On Churches Not Allowing Exceptions
As I mentioned in my previous post on exceptions, Michael Lynch argued that in the Reformation the personal views of ministers were subordinated to the confessions of the church. To become a minister of the church was to affirm the church’s doctrine, and Lynch argues, the church therefore had the right to prohibit a minister from teaching his conscience if it conflicted with the doctrine of the church. I think Lynch gets it wrong, since the Reformation-era churches would not allow a man to become a minister if he had any disagreements.
This can be seen in the rules for ordination in Scotland at the end of the Reformation. The ordinand was to be examined in “his knowledge of the grounds of religion [the confessional standards of the church], and of his ability to defend the orthodox doctrine contained in them.” At the installation service, the presiding minister was to “demand of him who is now to be ordained, concerning how faith in Christ Jesus, and his persuasion of the truth of the reformed religion [the contents of the Westminster Standards], according to the scriptures.” These are the ordination vows, to which the candidate was to answer in the affirmative. These processes assume agreement with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and do not leave room for exceptions…
On Early Protestantism and the Adopting Act
Michael Lynch agrees with Guy Waters and believes a presbytery may forbid a minister from teaching any exception he may have to the church’s confession. Lynch argues that this is consistent with the approach of early Protestantism. He’s right on the merits but wrong on the details…
On Taking Exceptions and Ordination Vows
Over at Reformation 21, Guy Waters, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary-Jackson, argues forcefully that a presbytery has the right to tell its members that they are not allowed to teach any exceptions they may have to the Westminster Standards. Waters is addressing this in the context of the PCA, which is similar to my own denomination. I previously wrote on this subject within the EPC, but I believe that the overarching principals are the same.
While Waters was helpful in showing that the PCA has a record of formally stating that presbyteries have this right (a matter in which I was evidently incorrect), he does not adequately address the issue of conscience as it relates to ministerial vows. When ministers take their vows of ordination, they sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine found in the scriptures. This ordination vow is the same between the PCA and EPC. That pledge can only be made in sincerity if there is an implied “except where I have informed my presbytery that I disagree.” Otherwise it is disingenuous…
On Standing for the Standards
If the Westminster Standards become mere shibboleths, used only to screen for heresy in a credentials exam, we have lost our way. If insisting on the Westminster Standards generates impatience in our hearts, we have lost our way. If we…
On Exceptions and the Binding of Conscience
A few years ago I was sitting in a presbytery meeting of the PCA where several candidates for ordination were under examination. All had taken exception to the Westminster Standard’s prohibition on recreation on the Lord’s Day, and those exceptions had been accepted by the presbytery. A few members of the presbytery informed the candidates that though the exceptions were granted, they were not allowed to teach them as they contradicted the confession. This elicited a large amount of discussion from the gathered presbyters, and the overwhelming consensus reached, and later affirmed at a following meeting after consultation with the PCA’s stated clerk, was that in granting the exception, the presbytery was allowing the candidates to teach what they believed. To do otherwise would be to bind their conscience to something they did not believe scripture commanded, which in turn would violate the Westminster Standards.
In other instances, I have seen candidates take exceptions where they affirm paedocommunion or reject that divorce is permissible under any circumstances. In both cases the candidates stated that they would bind their own conscience and refrain teaching these positions. My observation is that the presbyteries approved them only because of those assurances, although I know pastors who voted against allowing either exception or ordination on the grounds that you cannot forbid a minister from teaching what they believe…