On Confessional Subscription in the PCA
The difference is over what constitutes the system.
I’ve had some excellent conversations recently that helped clarify differences in the PCA on the question of subscription. In my view, a big problem we’re having relates to people using terms differently. For example, every PCA elder I’ve spoken with has insisted that they hold to “Good Faith Subscription,” which is all fine and good. But this term refers to the expectation that a candidate is not holding back on reporting his differences, but the term does not specifically relate to an understanding of subscription. So I think we need to define our terms in order to bring clarity.
In this post, I make a short case for what I believe has been the historic practice and conviction of the PCA and of American Presbyterianism regarding subscription. To do so, I want to provide a taxonomy for the different views of subscription, highlight the issues involved, and then make a case for what the PCA has always practiced and against adopting a more narrow view of subscription.
Defining Terms
From what I’ve read and from the discussions I’ve been having with PCA elders, there are 4 different views or approaches to confessional subscription of the Westminister Confession of Faith and Catechism (hereafter the WCF&Cs).
Absolute Subscription (Every Word): A minister must affirm and adopt every doctrine of the WCF&Cs and the exact wording of the propositions therein because they are the very system of doctrine in Scripture.
Strict/Full Subscription (Every Doctrine): A minister must affirm and adopt every doctrine of the WCF&Cs but not the exact wording of the propositions therein because all the doctrines constitute the system of Scripture. (George McKnight III, Morton Smith, O. Palmer Robertson)
Integral to the System Subscription (Essential Doctrines): A minister must affirm and adopt the doctrines of the WCF&Cs that are essential and necessary to the integrity of the Presbyterian and Reformed system but may make his differences known to the Presbytery and be granted exceptions on those parts of the WCF&Cs he believes may be in error but that do not strike at the fundamentals of the system or the vitals of religion. (Charles Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray).
Loose/Substance Subscription (Substance of Doctrine): A minister must affirm and adopt what he judges to be the substance of the doctrines of WCF&Cs but he need not declare or make known his differences to the Presbytery. There are two versions of this view.
The substance of doctrine in the WCF&Cs is the core evangelical doctrines.
The substance of doctrine in the WCF&Cs is the core Christian doctrines.
Subscription in the PCA and a Few Important Issues
In order to become a PCA officer, a man must “sincerely receive and adopt the WCF&Cs as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture” (see BCO 21-5.2 & 24-6.2), but in doing so, he must state his perceived differences with the WCF&Cs to the Presbytery if he has any (BCO 21-4.f). In my view, the disagreements we’re having in the PCA about subscription rest in differences over what constitutes the “system of doctrine” taught in Scripture, and therefore, to what exactly a minister is subscribing: every doctrine of the WCF&Cs or a subset of doctrines in the WCF&Cs that are necessary to the integrity of the P&R system.
For this reason, I believe “system subscription” is a vague and unhelpful term that can rightly apply to all of the views above depending on what one considers to constitute the “system of doctrine.” Many equate “system subscription” with View 4. Some insist View 2 is “system subscription” because every doctrine is the system. Recently, I used the term “system subscription” for the View 3 (see here). So after many conversations and much reading, I now think the term is unhelpful in bringing clarity because it’s used so differently that it fails to distinguish one view from another.
As far as I can tell, everyone in the PCA agrees that View 1 (Every Word Subscription) and View 4 (Loose/Substance Subscription) are not what the PCA has adopted. For the system must not be equated with every word of the WCF&Cs, but the system is certainly more than the mere evangelical or Christian doctrines. Furthermore, most agree that View 2 (Every Doctrine Subscription) is not the approach the PCA has taken either, though I believe this view, or some sort of view between Views 2 & 3 (Integral to the System Subscription), is functionally what many officers believe and seek to enforce. Why do I say this?
It seems to me, some PCAers have adopted a view between 2 & 3 (View 2.5?) because they believe that 1) granted exceptions may be tolerated but should not be taught and 2) exceptions must be considered errors because every doctrine of the WCF&Cs is the teaching of the church. These two convictions do not fit into View 3, but since View 2 does not allow for exceptions to doctrines at all, this position doesn’t fit there either. However, View 2.5 essentially agrees with View 2 that the standard for the Church should be every doctrine of the Confession.
Brief Evaluation
From what I’ve read, View 3 (Integral to the System Subscription) is the historic view of American Presbyterianism and View 2.5 is what happens when officers with View 2 exist in a View 3 denomination. I don’t think we’ll have peace in the PCA until everyone adopts View 3 or heads to a denomination that holds to View 2. View 2.5 is unsustainable and at war with itself (granting exceptions while also declaring them to be errors that may not be taught). That said, if everyone adopts View 3, we still have our work cut out for us and will still have conflict because we have to decide together what doctrines are essential and necessary to the P&R system. That said, I think the PCA should stick with View 3 because:
1. It’s the historic view of American Presbyterianism.
Looking back to the Adopting Act of 1729, Charles Hodge makes the case1 for View 3 and points out that ministers subscribed to the WCF&Cs but took exception to doctrines regarding the civil government and the establishment of religion, which demonstrates as clearly as can be that subscription did not mean affirming every word (View 1) or even every doctrine (View 2).2 He also argues that subscription entails more than affirming the mere substance of doctrine as determined by the individual (View 4).
[See the JETS article below by J.V. Fesko for his historical analysis of Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Murray.]
2. It upholds the freedom of ministers to teach according to their convictions as long as they are within the P&R system.
Furthermore, history shows that exceptions that have been granted to ministers were allowed to be taught.3 If a man has a different conviction than what is taught in the WCF&Cs on a matter that does not strike at the fundamentals of the Presbyterian and Reformed system of doctrine, he may teach his view from Scripture according to his conscience and shall not be restricted. This means that the Church and the minister both view the other as in error but not so much so that division is required.
3. It allows for the possibility of revising the WCF&Cs.
Finally, because exceptions may be granted on doctrines non-essential to the system, it’s possible to revise the WCF&Cs where the Church comes to believe it has erred. That a creed or confession may err is one of the doctrines of the WCF&Cs itself (WCF 31-3)! But how can they be revised if subscription requires officers to affirm every doctrine (View 2)? Or how can they be revised if subscription requires any exception granted to be considered an error and a view that an officer may not teach (View 2.5)?
4. It recognizes not everything taught in the WCF&Cs is equally important, nor does each doctrine impact our ability to unite as a denomination to pursue our mission.
We do not need to agree on everything taught in the WCF&Cs about vows, marriage and divorce, the civil magistrate, images, Sabbath, creation days, and other matters in order to be faithful to the Scriptures, true to our Reformed and Presbyterian convictions, and united in our mission to make disciples of all nations. Paul addresses at least two different churches struggling to live in unity because of differing convictions among various parties. But he urges them to bear with and to live patiently with one another (cf. Romans 14-15 & 1 Corinthians 8-10). Much of what the WCF&Cs teach is essential to the Christian faith or necessary to Presbyterian faith and practice, but not all of it. The PCA has functionally demonstrated this for 50 years, and there’s no reason why we must change course now.
Final Thoughts
Increasingly, PCA officers that hold to View 2.5 are describing themselves as “confessional,” a term intended to suggest that those who hold to View 3 are less or not at all committed to the WCF&Cs. But this label used in this way is both misleading and historically misguided. Every PCA officer is confessional, for all of us vow to sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms. One is not more confessional than another by taking fewer or no exceptions. And historically, being confessional has not meant adopting Views 2 or 2.5.
The question at hand relates to what serves as the subordinate doctrinal standard of our Church. The PCA has consistently held the view that the Presbyterian and Reformed system presented within the WCF&Cs is our standard. Those doctrines presented in the WCF&Cs not integral to that system have weight but do not have binding authority on our officers as long as those views are submitted to the Church for examination and are granted to be in order.
I’ll close with a quote from PCA minister Dr. Tim LeCroy speaking about what has historically been a common exception granted: “There are many in the PCA who have passionate opinions on this issue, but the PCA is a denomination where those who express this difference have been accepted as ministers in good standing. The fundamental question here is a philosophical one: do we want the PCA to continue to be a denomination where those who hold this difference and those who are opposed to it can co-exist? I vote that we remain that way. We must decide what we want to be.”
I, for one, want the PCA to remain what it has been: a distinctly Presbyterian denomination that lives with one another in humble charity and partners in mission despite differences over tertiary doctrines.
________________________________
Resources for Further Consideration or Information
Cassidy, David. “PCA at the Crossroads”
Chapell, Bryan. “Perspective on the Subscription Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America” an oral presentation at the 29th General Assembly of the PCA
David Cassidy and David Strain discuss Subscription at the 2021 General Assembly of the PCA
Duncan, Ligon III. “Owning the Confession: Subscription in the Scottish Presbyterian Tradition” - [Note: In this paper, Duncan unhelpfully conflates “system subscription” with “substance subscription.” Furthermore, he fails to consistently summarize Scottish Presbyterian history according to his own telling because he overlooks the significance of Thomas McCrie’s stated difference on the civil magistrate in 1796 when he claims that Scottish subscription from 1611-1910 was to “the whole doctrine of the Confession.”]
Fesko, J.V. “The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC” JETS, vol 46/6 (December 2003), 673-698.
Hodge, Charles. The Church and Its Polity. “The Adoption of the Confession” in chapter 14, section 7, pages 317ff.
Study Paper on Confessional Subscription from the 10th General Assembly of the PCA - [Note: The authors of this paper rely upon Morton Smith’s interpretation of the Adopting Act of 1729, which J.V. Fesko shows to be inaccurate. The Synod of 1729 did no take a strict subscription approach only allowing quibbles with the paragraphs on the civil magistrate. Contrary to Smith, the Synod required subscription to the essential and necessary articles of the Confession but not to every doctrine of the Confession.]
Hodge, Charles. The Church and Its Polity. “The Adoption of the Confession” in chapter 14, section 7, pages 317ff.
Hodge, an Old School Presbyterian Theologian, also mentions another example of an acceptable exception about divorce and remarriage, which shows, contrary to the PCA Study Paper on Confessional Subscription (1982), that Hodge did not think exceptions should be limited to the particular issues of the authority of the civil government in relation to the church.
Fesko, J.V. “The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC” JETS, vol 46/6 (December 2003), 673-698.
Thanks for writing this out, Derek. I appreciated our conversation on these matters, and I hope to pick it up again.
A few points in defense of the position of us 2/2.5'ers. :)
First, I appreciate that you're using the categories of the PCA 1982 Study Report; however, I think it's important to note that, contrary to your conclusions, the PCA Study Report argued that the 2nd view (not the 3rd view) was the historic view of the PCA:
https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/1982paper.html
Second, Bryan Chapell articulated the goals of the move to Good Faith Subscription in his article, "Perspective on the Presbyterian Church in America's Subscription Standards" (Presbyterion 27/2 Fall 2001). In that, he explicitly stated that, "A presbytery should exercise its right to determine its membership by judging whether the man’s declared difference with our Standards is an allowable exception, and ***whether the presbytery will in any way limit the teaching of that exception***” (p. 67).
While he did argue that, in his view, good faith subscription would be contrary to prohibiting ALL teaching of exceptions, he acknowledged that some imposition of teaching restrictions would be permissible when, in the presbytery's determination, "the 'peace and purity of the church' are clearly threatened" (p. 93). (On these two paragraphs, I'm copying pretty much directly from the RPR Minority Report of during the 48th GA, M48GA, p. 631, of which I was a co-author. I still believe that report was an important statement on this subject.)
These demonstrate that, even if one believes that some teaching of exceptions is permissible, I think you have overclaimed the latitude that even the architects of GFA imagined when it was first rolled out.
Finally, it should be noted that while the GFA amendments did permit elders to hold other views, the BCO was not amended to permit elders to teach views contrary to the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice," as outlined in the BCO and WCF/Cs (BCO 39-3).
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of tensions that remain here, no matter which position you're coming from. We'll have to keep discussing things. I'll see you at GA, Lord willing.