What To Do about Church Law

Published on by D. G. Hart

If you are worried about antinomianism, then what do you do with those rules and structures that regulate the ministry of the word? In the OPC, for instance, ministers must answer in the affirmative to the following questions (among others):

(3) Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?

(4) Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?

(5) Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart, to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a sincere desire to promote his glory in the gospel of his Son?

(6) Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity, the peace, and the unity of the church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?

If you are a Presbyterian or Reformed Protestant minister and take vows like this, should you be careful in aligning yourself with parachurch ministries that replicate the means of grace that God has given to the church? Of course, life outside the church would not be possible without a parachurch organization. Everything from a non-denominational Christian college to National Public Radio qualifies as a parachurch organization. But there are parachurch organizations and then there are parachurch organizations. And if you are in one that has a mix of Reformed and non-Reformed church officers and that engages in work that resembles the teaching and preaching of the church — that even claims to support the church — have you engaged in antinomianism? What about the oversight that should accompany the ministry of the word? Isn’t the biblical model of oversight presbyterian? And even if you belong to a parachurch agency that is comprised entirely of Presbyterian officers, shouldn’t your organization be overseen by an assembly of the church? Does ministry ever happen without oversight by the church? Doesn’t the church matter? Doesn’t church law matter?

Before you answer, be sure to keep in mind (if you are a Presbyterian) that system of doctrine that includes a set of theological affirmations on oaths and vows (though why we need that chapter or whether anyone pays attention to it is beyond me):

1. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.

2. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.

3. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.

4. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.

5. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.

6. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.

7. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

35 thoughts on “What To Do about Church Law”

  2. Sean, when Gospel Coalition or Gospel Reformation Network or Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals produces pastors for NAPARC denominations which are glad for those pastors, I’ll acknowledge your point.

    Like

  4. “What about the oversight that should accompany the ministry of the word? Isn’t the biblical model of oversight presbyterian? And even if you belong to a parachurch agency that is comprised entirely of Presbyterian officers, shouldn’t your organization be overseen by an assembly of the church? Does ministry ever happen without oversight by the church? Doesn’t the church matter? Doesn’t church law matter?”

    But apparently we can set that portion of the paragraph aside, because they produce “pastors for NAPARC denominations which are glad for those pastors.” At the end of the day, was the OPC glad for Lee Irons, or the PCA glad for Jason Stellman? Norman Shepherd? Peter Enns?

    Like

  5. The seminary question is real. I know of a man who taught at an independent seminary after pastoring. One of the reasons he returned to the pastorate was a conscience issue over the parachurch nature of the seminary. In the real world though you have to make the best of the situation though. If you’re PCA do you go the denominational seminary (Covenant) though there are much better/more faithful options? Ideally each denom would have its own seminaries. And they’d be good.

    Like

  6. The Gospel Reformation Network is an example of this – especially with their list of Affirmations and Denials – Harry Reeder (HLR III, as he signs, either by hand or digitally) at work….with collaborations, of course. The Gospel Reformation Network have even composed a daunting type-font set-up similar to circa-18th century ‘Wanted’ posters……to invoke ‘Authority’, ‘Fear’, and ‘Intimidation’……..’Answer the 5 Questions or Else’

    ………….Count to ten and he would change the PCA to be more like the Christian Missionary Alliance and their beloved A.B. Simpson.

    Like

  7. Don’t mind being checked/moderated – I’m glad for that. I try to do it before I post, but I have blindspots for sure, and am new to posting. Many thanks……

    Like

  8. I’m curious about the seminary question. Why isn’t Westminster (east or west) or RTS overseen by the OPC (or other denomination) the same way Calvin is overseen by the CRC, Covenant by the PCA, or Erskine by the ARP? Are the standards at the interdenom reformed seminaries too broad to allow all of the faculty to serve under the OPC (for example)? Is it just that the the CRC, PCA, and ARP are all much larger than the OPC? I’d be surprised if that were true in the case of the ARP. Or is there some principled reason the OPC doesn’t want to run its own seminary?

    Like

  9. sdb, I could be wrong, but I believe WTS was intentionally designed NOT to be under denominational control due to what the mainline Presbyterian Church did to Princeton in the 20’s, and which led to the formation of WTS. Machen and Co. wanted to be sure that a compromised denomination could not kill WTS the way Princeton was. It seems like a two-way street, though. What happens when the independent seminary goes bad and there is no denomination to reign it in?

    Like

  10. J-Li, you’re right — it’s just not an ideal situation. I don’t see any of the indy seminaries submitting to denominational control. Could NAPARC “certify” and maybe get a voice on the board of these seminaries though? Just a weak thought.

    Like

  11. Sean, so critical. I thought you’re godly affections would prevent such wickedness.

    Are those the only grads from Westminster you can name? Is it in keeping with the ninth commandment and what the Larger Catechism teaches about it only to mention the contested persons?

    But really, I like the push back. Not enough of it in the experimental Calvinist land of chocolate.

    Like

  13. Heartless-Hart, Most of the Puritans and Scottish divines of note didn’t just write about experiential piety. They also wrote dogmatic and controversial pieces. Owen wrote on Mortification of Sin, as well as against Socinianism and Popery; Rutherford wrote Trial and Triumph of Faith, as well as against Independency and Antinomianism; Flavel wrote the Method of Grace and Keeping the Heart, as well against Anti-Paedobaptism; Brown of Wamphray wrote on Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, as well as against Quakerism. Etc. and etc.

    To the Westminster grads, let me also add Gordon Keddie, recently retired from Southside RPC, whose labors in the gospel I very much appreciate. My reason for mentioning the names I did is to suggest that more (denominational) control could be exercised on those seminaries. If you could name a Presbyterian denomination that’s not a micro that doesn’t have a denominational seminary, I would be interested. Apparently, only the O[nly] P[erfect] C[hurch] has gotten it right.

    Like

  14. Sean McDonald,

    Can you show us how your denominational seminary RPTS has gotten it right then, especially since you are a member of the RPCNA, even though your own church worships at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary? Maybe Grand Rapids RPCNA should find another location.

    BTW, That is not how the president of your denominational seminary, RPTS, put it when he was at the PCA GA this year. He did said after all that your denominational seminary “continues” to rely on the PCA for training its ministers.

    And, that is not what the the leaders of the RPCNA said upon writing the 1980 RPCNA Testimony when they consulted the late Meredith Kline for help.

    Glad to know that your seminary, RPTS, and your denomination, RPCNA, is leading the way in NAPARC.

    Like

  15. Sean, “Heartless-Hart”? Why bother if that’s all you got.

    “Most of the Puritans and Scottish divines of note didn’t just write about experiential piety. They also wrote dogmatic and controversial pieces.”

    Duh.

    The problem is the experiential stuff that experimental Calvinists keeping using to make the rest of us feel inadequate.

    Like

  16. What’s wrong with Puritan Reformed Presbyterian Theological Doctrinal Ecclesiological Associational Free Nederlandical College Seminary?

    Also I don’t think Sean was saying that he was against any and all co-operation, but that it might be beneficial for denominations to have control over the seminary training their ministers. None of your examples contradict that.

    Dr. Hart- I mean honestly, where in the works of the “experiential Calvinists” (as if there’s any other sort) do you find a holier than thou attitude; a twelve step holiness program? The old divines wanted to encourage holiness and experience, but it wasn’t a case of criticising those who felt humble and contrite and broken. These men would say the more contrite and aware of one’s inability the closer communion they had with Christ. Rutherford was not Osteen and you just come across as silly for suggesting these men were promoting a narcissistic, boastful faith.

    Are there people today who strut? Yes. Were there those who boasted back then? Yes. But the fact you are totally disinterested in what these men had to say is ignorance.

    Like

  17. For the record, I am not trying to contradict Sean. The point is that his own denominational seminary at the end is not so denominational. A thing even his leaders are willing to acknowledge.

    Like

  18. Gill- I hear ya. I would say the problem is the institutional co-operation: that’s the root of a lot of the problems. In my humble opinion.

    Like

  19. Gil, I had a good time talking with you and getting to know you at Synod in 2012. I’m sorry that, whatever you experienced in your time as a student, you now feel it necessary to take it out on those of us who are still in the RPCNA.

    Like

  20. McSean,

    “on those of us” – Who else is here in the OL from the RPCNA?

    You should be grateful that DG Hart pays more attention to you (you guys?) here in the OL than all of your denomination (RPCNA).

    Like

  21. Gil,

    I’m in the RP, but I don’t have a solid opinion on seminaries yet. Where did you hear about Kline helping with the 1980 Testimony?

    Like

  22. Samuel Rutherford, the experiential and experimental Calvinist, told of supernatural phenomena that he attributed to the work of the Spirit after the Confession was finished, and he is the one most recognized (it seems) of all the Westminster Divines – or in other words – he gets a lot of press these days. Maybe because of all the divines, he was obviously ‘more spiritual’ than the rest of them, and received personal divine revelation and guidance.

    Like

  24. RPCNA Sean McDonald of California, Joel (Wood?), Kent (Butterfield?), and all other RPCNA lurkers (I guess the RPCNA so called Gentle Reformation blog is not so OL),

    At the end of the day, the Puritans, Scottish divines, experiential piety, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, John Flavel, and many more, are NOT welcome in your denomination the RPCNA.

    Try bringing them into your Synod next time!

    Like

  25. The RP isn’t helped on blogs by those purporting to speak on its behalf, probably with no colour of right to do so.

    Like

  27. For those wanting to learn more about the history of Westminster East I seriously recommend Hart’s “Between the Times: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Transition: 1945-1990”. It appears to be getting hard to find, though (at least on Amazon). Hart’s more recent history of Westminster West, written with Robert Godfrey, is also very good. He deals with the types of issues being discussed here.

    Like

  28. J-Li – What happens when the independent seminary goes bad and there is no denomination to reign it in?

    Erik – They eventually head toward extinction like every other form of theological liberalism. Someone has to hire the graduates, after all. Once the money from bequests and the sale of pricey urban real estate is gone, the Mainline and its institutions are toast.

    Like

  29. Sean,

    How many Presbyterian & Reformed denominations that “aren’t a micro” are there? Who are you, a Caller-in-training?

    The URCNA does not and almost certainly never will have a denominational seminary because of their roots in the CRC.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.