The Ethics of Strict Subscription

One of the projects I have been working on is creating a harmony of the Westminster Standards (yes, I know that there are books which have already done this). One of the strengths of the Westminster Catechisms is its inclusion of a significant treatment of the Ten Commandments. The Larger Catechism in particular has extensive reflections on what is required and forbidden in each commandment. Consider the following selections from the Larger Catechism on the ninth commandment, “You shall not bear false witness:”

What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting the truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth…speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging tale bearers, flatterers and slanderers…

What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own, especially in public judicature…raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense…

It was with great distress that I read Mr. Fesko’s review of N. T. Wright’s Romans commentary and theology in the February edition of New Horizons. Aside from the expected challenges to Wright’s view of justification, Mr. Fesko shockingly accused Bishop Wright of Trinitarian heresy. This accusation was met with numerous demonstrations of Wright’s orthodox Trinitarianism, from Wright’s writings and speeches and also the testimony of other respected, Reformed leaders. One of the men cited in support of Dr. Wright’s orthodoxy was Dr. Richard Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary. In the May edition of New Horizons, however, Dr. Gaffin objected to citing his pervious endorsement of Wright’s integrity on the Trinity. Not only did Dr. Gaffin qualify his previous statement and refuse to affirm Wright’s orthodoxy on the Trinity, he went on to question his Christological orthodoxy.

At the core of the debate about the New Perspective in Reformed circles is the Westminster Standards’ perspective on justification, and that espoused by New Perspective authors, especially N. T. Wright. It is clear that significant differences exist between Wright and the Confessions’ stance regarding justification. But, where is the consistency in fighting for Confessional integrity regarding justification in a manner that is in violation of the Catechism’s teaching regarding the ninth commandment? Will those pushing strict subscription be as hawkish to hunt those whose refuse to “preserve and promote the good name of our neighbor” and who are all too willing to “admit of an evil report?” Will Presbyteries be instructed to examine the attitudes of candidates to see if “they sorrow and cover the infirmities of our neighbors, while acknowledging their gifts and graces” along with their views on creation and justification? Will the official publications of the OPC show as much diligence in refusing to “raise false rumors, receive and countenance evil reports and stop our ears against a just defense” as it is in printing articles and reviews critical of the doctrinal faults of others? Strict subscriptionism requires equal diligence in the doctrinal and ethical portions of the Confession. It is all or nothing.

King Context

“Context is king” is one of the earliest and most important rules learned for how to interpret an author. Even though no one would deny this foundational rule, common acceptance of the dictum does not guarantee agreement on how context is properly used. No one denies the primacy of the text, but on and under the surface of the text itself are contextual details which require understanding if the text is to be fully understood and appreciated. How these details guide and limit our understanding, and what constitutes the proper context for a text fails to ellicit any unanimity. Current debates in conservative churches about the “New Perspective(s) on Paul” aptly demonstrate this.

Examining a writing like one of Paul’s letters involves understanding the context of both the sender and the recipients. The latter category is far less controversy. Few would have an issue examining the background and history of the cities where Paul sent his principal letters. Great insight into the text has been gained by carefully studying locales like Corinth of Philippi. The notorious sexual perversity of Corinth does much to explain why the church struggled so strongly with gender and sexual issues. Paul’s sensitivity and brilliance as an author come into sharper focusing when one notices the prominence of citizenship terms in addressing the church at Philippi, a Roman colony. Likewise, understanding the history of Jews in Rome grants great insight into why Gentile/Jewish issues are so prominent in Romans. Many questions regarding the audience remain unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable (who where the Galatians Paul addressed again?), yet no one denies the value of studying the context of Paul’s recipients. The situation radically changes when one turns to Paul’s own context as a writer.

Those authors identified with the “New Perspective on Paul” emphasize the need to place Paul within the Judaism of his own day to understand his writings properly. Stated simply, Paul was raised, and continued to understand himself, as a Jew; and we must take account of this to fully appreciate his writings. This idea seems obvious, and in complete harmony for how we understand the readers of Paul’s letters, that one questions why this point should raise any controversy. However, we must take into account a couple cautions and qualifications at this point. First, our understanding of the Judaism(s) of Paul’s day is fragmentary. Second, even if our understanding of Second Temple Judaism were more complete, Paul does not fully articulate his understanding and relationship to his ancestral traditions. All that we have from Paul is a small corpus of letters directed to very specific situations. Although we can learn much about the background of Paul’s thought from his correspondence, we do not have an abstract, carefully thought-out statement of Paul’s foundational beliefs. Likewise, we have a many biographical references about Paul’s life both before and after his conversion/commissioning, we must not lose sight of how many important details of which we are ignorant. This urges great caution about reading too much into Paul’s fragmentary statement, or lack of statement, on any particular topic. Granting those restraints, the methodology of the “New Perspective” holds out much promise for New Testament studies.

Traditional interpretation emphasizes the traditional understanding and interaction with Paul’s writings. For those within the conservative Reformed tradition, this understanding is articulated in the Reformation creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Much commends this approach. The long history of substantial interaction with Paul commends the tradition for serious consideration. However, several serious cautions must be exercised within this older perspective. First, the tradition, even where consistent with Paul’s thought as far as it can be discerned from the larger Pauline context, must not be confused with Paul’s thought as expressed in a specific text. Often, traditional understanding is based on a synthesis of all that Paul said on a given topic; and to read such a full concept into a single Pauline statement, while good intentioned, could lead to serious misunderstanding. For example, reading a synthesis of all Paul’s teaching on baptism into the cryptic statement on the “baptism on behalf of the dead” in I Corinthians 15 will lead no where useful. Second, we must be careful to distinguish traditional concerns from textual concerns. Reformation theology was forged by conflict with the Roman Catholic church and the Anabaptists, neither of whom was confronted by Paul. Failure to realize this inevitably leads to serious misunderstanding. The traditional equation of Paul’s opponents in Galatians with the Medieval Catholic church and the principal concern of the letter to combat legalism has lead to serious misunderstanding of the book for centuries. This is not saying that the Protestant position is wrong, or that it is inconsistent with the trajectory Paul set in his letters; but it is saying that it is not what Paul wrote in Galatians, Romans, or any other letter he left behind. Finally, we must admit that tradition can be wrong. Unfortunately, too much of the current debates seems less about upholding the integrity of the text and more about upholding the integrity of the tradition. Ultimately, failure here undermines heart of Protestant theology- ad fonts, semper refermanda, sola Scriptura.

Why Reformed Theology Must Adapt or Become Irrelevant III

A third area where I believe Reformed theology must adapt involves conflict. While the other issues I raised, confessionalism and demographic and cultural diversity, revolve around a resistance to change, I believe this issue confronts a sin cherished in many Reformed institutions. Faced with doctrinal disagreement or diversity, Reformed theology too often refuses to distinguish the doctrines central to the Christian faith, and those expressions, even if not fully clear or precise, do not violate the core tenants of Scripture. When faced with conflict, Reformed theology all to often engages in discussion in a manner not consistent with the Biblical mandate.

The history of Reformed theology, especially during this century, is a history of conflicts. The OPC in particular aptly demonstrates this in its history. The church was born in the fight against false doctrine and errant teaching. Soon after this, a struggle for the identity of the denomination in relation to strict fundamentalism was fought, with the result that biblical liberty prevailed. While these initial conflicts may have been necessary and even commendable, it is not long before Reformed theology turns inward and attacks itself. The vitriolic struggle, continued even today by some, between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark is one of a number of prominent struggles within Reformed theology that have maimed its history. More recently, discussions regarding the number and nature of covenants, the length of the days in Genesis 1 or even preaching style has been the occasion for conflict, waged by some in an uncharitable manner. Most recently, issues surrounding the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision have been the focus of much energy among Reformed churches. While the New Perspective is a wider movement in New Testament theology, the Federal Vision is confined within Reformed theology. The near universal condemnation of these developments have rallied those who not long before were at each other’s throats on other issues. The experience of those who were not long before on the outer fringe of the Reformed consensus has not translated into equitable and Biblical treatment of those who now find themselves on the cold outer fringe. What is particularly disturbing is not so much that the conflict exists, but the manner in which the conflict is being conducted.

Conflict, even intense conflict, is not in itself sinful. But, there are Biblical principles which govern conflict; and when those are violated, sin enters into conflict. The first principle which must govern all conflicts is honesty. We must never be tempted to misrepresent the positions of another. This finds expression not simply in accurate citation, but accurate placement of citation within the author’s overall thought. Once can easily abstract a statement from any author and on that basis question their orthodoxy. Second, we must judge by the proper standards. Ultimately, the standard is the Word of God. However, especially for those within the Reformed tradition, when engaging those outside our tradition, the Westminster Standard is not our starting point; rather, we must begin with the author’s own theological commitments. For an author such as N. T. Wright, this means that we must measure him against the 39 Articles, and not a standard he has not committed himself to teach. Third, we must allow for acceptable divergence within the absolutes set forth in Scripture. Certain doctrines are necessarily accepted by all who would reckon themselves Christians, such as the universal sinfulness of humanity, the death and resurrection of Christ, Jesus as the only way to God and many other similar doctrines. However, not everything that may be true is necessary. I am convinced that paedobaptism is Biblical, yet failure to affirm this doctrine does not result in damnation. While discussion on disputed points should continue and agreement should be sought; we must clearly distinguish these peripheral areas from those central to Christian doctrine. Fourth, we must be wise to determine what is a “wise” conflict. Paul consistently advises Timothy to “avoid foolish controversies.” How many prominent leaders in Reformed theology heed this apostolic command? Many of the debates which scar our history would have been avoided had this advice been followed. Fifth, love must override and govern all conflict. Our goal is never to win an argument, but to defend and promote the honor of Christ and the health of his body. When one must engage in conflict, love and concern for the other individual and their spiritual concern must guide the interactions.

The dictum attributed to Augustine is as necessary today as it was when it was first uttered, "In essentials- unity; in nonessentials- liberty; in all things- charity." May God grant us the discernment and the ability to apply this to the issues of the day.