What is a "confessing" church or person?
Forum category
I try to keep up-to-date with what is going on around evangelicalism and fundamentalism. A term I’ve run into with increasing frequency is “confessing,” applied to churches or individuals. I don’t have any huge quarrels with Calvinists, although I would not consider myself a Calvinist, but at first I was taken aback by the terminology. I assumed they were referring to the Westminister Confession of Faith or perhaps the Heidelberg Confession, and I wondered, “Should Christians really be putting that much emphasis on a man-made creed or identifying themselves primarily with a confession of faith?”
The more I thought and the more I researched, the more I realized that “Fundamentalists” are also “confessing” Christians of a sort. All of us have heard of the original “Fundamentals” that were published against modernism. Couldn’t we just rename them as “The Fundamental Christian Confession,” and call ourselves “confessing” Christians? It sure sounds better than “Fundamentalists!” Other confessions are out there as well, such as http://www.graceflow.org/resources/church-history/cat_view/45-resources… The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) .
Somehow we need to distinguish ourselves from people who don’t really care about truth. We need to identify and crystallize core biblical doctrine that we can stake a claim on as Bible-believing Christians. Does it make a difference that one calls it a list of “fundamentals of the faith” and the other calls it a “confession of faith?”
What value is there in subscribing to a confession?
The more I thought and the more I researched, the more I realized that “Fundamentalists” are also “confessing” Christians of a sort. All of us have heard of the original “Fundamentals” that were published against modernism. Couldn’t we just rename them as “The Fundamental Christian Confession,” and call ourselves “confessing” Christians? It sure sounds better than “Fundamentalists!” Other confessions are out there as well, such as http://www.graceflow.org/resources/church-history/cat_view/45-resources… The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) .
Somehow we need to distinguish ourselves from people who don’t really care about truth. We need to identify and crystallize core biblical doctrine that we can stake a claim on as Bible-believing Christians. Does it make a difference that one calls it a list of “fundamentals of the faith” and the other calls it a “confession of faith?”
What value is there in subscribing to a confession?
Well, there are a few different answers here. Usually, “confessing church” refers to a period in Germany’s history where some evangelicals split from the state church that was going pro-Nazi and coming under the direct control of the government. It’s major symbol is the Barmen Declaration, authored primarily by Karl Barth. I’m sure Wikipedia and other places have lots of info on it.
Now, if you’re talking about the confessional movement in the U.S., and it sounds like you are, that’s quite a bit different. In the historic Protestant denominations - Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, even some Baptists - there is an attempt to reclaim doctrinal depth, historic stability, and a sense of identity by rallying around each group’s confessional documents. I think most denominations in America realize that their own sense of identity is hardly more well-defined than that of “evangelicalism” in general, and they want to recover a more robust heritage.
For example, I’m a confessional Presbyterian in the PCA, a (mostly) confessional denomination. I hold primarily to the Westminster Standards, but also secondarily to the Three Forms of Unity (Canons of Dordt, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism). From my study so far, I am not aware of any (more than semantic) differences between my system of doctrine and what is taught in those documents, so I freely confess them as my own. I have many Baptist friends who subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. I know that there is an increasing group of Lutherans called http://www.lutherancore.org/ CORE who are pushing historic Lutheran theology.
I see several major advantages to confessional subscription, mostly to a historic document but also somewhat to an individual church’s. First, it clarifies your theology, at least on the major points. I don’t think that many American churches are that into doctrine; many couldn’t produce a doctrinal statement more than a few paragraphs. Second, if you subscribe to a historic document, it provides a contact point with the broader Christian tradition. It helps keep you away from truly eccentric doctrinal positions. Third, it helps provide long-term stability for your church. Of course, no piece of paper can keep a church from changing its doctrine, but it provides a useful reference point for members who want to keep the church on track. I think it’s significant that some of the sharpest battles in the early modernist controversy were fought in the Presbyterian Church, even though confessional subscription had grown fairly lax there. Fourth, it provides a basis for Christian unity. If there is only one faith, it does seem strange that every church would have its own doctrinal statement. If possible, it seems better to confess the faith with others. Fifth, it provides an objective standard for ordinations. Really, if you don’t have something at least similar to a confession, then an ordination committee has nothing to go by except whatever doctrinal trends and buzzwords the individuals on it happen to embrace.
Also, confessions of faith can be emended, at least in denominations who have procedures in place to do so. The old Presbyterian Church before the Civil War emended parts of the WCF that have to do with the role of the civil magistrate, so those parts would better reflect the American situation. But, it’s not easy, and it shouldn’t be. There are also various modes of subscription, some of which allow certain types of leeway.
Now, if you’re talking about the confessional movement in the U.S., and it sounds like you are, that’s quite a bit different. In the historic Protestant denominations - Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, even some Baptists - there is an attempt to reclaim doctrinal depth, historic stability, and a sense of identity by rallying around each group’s confessional documents. I think most denominations in America realize that their own sense of identity is hardly more well-defined than that of “evangelicalism” in general, and they want to recover a more robust heritage.
For example, I’m a confessional Presbyterian in the PCA, a (mostly) confessional denomination. I hold primarily to the Westminster Standards, but also secondarily to the Three Forms of Unity (Canons of Dordt, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism). From my study so far, I am not aware of any (more than semantic) differences between my system of doctrine and what is taught in those documents, so I freely confess them as my own. I have many Baptist friends who subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. I know that there is an increasing group of Lutherans called http://www.lutherancore.org/ CORE who are pushing historic Lutheran theology.
I see several major advantages to confessional subscription, mostly to a historic document but also somewhat to an individual church’s. First, it clarifies your theology, at least on the major points. I don’t think that many American churches are that into doctrine; many couldn’t produce a doctrinal statement more than a few paragraphs. Second, if you subscribe to a historic document, it provides a contact point with the broader Christian tradition. It helps keep you away from truly eccentric doctrinal positions. Third, it helps provide long-term stability for your church. Of course, no piece of paper can keep a church from changing its doctrine, but it provides a useful reference point for members who want to keep the church on track. I think it’s significant that some of the sharpest battles in the early modernist controversy were fought in the Presbyterian Church, even though confessional subscription had grown fairly lax there. Fourth, it provides a basis for Christian unity. If there is only one faith, it does seem strange that every church would have its own doctrinal statement. If possible, it seems better to confess the faith with others. Fifth, it provides an objective standard for ordinations. Really, if you don’t have something at least similar to a confession, then an ordination committee has nothing to go by except whatever doctrinal trends and buzzwords the individuals on it happen to embrace.
Also, confessions of faith can be emended, at least in denominations who have procedures in place to do so. The old Presbyterian Church before the Civil War emended parts of the WCF that have to do with the role of the civil magistrate, so those parts would better reflect the American situation. But, it’s not easy, and it shouldn’t be. There are also various modes of subscription, some of which allow certain types of leeway.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
Thanks for your lengthy reply.
Concerning your list of advantages,
#1. I see the value, not so much as clarifying my theology for me, but in clarifying it to others. If I can point to a well-known document laying out what I believe, that could be a helpful means of identifying who is with me and who isn’t.
#2. Although it is desirable, obviously, not to stray from orthodox (biblical) theological positions, I cringe at using the terminology “contact point … with tradition.” This isn’t really about tradition is it?
#3. Isn’t the same true for any church articles of faith?
#4. A confession could be the basis for genuine Christian unity around the truth. However, unification around a confession that contains more than fundamental doctrines to the gospel such as different views of baptism, etc., (as in the Westminster Confession), seems problematic.
#5. Good point.
Thanks for your lengthy reply.
Concerning your list of advantages,
#1. I see the value, not so much as clarifying my theology for me, but in clarifying it to others. If I can point to a well-known document laying out what I believe, that could be a helpful means of identifying who is with me and who isn’t.
#2. Although it is desirable, obviously, not to stray from orthodox (biblical) theological positions, I cringe at using the terminology “contact point … with tradition.” This isn’t really about tradition is it?
#3. Isn’t the same true for any church articles of faith?
#4. A confession could be the basis for genuine Christian unity around the truth. However, unification around a confession that contains more than fundamental doctrines to the gospel such as different views of baptism, etc., (as in the Westminster Confession), seems problematic.
#5. Good point.
Hey, J. D. Wow, numbering points really helps.
I think I’d like to put #2 and #3 together somewhat. Knowing that your doctrine didn’t originate recently and isn’t found only on one continent or on the fringe of the Christian world provides some security. I’m skeptical of doctrines that seem highly specific to a particular geographical region or sub-culture. Sharing your confession with other churches makes it more weighty; it’s not just something a pastor typed up one day. So, I think that a historic confession held in common with other churches provides a bit more stability than a church’s individual statement.
On #4, I think it depends on what you’re using the confession for. I didn’t mean that confessions of faith (except perhaps the N-C creed and Definition of Chalcedon) should form the basis for universal Christian unity. I meant that they provide a robust enough doctrine, practice, and piety to give direction and identity to a denomination or group of churches. I think minimalist statements of faith - mere Christianity - hurt more than they help on the individual church or denominational level.
I think I’d like to put #2 and #3 together somewhat. Knowing that your doctrine didn’t originate recently and isn’t found only on one continent or on the fringe of the Christian world provides some security. I’m skeptical of doctrines that seem highly specific to a particular geographical region or sub-culture. Sharing your confession with other churches makes it more weighty; it’s not just something a pastor typed up one day. So, I think that a historic confession held in common with other churches provides a bit more stability than a church’s individual statement.
On #4, I think it depends on what you’re using the confession for. I didn’t mean that confessions of faith (except perhaps the N-C creed and Definition of Chalcedon) should form the basis for universal Christian unity. I meant that they provide a robust enough doctrine, practice, and piety to give direction and identity to a denomination or group of churches. I think minimalist statements of faith - mere Christianity - hurt more than they help on the individual church or denominational level.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
When my wife and I were looking for a church in our area, we went one Sunday to a confessing church.(didn’t know what it was at the time) I would imagine our experience was not representative of the whole, but that church seemed to only be concerned about whether one held to a confession. We went to their visitor center and that was one of the first things they asked, if we believed in a confession.
Again, that church was probably just a one off and not representative of the whole, but that was my experience of them.
Again, that church was probably just a one off and not representative of the whole, but that was my experience of them.
I think minimalist statements of faith … hurt more than they help …How would they hurt churches?
Perhaps its better for churches to move away from denominationalism and unite around what really matters doctrinally rather than splitting theological hairs. I’m not saying “doctrine doesn’t matter,” but we need to know where the line between orthodox doctrine and interpretation stands. For example, I have good friends who have different views on eschatology than I do, and I fellowship closely with them. I don’t think different interpretations like those should be a cause for disunity.
It might be good for broader “fundamentalism” to unite around a creed of our own that is solid on “fundamental” doctrine, yet broad enough to allow room for humility in interpretation.
J.D. I think a minimalist SOF helps, not hinders. It helps to keep things in perspective. Up until just over a year ago, I would have said it probably hinders. This is one reason I am very appreciative of our current church we go to, an EFCA church. I think we have this idea that people will get confused if we have people who differ with us on different theologies. However, I have found the gospel is that which unites us. Not to say theology doesn’t matter, quite the contrary, just that it needs to be kept in perspective.
Those are just my thoughts, so take ‘em or leave ‘em.
Those are just my thoughts, so take ‘em or leave ‘em.
J.D., by minimalist I mean a statement of faith that seeks to describe only the bare essentials of Christianity. They don’t work for local congregations, though, because they can’t give guidance on how to worship or how to practice Christianity. For example, what if a couple in your church wants their baby baptized? They also want it to be considered a member of the church. Or, what if a member in your church is making a pamphlet about how to achieve the sinless state? A robust statement of faith should cover those three areas: doctrine, worship, praxis.
In the PCA, anyone who has a credible profession of faith and promises to live under the discipline of the church may join. There’s no doctrinal test for membership. Elders, on the other hand, have to hold to the WCF. This means that the church has a solid doctrinal center, but individual members have room to grow and flex in their understanding of the faith. I think this two-level system works better than a single doctrinal statement that everyone adheres to.
In the PCA, anyone who has a credible profession of faith and promises to live under the discipline of the church may join. There’s no doctrinal test for membership. Elders, on the other hand, have to hold to the WCF. This means that the church has a solid doctrinal center, but individual members have room to grow and flex in their understanding of the faith. I think this two-level system works better than a single doctrinal statement that everyone adheres to.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion