Denominational Character

I remember the way my wife used to characterize the Reformed Churches of which we were members: "Whenever there's a problem," she would say, "their solution is to clear the slate and start all over again." Recent debates over what it means to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith in several Presbyterian Churches in the USA have made me think of this once again. Having come from a Reformed denomination with a distinctly New Zealand flavor (we subscribe to both the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity) has given me a somewhat different perspective not only of the issue but also of the issue under debate.

Before we get too involved - and in fairness to you, dear reader, let me say that I think the following statement, by Bishop J C Ryle, expresses fairly well what my time as a minister of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand has taught me. J C Ryle was a 19th Century, Evangelical Bishop in the Church of England (the first Bishop of the new see of Liverpool). He has become one of the best known evangelical authors of that period, equally as well-known as C H Spurgeon.

This to what he had to say about what he considered to be the required characteristics of a national Church:
"To be as comprehensive as possible consistently with reverence for the rule of Scripture should be the aim of every well-constituted National Church. Reason and common sense alike point this out. It should allow large liberty of thought within certain limits. Its necessaria should be few and well defined. Its non-necessaria should be very many. It should make generous allowance for the infinite variety of men’s minds, the curious sensitiveness of scrupulous consciences, and the enormous difficulty of clothing thoughts in language which will not admit of more than one meaning. A sect can afford to be narrow and exclusive; a National Church ought to be liberal, generous, and as ‘large-hearted’ as Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:29). Above all, the heads of a National Church should never forget that it is a body of which the members, from the highest minister down to the humblest layman, are all fallen and corrupt creatures, and that their mental errors, as well as their moral delinquencies, demand very tender dealing. The great Master of all Churches was one who would not ‘break a bruised reed or quench smoking flax’ (Matt. 12: 20), and tolerated much ignorance and many mistakes in His disciples. A National Church must never be ashamed to walk in His steps. To secure the greatest happiness and
wealth of the greatest number in the State is the aim of every wise politician. To comprehend and take in, by a well-devised system of Scriptura"

One of Ryle's famous statements is that made when he took up the role of Bishop of Liverpool. He said: "I ask you to assist me by cultivating and encouraging a spirit of brotherly love, charity and forbearance among Churchmen. In a fallen world like ours, and in a free country like England, it is vain to expect all men to see all things alike and to interpret the language of the formularies precisely in the same way. Let us on no account be colourless Churchmen, destitute of any distinct opinions. But so long as any brother walks loyally within the limits of the Articles and the Prayer Book, let us respect him and treat him courteously, even when we do not altogether agree with him." In Presbyterian terms we would read "the Articles and the Prayer Book" as "The Westminster Confession and the Book of Order" (though how many of the Presbyterian denominations in the US actually still include the Book in their standards is debatable).

It was his intention to defend the evangelical interpretation of the Reformed doctrines as described in the 39 Articles of the Church of England while allowing the freedom for other interpretations of those articles. Bearing in mind the variety from those whose views were very close to Roman Catholic to those who had become enamored of the new German Higher Critical approaches. As long as they ascribed to the confessional standards he would accept that they had the right to belong to the Church. He would defend the standards but he would not be as he said: "a party man." To be so would be to become sectarian.

Now it is true that in England the Anglican Church is an established Church and so what he said was in a different context, but consider the situation where we are talking about a denomination that is supposed to represent those who adhere to a particular confessional standard. If we call ourselves evangelicals and Reformed should we not be very sensitive to the attitude of our Master and Lord? Though he differed forcefully with those teachers of his age who were of different opinions he never left the Church to found a new one. Neither did his disciples unless their message was totally rejected. While there was hope of being heard they remained - they had to be thrown out.

This is why, as an active member of the Church he took part in all the meetings where his voice could be heard always standing for the doctrines of Grace, always defending the standards of the Church and always with respect for those with whom he differed. It was his belief that God is greater than we can comprehend and that, because of that, there will always be differences in how we strive to express our understanding of him. That being the case, in a truly Christian Church, we should grant the expression of those differences as long as the necessary marks are retained. Hence the need for those marks to be few and for us to accept variety in those things which are less necessary. It would seem the Ryle would find himself very much at home in the Confessing Movement and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. It seems that even John Calvin might have felt himself at home in principle - though he might have had difficulties sustaining his membership after some of the members heard his views on their denomination's teachings. The Reformers of his day were, after all, a lot less tolerant than we are today.

Perhaps there is still hope that some of the debates at present in the Churches can be carried on in a manner which will minimize the divisions, some of which may not be as beneficial to the denomination as the protagonists believe. Here's a link to a debate that typifies (in the comments) the way I think such differences can be carried on for the benefit of the Church.