciences with oaths, rites and rituals, and believe themselves empowered to create further hierarchies, and political structures. Additionally they are permitted to create categories of access to the Church and sacraments (such as denominational membership) and then they are given by the light of nature and Christian prudence the power and authority to bind consciences and impose oaths in order to conform to all they have created?

If the Reformation was about getting back to the Bible, then its heirs have failed, and the Scholastic movement and its Confessionalist progeny has in many respects pulled the Church right back to the corrupt forms of ecclesiology seen in the centuries before the Reformation. Rome was worse in degree, but not in kind. The principles for erecting a Roman-type order are certainly present within Presbyterianism. At this point a great deal more could be said about their history and their internal struggles – and the inevitability of ever-shrinking denominational structures.

Regarding elders, Biese's first point about not having to reinvent the wheel every time is fine but should it be binding – and as such exclusionary to those who differ on this point?

That brings us to the crux of the matter, Biese's 'point 2' which is about uniformity – a necessary means for control or conformity. Faithfulness and integrity are apparently about uniformity in rite and conformity to the BCO? That's what seems to be suggested. How is this even a concern within the New Testament? In fact all it does is create a situation in which you can employ empty forms and with the outward conformity they create, think that all is well, even while things rot from within – and there can be in fact great disunity. It is but empty form without substance, a sad reality we've seen in denomination after denomination and in many congregational contexts. The unity they seek is wrought by the Holy Spirit, not by bureaucratic forms and procedures.

The rule of faith passage in the WCF is lacking and potentially misleading, and the subsequent discussion regarding polity differences is also inaccurate and dishonest as the author admits Presbyterians can't even agree as to what these things mean. And it is their very forms (such as the BCO) that allow them to play the games they do with teaching/ruling elders and the various machinations surrounding clerical congregational membership vs. membership within the larger regional presbytery – a polity unknown in Scripture.

Again we must argue the functionality and import of the BCO is not about being faithful to Scripture or elucidating the text. It's about control of an institution. They also use these same principles to create other offices that are not found in the Scriptures at all – and so to critique the Anglicans at this point is fruitless as I'm sure they will tell you. As I've always said, I believe episcopacy is wrong but at least they don't pretend their system is Scriptural, let alone make some kind of ridiculous and laughable appeal to 'divine right'.

You can vow to the BCO but in doing so you are effectively setting aside Scripture and subordinating it. The commentary all but admits this even though it attempts to apply a gloss to it and somehow excuse it.

Apparently if the BCO is changed and adopts, say for example mitres or perhaps the office of arch-deacon, then Biese would (if he's being honest) just follow his vows on those points and the wisdom of the brethren as he would put it. That's being a good churchman right?

This entire discussion smacks of idealistic unreality anyway as Presbyteries are the ones to apply the Confession and the BCO and they determine where hard-line readings come into play and where there can be a more latitudinarian approach. For all their talk of unity and order and the ungodly veneration of the Confession, few follow through on its teachings especially (and perhaps ironically) when it comes to ecclesiology in the realm of worship, or the ecclesiastical-ethical tangle that is the Presbyterian doctrine of the Sabbath. Others disregard its implied teachings regarding the text of Scripture, and while the Westminster Confession is most certainly in error regarding its understanding of the Law of God, one finds that there's little agreement on that point either. Further points could be made about questions of faith and perseverance, as well as points regarding the covenant.

And speaking of worship, it's clear enough that Biese's church doesn't follow Westminster when it comes to the Regulative Principle as they employ musical instrumentation – but not to worry, I'm sure the BCO (which purports to uphold the Confession) allows for it. Or rather, his Presbytery's interpretation of the BCO allows for it. We do have to be careful with how we word things.

Once again these issues are demonstrably subjective. It's not about the truth but rather who is in control. It's a political calculation more often based on numbers, money, and viability then it is a question of adhering to the Confessional tradition and its larger coherent body of doctrine.

More could be said about Westminster's hermeneutical errors, and its anti-New Testament teachings regarding the state. And then for that matter, one must deal with the Eighteenth century American Revision. Which text is to be followed? Who gets to decide this? It's subjective.

Few Presbyterians can agree about what the Confession teaches with regard to perseverance, and even fewer contemporaries hold to a historic position, but have instead embraced the modern Evangelical 'Free Grace' view of Once Saved Always Saved – demonstrably not the view of the Puritans.

Unity doesn't matter so much on these points but the BCO, now that's what matters. That has always been my experience with Presbyterianism. It's all about the polity. This is why Presbyterians are happy to let Baptists become 'members' – as long as they bow to the polity. It's rather absurd and demonstrates yet another deviation from the Confession. But if the BCO says it's okay – then apparently all is well. These subordinate standards are great! We can pay lip service to the Scripture and then just make it up as we go – the 'we' being the governing hierarchy. It's a pluralistic and more numeric hierarchy, but that's all it is in the end.

This is why John Milton was right – Presbyterianism is but priest writ large. Presbyterianism in the end is just a stripped down form of Episcopacy (or Episcopacy by another name) and this whole approach to the BCO proves it.

The Anglicans would say Biese is arguing for being a good churchman. And there's no practical reason that Biese couldn't function within an Anglican polity and he has no real cause to reject it. Just swap the WCF and BCO for the 39 Articles, and he could more or less write the same essay.

Biese further states 'If a man believes the PCA’s polity is unbiblical, he is not free to simply disregard it. Instead, he must faithfully work to reform the polity'.

That's only if he was so foolish to take an unscriptural oath to begin with. I saw this dilemma 25 years ago and came up with a better solution – walk away. I knew I had no future in the PCA, OPC, or Presbyterianism of any kind or form. And as I've often said, barely a day passes that I don't thank God for freeing me from that wretched system. God be praised!

It never even occurs to the author that rather than seek the CREC, EPC, or any of these alternative factions, there's a better option. Choose none of them – New Testament Congregationalism is the only answer – and I'm not referring to the Congregationalism of the Savoy Declaration. And we don't need a BCO to do the work of the Holy Spirit for us. If the unity isn't there, imposing an empty (and frankly ridiculous) form won't hold it together either, despite all your canon laws and Robert's Rules driven schemes. No doubt Paul could have been more effective in Acts 15 if he had just known the right parliamentary procedures.

In conclusion, despite the arguments given, we conclude it is in fact right to ask another more direct question – whether or not the BCO trumps the Bible? This must be asked, and the answer is an unhappy one that testifies to the bankrupt system of polity known as Presbyterianism.

It would be one thing to speak of a BCO in terms of recommendations or suggestions, a kind of helpful guide – but the kind of binding, deuterocanonical approach advocated by many Presbyterian rigorists is simply untenable. It would be better to burn it.