One of my favorite books is Learning in Christ’s School by Ralph Venning, a Puritan who was a lecturer at St. Olave’s Church in the Southwark borough of London until he was forced out in 1662 by the Act of Uniformity. In this book, Venning masterfully covers the growth of Christians through the various stages of spiritual growth—babes in Christ, little children, and strong young men. It is a book that gives helpful insight into the marks of each stage of Christian growth. Yet, there is one stage that is scarcely mentioned—fathers in the faith. It is my conviction that the Scripture gives more information about fathers or mature believers or the perfect (fully-developed) believers than any of the first three stages. Scripture does so for one very important reason—it is the desire of God for all of us to grow to be mature Christians. It is the same way in natural life. No one thinks that it is normal for humans to remain as babies or little children or even strong young men (or young ladies). If someone leaves this world before attaining mature years it is considered a great tragedy. The goal in every respect is to attain maturity. Yet, Venning writes only a page and a half about fathers in the faith or mature believers. His concluding words are these: “I am but of few days and dare not give you my opinion (if I may borrow more of Elihu’s words) concerning this state beyond what I have now mentioned in general.” Venning wrote over 260 pages on the characteristics of babes, little children, and strong young men. With all due respect to the great man, I think he stopped short of fulfilling his mission. He should have “pressed on to maturity” (Hebrews 6:1) in his writing of that book. Maturity is always the goal. There is no stage in this life beyond maturity. Nor, is there is any permission in Scripture for any of us to stop before we attain maturity. There is a lesson here for us concerning even such things as church government and confessions.
In his gospel, Luke wrote concerning the Lord: “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). Even Jesus underwent growth and development, but he went through every stage of life in a perfect manner. Life on earth is growth and development for all of us. Jesus was always perfect at all times, but he was not working out algebraic equations in His head at the age of three or speaking all the languages of the world without ever being taught them. There was growth in the Son of Man which is the point that Luke was making in the verse quoted above. That growth was not always obvious to other people, though. Even His own half-brothers did not recognize Him as the Messiah until after His resurrection even though they had known Him all their lives.
There is another important truth that it is observable in all of nature. All living things reach a state of maturity after which there is nothing but decline. The human body stops growing at about the age of 25. Fruits will ripen suddenly after months on the tree and then they must be harvested quickly before they begin to spoil. Some flowers are annuals and others are perennials, but all of them have an ending date. Trees may live for years—some even for centuries—but eventually they will die. It is the same with animals and birds and reptiles and sea creatures and even humans. All of them grow to maturity and then await their ending.
A friend recently told me that a reformed pastor/professor told him one time that if the Westminster Confession of Faith was being written today it would be done better. My first response upon hearing that was that the pastor/professor must be guilty of a great deal of hubris to think that he or our modern reformed world could improve on the Westminster Confession of Faith. The WCF was the mature product of creedal and confessional statements that had been developed for centuries before the Westminster Assembly met from 1643-1649 (with occasional meetings lasting even until 1652). The men who composed those meetings were collectively the greatest men in the history of the church concerning both theology proper and practical theology. Is the Westminster Confession of Faith perfect? Absolutely not, but it has lasted for 376 years with no significant improvements. Before the Westminster Assembly met, there had been several attempts at formulating doctrinal statements that would express the mature faith of the Protestant Reformation. Before the Reformation, Thomas Aquinas had attempted to write a systematic theology for the Church, but there is much more harm in his writings than any good that can be mined from his voluminous writings. He tried to combine the truths of Scripture with the writings of the ancient philosophers and gave the tie breaker concerning any conflicts between them to the philosophers. In that respect, “nature began to eat up grace,” as Francis Schaeffer once wrote. When the Reformers arose, they all rejected the teaching of Aquinas and his followers. John Calvin, in particular, wrote the most definitive statement of the Christian Faith in his great work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Yet, that great book did not come forth from his pen all at once. It was much smaller in the beginning and went through several stages before reaching the mature stage we have at present. Yet, his great book did not cover everything in such a concise way that it could be used as a doctrinal statement. Thus, the reformed churches in her various branches developed other confessional or creedal statements before the Westminster Assembly. There were The Three Forms of Unity of the Dutch churches—The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), The Belgic Confession (1561), and the Canons of Dort (1618). There were the various creedal statements of the English Church—the Forty-Two Articles (1553), the Thirty Nine Articles (1571), and the Lambeth Articles (1593). There was the Scots Confession (1560). There were others. They all are worthy statements of the faith, but they all were in various stages of development. They were not complete. They were not mature. That mature stage awaited the calling of the Westminster Assembly and the writing of the greatest doctrinal statement in the history of the church—a document that has stood the test of time. There have been efforts to revise some parts or to add chapters, but all those changes or amendments have accomplished almost nothing.
Some people would state that the Westminster Confession of Faith is deficient because it does not cover some subjects that are issues today—for instance, abortion. Neither does the Scripture directly address the issue of abortion per se. Yet, the law condemns murder which is what abortion is. And the Larger Catechism answer to Question #135 states: “the duties required in the sixth commandment are, all lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others.” Abortion is the opposite of using every lawful effort to preserve the lives of the unborn. Other people would retort that the reformed world has made various advances in theology since 1648. Sometimes, the phraseology of John Murray on “definitive sanctification” is used as an example. Yet, “definitive sanctification” is not a new truth. When I first became a Christian and before I became a Calvinist, I knew there was such a thing as “definitive sanctification,” even though I had never heard the term. I knew it from personal experience and from observation and from reading the Bible. Here is what Chapter Thirteen, Section One of the WCF states: “They, who are once effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit, are further sanctified, really and personally, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them.” No Christian can be “further sanctified” unless he is already sanctified. The WCF makes it clear that the initial sanctification—or, what Murray called “definitive sanctification”—took place when a person was regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit. I agree with Murray and he agreed with the WCF and all of her authors agreed with the Scripture. Murray’s teaching about “definitive sanctification” was not a new doctrine, but a new term to define a truth that the Christian church had understood for centuries. The WCF was/is the most mature statement of the faith ever devised by mere mortals and I do not believe it will ever be improved upon.
Likewise, the various books of polity that have helped govern the reformed churches were the products of development over time from infancy to maturity. The Scots Confession was, perhaps, the first mature (though still needing further development) statement of the rules of discipline and church government. When the Presbyterian Church was started in the American Colonies in 1706, books of polity were not yet developed. There were basic principles that were followed, but nothing like the Book of Church Order that Vanguard now has. It was not until 1789 that the Presbyterian Church in the Colonies developed a well-ordered book of polity. Like the development of the WCF, the various Books of Church Order underwent development and revising for the next 150 years before reaching the mature stage in the early part of the twentieth century. Since that time, there has been very little improvement or positive development in the matter of church government. Most changes have been in the direction of concentrating more power in the hands of fewer people rather than in functioning as truly Presbyterian church courts. In the 18 months I spent working on Vanguard’s BCO, I went over every single overture change to the PCA’s BCO. The findings were shocking to me. Almost all of the changes were to the form of government and almost all of those changes were to make the church into more of a hierarchy in one form or another.
Of course, some people would retort that we should not limit good changes to the Book of Church Order because of those mistakes. Perhaps, but how many good changes have there been since 1976? Can you name one? There are a few, but they pale in comparison to the bad changes. Why? Because fruit that matures will quickly bruise and spoil with too much handling. It is better to take the fruit as it is than to try to change it.
When I was ordained in the PCA in 1976, I had never been a licentiate—only a candidate for the ministry. Licensure was not required in those days, but it was available. The PCA BCO said this about candidates for the ministry: “Ordinarily, a candidate for the ministry shall be licensed to preach. However, if a candidate, yet unlicensed but under care of a presbytery, is called to definite work, the presbytery may proceed to his examination for ordination, if the candidate has met the requirements for ordination.” (PCA BCO, 1978, chapter 20-3). I was examined for ordination without being a licentiate and many members of my graduating class from RTS were the same. In the early 1980’s, the BCO was revised to require that every candidate be licensed before they could be examined for ordination. Now, the BCOof Vanguard states what the PCA BCO does: “However, if a candidate has been called to a definite work which he desires to accept. And the Presbytery is satisfied by his examination for licensure that he meets the requirements for ordination, the licensure may be omitted and the Presbytery may proceed at once to ordain him to the full ministry of the Gospel” (Vanguard BCO 22-2). Even though I was never licensed and never examined for licensure, I cannot in the least say that requiring every candidate to be examined for licensure has led to better, more qualified candidates. Just the opposite. Until I came into Vanguard Presbytery, I do not remember the last good examination I had heard. When I was developing the BCO for Vanguard, I kept the procedure of the PCA for the past 40 years because I knew that most people would be familiar with it. Personally, though, I would have had no problems for Vanguard to allow men to move directly from being a candidate (not a licentiate) to ordination if he has a call to a definite work. In fact, that is exactly what the language of BCO 22-2 is allowing, in essence. The licensure examination stands for his ordination examination if he has a call to a definite work. In other words, that was a good change to the BCO because it did not really change anything for the candidate if he has a call to a definite work. The only change was requiring him to seek licensure if he does not have a call. To propose a change to the BCO to make it more prohibitive for the candidate for the gospel ministry than what I experienced in 1976 would be a bad BCO change. It would have the effect of punishing the church or other “definite work” that wants to call the candidate and it would also punish the candidate who wants to accept the call. Moreover, it would accomplish no good for the presbytery, but would only promote hard feelings all around. That is the conundrum of thinking that perpetual changes to the BCO are the way to save a denomination or perfect it. The reality is that Presbyterian polity reached its mature stage about 100 years ago and no significant steps forward have been made since that date. The church or church court that governs best, governs least. There are a lot of changes that have been made to the various BCO’s over the last 100 years, but very few have made a positive difference. In fact, I really cannot think of a single BCO change in the past 50 years that has had a positive effect on the Church. There is a reason such changes have not ushered in a golden age of Christianity. It is very simple. True polity does not change because the Scripture does not change. That is also why no modern revisions of the Confessions of the church have made a significant difference. Our motto is: Truth unchanged, unchanging.
Dewey Roberts, Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, FL
www.vanguardpersbyterianchurch.com
Please send any donations to: Vanguard Presbytery, PO Box 1862, Destin, FL 32540