It's difficult to imagine anyone enjoying or benefitting from reading the linked piece on PCA membership. But there's something here that's noteworthy – something that reveals (at least in part) some of the deception and sleight-of-hand at work in Presbyterian membership constructs, and perhaps the bureaucratic mind.
I'm not even remotely interested in the bulk of the article. It's a waste of time but there are some interesting nuggets that one can find if willing to wade through these dirty and diseased ecclesiastical waters. Why are they dirty? Because they absurdly claim that this polity is Biblical, but it is easily demonstrated that it rests on a contrary but critical assumption that the Scriptures are woefully insufficient when it comes to polity. It claims to elevate Scripture even as it denigrates it. They trumpet Sola Scriptura and yet in the realm of ecclesiology they deny its basic sufficiency. God left it to men to invent a polity.
It is (apparently) the task of the Church to deduce, construct, and imagine a functional system that pretends to be based on the New Testament (by means of appropriating some terms and concepts) but in reality is just an arbitrary creation in the minds of prelates and other bureaucrats. It may be philosophically sound and even pragmatic, but it is neither based on or derived from Scripture.
If like the Anglicans, they simply admit this – admit that the system has no Biblical basis but is rooted in a tradition and (as they see it) 'works', then so be it. The system can be accepted or rejected but at least the discussion is honest.
But not so with these Presbyterians. They actually think and argue this system is Biblical. It is truly laughable, but when interacting with its prelates – the end result is not funny, but an experience of frustration and misery.
But the point here is not to dismantle the entire Presbyterian bureaucratic construct but rather to note a few items of pertinence and offer some comments and observations.
Much of what I found to be of interest is located in the paragraph I included below.
Note the exclusive claim to be the Church which they will deny at other times.
Note that membership is to the local congregation but in reality the status is about one's ties to the denomination and the hierarchies that run it.
Note that the BCO or Book of Church Order (along with the Westminster Confession) functions as an authority equal to Scripture – in other words it functions as Canon Law – a body of traditions, ordinances, and protocols which are authoritative and thus functionally canonical, on par (at least in practical day to day operations) with Scripture.
We read:
Of greater concern is that the notion that one commits oathbreaking by leaving a church for insufficient reasons seems to proceed on a misunderstanding of the church as it is conceived in the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO). The BCO distinguishes between the Church universal and local churches by means of capitalization: the capitalized “Church” means either the Church universal or the PCA in its entirety, whereas the lower case refers to a local/particular church (e.g., BCO 1- 5; 2-3; 8-3; 11-4; and 13-9). BCO 57-5, where the membership vows are prescribed, uses the capitalized “Church,” meaning it does not refer to a local church but to the Church universal or the PCA as a whole. Exactly which is not clear from the text itself, but as will be seen below, this seems to be a reference to the visible Church universal of which the PCA is a part.
One commits the sin of oathbreaking by failing to follow the dictates of the BCO. The BCO defines the Church and this can be equated with the PCA in its entirety. If you defy the PCA you effectively defy the Church Universal and this is certainly how they treat the issue in practice.
Please note the usurpation of authority in the claims of this BCO and the PCA.
And in the extra-scriptural (and in some cases unscriptural) membership vows, you swear to the 'Church universal or the PCA as a whole'.
And yet when one is prodded to 'join' the local church, this element is largely left out or obscured. And in the vows it's never fully explained as to what is happening and what is meant by 'Church' – universal but essentially (and in practice) the PCA. You're joining a denomination by means of formalizing a relationship with one of its franchises. The Church under Presbyterianism is found within the regional presbytery, the body that ordains, sends, and particularizes individual congregations. They make much over the fact that it's not required of 'members' to subscribe to the Westminster Confession. This is because all that really matters is that you join the denomination and are subject to its hierarchies and canon law. As a layman you don't subscribe to the Westminster Confession and BCO but you've sworn an oath to a denomination that is governed by them and will be judged by these standards and how the clerics interpret them. It's a bit dodgy to say the least.
This also ties in with their arguments as to why Teaching Elders or Pastors are not members of the local congregation, but the regional presbytery (or body of clerics).
Once again it is revealed to be an episcopal system – with simply more clerics in the hierarchy.
More than twenty years ago I joined the PCA. Objecting to the extra-scriptural membership rite, I submitted to the elders by taking the oaths outside the boundaries of the formal meeting. We took them in the basement, in the setting of a potluck dinner. I wasn't happy about it but it was a compromise I felt compelled to make in order to have my newest child admitted to the waters of baptism. Otherwise these shepherds of the Church would deny my son the sign of membership in Christ – a clear case of placing the tradition above Scripture and subordinating the commands of God to the dictates of denomination and its canon law.
Today I would not make that compromise. I would refuse to take vows – vows that are in many respects redundant as they (by means of extra-scriptural rite) require oaths regarding imperatives that are already binding on all Christians (regardless of denominational status) and covered in the sacraments established by God Himself. As such they risk supplanting the sacraments already established by God.
And the final questions regarding polity are not only dishonest (as suggested above) but patently unscriptural in their assumptions. Today I would refuse to take an oath obligating me to pray for and/or support the PCA, its committees, courts, or denominational bureaucracies. I cannot sanction such man-made constructs (and thus corruptions) any more than I could pray for a Roman Catholic diocesan structure.
We join the Church by means of baptism and renew our faith commitment to a local assembly by our attendance and participation in the Lord's Supper which should be part of every service. Denial of the Supper is to deny communion regardless of whether or not some rite (as per the BCO) is followed which formalizes this exclusionary act and utilizes the language of the Corinthian epistle regarding the person being handed over to Satan. Those outside communion are already in the realm of Satan.
In this case they create a rite that (for them) only has real meaning in the context of denominational assumption. By excluding those who are not 'members' of their denomination or one in which they approve, they are clearly guilty of schism.
Most congregations fence the table by the exhortation that you must be a 'member' of a church that preaches the gospel in order to participate in the Supper.
I know of no one that would say their church does not preach the gospel – even if it doesn't. The exhortation is thus rendered risible and even ludicrous. And if a 'member' of another church, apart from a travelling or visitor scenario, why would they be at the PCA? If they've left another church and are attending the PCA – then how (apart from some bureaucratic shenanigans) can they be said to still be 'members' of the other church? These are games. I'm surprised we're not all fingerprinted and issued photo ID membership cards upon joining.
This is not sacrilege for I do not refer to joining the Church of Christ but a denomination – a construct condemned in Scripture though its advocates choose to ignore this and explain it away by pragmatic appeals to history and tradition.
And for those who belong to congregation that don't practice their version of bureaucratic membership – they are excluded and treated as pagan interlopers. Once again, the charge of schism certainly seems appropriate.
The Presbyterian membership rite and system functions as a contrived sacrament and creates a middling ecclesiastical tier that is unwarranted in Scripture – an infiltration and imposition between the Church Universal and the local body. So it is with all denominations. And practically speaking it takes on another disagreeable aspect with its inevitable tendency toward institutionalism and bureaucracy, and like all denominations the Presbyterian order operates in many respects like a business.
More than once I have engaged Presbyterians and frustrated by my criticism they have fallen back on a simple but (to their mind) effective argument: It works.
Well, so does episcopacy. And for them what works often is tied to institutional assumptions. It's a vicious circle.
If you believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, the very simple New Testament model of Congregationalism works as well – a polity in which elders teach and rule and the office of hireling 'pastor' is an unknown. They seem to have forgotten that the Church is held together by the Holy Spirit and it is He who brings about fellowship and communion. God uses means but we do not invent them when we think what God has given isn't up to the task. You can build an impressive structure or form but it doesn't mean that it will have substance. Presbyterian history alone should teach them that.
Once again, I could respect the position (to some degree) if these points were admitted. But as long as they continue to assert it's a Scriptural system, I will continue to attack their arguments from every angle and do all I can to convince others to eschew them. There is no hope of real reform for the larger Church until this false system is removed from the scene.