Just heard about a proposed decision on a recent case in the PCA that had been appealed to the Standing Judicial Commission. There are a number of interesting points in the proposed decision of the majority but look at this one:
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America is of course subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. We need to be able to affirm that the use of words in our Standards is faithful to Scriptural intent and meaning. However, we cannot now argue that because the Constitution uses a word in a single way, the church must restrict its formal use of that word to the manner in which it is used in the Constitution. To do so would be to subject the Scriptures to our Standards, and effectively sever the tie that allows for our historic understanding of semper reformata. [emphasis mine]
Now a little context. The issue before the SJC panel was whether a church had violated the Westminster Standards and the PCA Book of Church Order by calling a woman who had been hired to work on the church staff, a “minister” (specifically the “minister of church life”). She was not ordained though she does have a degree from a seminary. Some members of this church’s presbytery objected to this claiming that our standards only used the word “minister” to refer to an ordained, male-only position. In their defense, the church responded that even though that is how the standards use the word, in the Bible, the term has a much broader meaning. AND, since our standards are subject to the Bible, calling a woman a “minister” is not something that should bring them under any discipline, as it is perfectly biblical though not in accord with the stipulated definition of the term as it is used in the confessional standards.
In the part of the decision cited, the SJC panel agreed with this reasoning, stating as you saw, “we cannot now argue that because the Constitution uses a word in a single way, the church must restrict its formal use of that word to the manner in which it is used in the Constitution. To do so would be to subject the Scriptures to our Standards, and effectively sever the tie that allows for our historic understanding of semper reformata.” To which I respond first with a hearty “wow” and second with a question: Does this mean that the PCA is now ready to admit the same in regard to the terms “election,” “elect,” “regeneration,” “union with Christ” and “church”? Or is it only the term “minister” which can be understood in a broader way than the Confession defines it?
And further, if this preliminary judgment is adopted by the full SJC, does that mean that the PCA is now ready to allow this kind of “confusion” and “lack of clarity” not to mention the potential such a decision has for opening the door to another “departure from the Reformed Faith which-strikes-at-the-vitals-of-religion”? Will they allow this revolutionary judgment to stand? A judgment which, as even the panel itself admits, protects “our historic understanding of semper reformanda“?
And, one more question: the panel states that “we cannot now argue that because the Constitution uses a word in a single way, the church must restrict its formal use of that word to the manner in which it is used in the Constitution.” So what has happened to bring about the prohibition of this argument now?
I don’t know . . . . all this sounds mighty fishy if you ask me.
[thanks to the Bayly brothers and John Allen Bankson for the heads-up]
THE AVENUE 
Wow! Just wow!
So pathetic!
Really!
Simply unbelievable. Goes to show you once again that “the problem is not the problem.” These types of politics are reprehensible.
One consolation: the evidence before THE Judge is mounting.
Bill
…and He of course will judge rightly.
agree with Mr Bill Smith
Does it matter that the language of the constitution is what they’re talking about, rather than the language of the confession? Could it be fair to say that since the confession is intended as an exegetical document (whereas the constitution is not), the precision of the language on exegetical questions is deserving of more scrutiny? I’m not saying I disagree with you, but it seems to me that the SJC’s comments on the constitution might not correlate directly with the confession.
Christopher, a couple of points:
1. The PCA Book of Church Order defines the “Constitution” of the PCA as consisting of “its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.” (Preface, III). So the confessional standards are included in the term “Constitution”.
2. I don’t think it is proper to view the Westminster Confession as an “exegetical document.” Remember, the Scripture proofs were not a part of the Confession but were added later at the insistence of Parliament. It is a “confession of faith” i.e. a summary of the teachings of the Bible, NOT a commentary or exegesis of particular texts.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Though I think you would probably agree that the precise wording of the Confession is often debated as though it were intended as an exegetical document. Perhaps that’s the whole problem.
well, it’s not the whole problem, but it is certainly part of the problem. Whenever confessional statements become virtually equivalent to the Scripture, we have a big problem.
Yes, and this IS the problem. Many (not all) denominations that subscribe to the WCF have elevated the Confession to a place equal with Scripture. Sure, you hear nice sounding words like “the Confession is a good summary of Scripture but is not equal to Scripture” but watch what happens when you challenge the Confession.
uh, right, I think we’ve already seen what happens.
; )
Have you read this article by Mike Horton?
http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/08.05.php
Isn’t what he says in here pretty much what the FV has argued concerning the relation between exegetical and systematic theology?
Some great quotes:
“Systematic theology can never stand still. Just as with any science, new discoveries must be consolidated and incorporated into theological systems.”
“…we both deduce how to interpret particular Scriptures from our general knowledge of the whole of Scripture even as we inductively examine the particular parts of Scripture in order to reach general conclusions about the whole of it. It is never completely clear when we are doing the one task or the other. ”
“…they once again test their conclusions about the whole in the light of what they find in Scripture’s particular parts…”
Wasn’t the FV essentially about these last two things? Re-examining particular passages to learn about the whole?
So where are the guys going after Horton?
Joshua,
right. Nobody was (or is) saying that systematic theology is bad or unnecessary; the issue was/is how Scripture forms, informs, and reforms our system. Before the controversy started, they said many of the same things — which is one of the reasons why I never thought that what we were saying was particularly controversial.