https://theaquilareport.com/second-thoughts-about-the-proposed-witness-overtures/
We've just passed General Assembly season in the Presbyterian
world and thus there's a lot of talk about polity, discipline, and procedure
and yet as this article demonstrates, most of it is off-base and has little if
anything to do with actual New Testament polity, but is instead rooted in
tradition and what amounts to a functional rejection of Scriptural Sufficiency.
As frustrating as such articles are they're good insofar as
they remind me in stark terms of why I am not a Presbyterian and how much the
polity is rooted in a morass of tradition and in a kind of bureaucratic
authoritarianism.
The entire approach of Confessionalism reveals not just a
misguided attempt a creating an artificial form to unite the Church – as
opposed to the Holy Spirit and the forms associated with His work – but a
flawed theological methodology that seeks to create a coherentist system to
which everyone is bound both by oath and bureaucratic entanglement. The
assumptions of this theology then reverberate in the realm of polity and ethics
and end up ranging vast distances away from anything found in the New Testament.
Paul's exhortations regarding ecclesiastical arbitration in 1
Corinthians 6 nowhere envisioned an extensive hierarchical bureaucracy rooted
in procedures connected to a body of canon law. The whole discussion regarding
the courts of the civil magistrate falsely assumes the paradigms of sacralism
and some form of Dominionist thought. There are literally layers of question
begging. The arguments here are not over Scripture but over the jots and
tittles of canon law – which in Presbyterianism has a functional symbol in the sundry
Books of Church Order (BCO) and other procedural manuals. These function
canonically because they are authoritative and thus when Presbyterian clerics
insist Scripture is their guide – they lie, as Scripture interacts with and is
functionally subordinated to the (oath bound) Confession and BCO – and in the
context of a regional presbytery, rulings also depend on that specific group's
body of precedent regarding how the Confession is to be interpreted. There is
therefore a degree of subjectivity to Confessional subscription – an interesting
notion indeed when one considers that it is wedded to an oath on the part of
its clerics and officers.
All too often this innovative and extra-scriptural paradigm
is defended by means of the fig leaf known as 'good and necessary consequence' –
a slippery and even deceptive clause which gives effective carte blanche to
philosophical inference, speculation, and innovation.
This debate is about oaths and whether unbelievers can
testify in ecclesiastical courts. The whole discussion is in fact moot. The New
Testament knows nothing of ecclesiastical courts – and though it defies their
Confessional tradition and its sacral assumptions, it also forbids oaths. The
very premise of the debate must therefore be rejected.
This further demonstrates the inability of Confessionalism to
express the kind of fluidity and dynamism represented by the unfolding of
Redemptive-History – and a reality in which oaths may be appropriate under the
Old Covenant but in the age of redemptive-historical maturity and the New
Covenant/eschatological Kingdom, they're not. God's people are called to a
higher standard. The universals and absolutes Confessionalism desires and in
fact needs in order to form a coherent symbol end up forcing the text in ways
unfaithful to revelation. This is not to say there aren't absolutes but a
universal highly elaborated creedal statement is a poor tool to express the
dynamics of context. Such nuance is not going to be effective in creating a
form that binds churches together let alone provide the basis for a national
confession – which was the original intention of the Magisterial Reformation's
confessional tradition. It is no mere coincidence that the Westminster
Confession was drafted in the midst of the English Civil War.
As the article reveals, the Scriptures aren't really
interacted with, rather the Confession is the authoritative document and given
its seventeenth century context, it certainly included oaths – which were a
major feature of Sacralist culture. Rather than repudiate these errors, the
confessional tradition perpetuates them. It is right to quote Bannerman on this
point as he recognized oaths are essential to the maintenance of a civil
society. Unfortunately, Bannerman was simply echoing the errors of his
forebears. He's right as far as it goes – if one assumes the fundamental errors
taught in the Confession at this point, but sadly the Scot was gravely mistaken
when it comes to the New Testament and the higher set of ethics Christians are
called to.
But this goes deeper as it touches on and calls into question
some of the core principles and goals of the Magisterial Reformation which in
many quarters is viewed as a near Second Pentecost and is therefore
unassailable. This point needs to be made and understood as it drives the
adherents of this movement to rabidly defend their narratives – which are in
fact theological-historical narratives that when fully exposed are revealed as
pretty shaky, subjective, and thus certainly questionable. The arguments long
used to buttress these narratives by appealing to the historical outcome – the
supposed glories of the British Empire and so forth are also easily challenged
and repudiated. And often the real outcomes (such as the horrors of the Thirty
Years War) are downplayed and whitewashed.
Working through the article, one is struck by the poor nature
of the exegetical arguments – failing to take proper account of the context of
Acts and the transitional period between Pentecost and the destruction of the
Temple in 70AD. Also, the appeal to Revelation is found wanting as the apocalyptic
form necessarily relies heavily on Old Testament imagery – and therefore it
must be interpreted by means of what the New Testament teaches regarding the
Old, even if an Old Testament form (the apocalyptic) is retained. There is a
degree of circularity to be sure but even within Revelation it's clear enough
that the Church and New Testament provide the lens by which it is to be read
and understood.
It must be admitted that the holy rites given to the Church,
the mysteries or sacraments do certainly contain an oath-element, but these are
in the context of the Covenant ordained by God. Otherwise, we're told to eschew
oaths and as such I would tell a secular judge – as a Christian I am bound to
tell the truth at all times and understand there are penalties and consequences
should I fail to do so. Nevertheless I will not partake of religious rites not
ordained by God – and oaths are just that. 'Affirming' with hand raised is just
another way of taking an oath and must also be rejected. But this is in the
context of a secular polity. When it comes to the Church, there are a different
set of criteria in play and the oath and court context sends up red flags.
Placing the court in a supposedly non-secular context of a sacral state just
adds to the nature of the error, adds another layer of confusion, and provides
no resolution to the fundamental problems or issues at stake.
To take an oath in a Presbyterian court is akin to praying
with beads – and this is not meant to be taken as hyperbole. As Rome has no
authority to command the latter, the Presbyterian hierarchy has no power to
demand the former. If the Church has the power to create polities and rites –
then Rome certainly has the power to do the same. The question is no longer one
of principle but style, context, and tradition.
Eggert (the author of the piece) laments the secularization
of the oath in the world's courts and wants people to invoke God's name and yet
as already stated the New Testament makes clear in multiple places – Christians
should not be part of the world's judiciary – and as such must refuse not just
their oaths but to serve on juries on the like – being party to the bearing of
the sword. I would qualify the latter by saying one could in theory serve on a
jury but with the explicit communication that New Testament ethics and
imperatives will be placed above any civil jurisdiction along with its
imperatives and precedents, and as such the defendant will not really receive a
'fair' trial vis-à-vis the laws of the state, the standard by which he legally
is to be judged. And were the court to allow such a compromised juror to be
seated and the case to proceed, at that point the verdict would be wide open to
appeal, which no judge wants to happen. Also as a Christian bound to extend
mercy, I would be just as likely (if not bound) to let a repentant person go as
opposed to playing a part in the state's use of the sword – God ordained as
that might be. Paul makes clear vengeance while legitimate and necessary in
terms of Providence, is not a path open for Christians.
I think it also noteworthy that the article demonstrates the
syncretistic nature of worldview as the author appeals to English Common Law in
order to make his case. This is appropriate given the nature of Confessionalism
and Presbyterian polity but again demonstrates that in their heart of hearts (and
contrary to their claims of Divine Right) they believe the New Testament
insufficient to construct a polity and must rely on philosophy (good and
necessary consequence) and tradition in order to do so. At best the New
Testament provides some broad strokes and it is left to the Church to construct
and develop a system. Once this concession is made it's pretty easy to apply
this principle to other realms of ecclesiology such a liturgy and beyond. It's
self-defeating for the Confession and the larger tradition – in fact it is
essentially the Anglican view. I don't make this argument in order to warrant
liturgical innovation but rather to restrict it on the basis of New Testament
argument apart from any kind of appeal to a man-made confessional tradition,
let alone well meant but misguided oaths taken to it.
The entire article represents the waywardness and poverty of
Presbyterian polity and the Confessional tradition. It's an interesting
discussion but about as helpful as listening to Catholics debate the
application of Integralism or the Novus Ordo mass contrasted with the
Tridentine. There are worthy points to consider in such debates, but in the end
– it's all more or less a waste of time. That pretty much sums up
Presbyterianism and its crypto-episcopalian polity – and certainly this debate
over oaths.
And yet as essentially worthless as the debate is – as
suggested there is much that can be learned from Presbyterianism's errors. Such
articles allow those committed to New Testament authority to weigh and evaluate
such questions and provide a clear demonstration of what can happen when
well-meaning and motivated men err when it comes to foundational questions and
how these errors play out in the entire realm of theology.
At one time I was a Presbyterian and committed to that order
and on a path to serve as an officer within its denominational structures.
These errors were inescapable and drove me to abandon first the polity, later
Confessionalism, and eventually the Magisterial Reformation's narratives that
it all rests upon. Far from driving me in the direction of Rome or the equal
monstrosity that is Evangelicalism, I was instead driven back to the New
Testament and back to Church History. I can say – and literally do on an almost
daily basis, that I thank God that almost thirty years ago I was delivered from
that wretched and unbiblical system and its bogus claims. Praise the Lord I was
freed from the yoke of Presbyterianism.