As the discussion of covenant begins to unfold, I want to ask a question. I consider myself something of a confessionalist but I also understand that our tradition includes a great deal of covenant formulation that is not expressed by the Westminster Confession and certainly not the Three Forms of Unity.
What is the place of Reformed exegetical tradition in relation to our Confessional standards?
To compare to the civil realm– while we like our judges to be strict constructionists with regard to the constitutional interpretation we also like them by original intent.
What about law reviews? Past precedent?
Do we take the writing of John Murray to soften how we understand the chapter on Covenant? Do we consider consider the exegetical tradition before the Confessions and since?
I think so. It seems this is the Reformed approach and it seems this takes away the criticism that the Confessions are dead.
There is indeed an analogy between ecclesiastical law and constitutional law. Confessionalism requires careful attention both to “original intent” and the “animus imponentis” (the spirit of the body imposing the law). A discussion of these principles is found in the 2004 OPC study report on the days of creation:
http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf
Yes, even with regard to the original Adopting Acts, the 17th century Church of Scotland only embraced the Westminster Standards with a particular understanding of them, relative to their Scottish context, even though that was not precisely in line with the original intent of the authors at all points.
Of course, difficulty arises when there are issues on which there is no clear “animus imponentis” on the part of the imposing body since, either the issues never arose before in quite that way or the issues involve matters that have received little attention for many decades (or even centuries) or on which there has been past diversity even if the present climate favors one particular stance.
In such situations, it becomes important, I should think, to allow an “animus imponentis” to (re-)emerge through an appropriate process rather than a rush to judgment, so that minority views that have some pedigree are protected and so that the “animus imponentis” doesn’t simply devolve into the current wind of opinion.
In Seceder and Covenanter churches the Confession has been modified by Testimonies. This makes a great deal of sense. But State churches were reluctant to allow any tampering, and in America denominations have pretty much rejected it also. What has happened in recent years has been the growth of the notion that there is some “system of doctrine” embedded in the Confession, which must be adhered to. The notion that we can identify ONE such system in the Bible is rather hubristic and was destroyed by Van Til’s trinitarianism. The notion that a consensus document like the WCF has “one” such system is anti-historical. But the reports on the so-called “FV” have all assumed such a system, and interestingly, have put into that system things that the WCF does not say at all, such as a meritorous doctrine of the covenant of works and the imputation of active obedience. We in the so-called “FV” (whoever we are) insist that we stand with the WCF against those who are shrinking and distorting its breadth.
What John is calling “animus imponentis” is deeply connected to a Biblical understanding of “tradition”. This requires a sense of belonging to a conversation older than ourselves. It requires that we understand the family tree and our peculiar place on it. Democracy is a peculiarly difficult social polity within which to sustain a tradition. The need for an old confession is particularly acute in our day given the democratic temper of our times and our intuitions.
Dr. Lints… Amen.
I agree that what is missing is a sense and understanding of tradition. See my comments on the common law and its function as a carrier and preserver of tradition.
But lacking a tradition, legal documents in and of themselves do not protect us from the whims of democracy, either ecclesial democracy or political democracy. Rather, such documents can become mere tools in the various power struggles spawned by democractic amnesia. Hence, my earlier comment that one problem is the domination of theologians who are the ecclesial equivalent of lawyers.
In the constitutionalized/contractual communities which we have had since 1648 the responsibility for social cohesion is ceded to the exclusive realm of law and markets while the symbols of traditional order—family, caste, class, village, craft, place, and kinship—which for centuries held Western civilization together have deteriorated and become colonized by contractarian principles. Many feel this instinctively when they react to a vague sense that everything today is “over-lawyered” and “over-commercialized.” Something similar obtains in our churches as people are confronted with the sense that things are “over-theologized.”
There is an innate sense that law, market, and I can add theology, is not sufficient to secure the “obedience to the unenforceable” (as English jurist Fletcher Moulton put it) which is necessary to any functioning community. This kind of obedience has evaporated and been replaced with the contractarian demand that obedience be codified and made enforceable either as a function of law or of the market. Thus we live during the hey-day of political pundits, advertisers, and within the church, of books, movements (both high and low), study committees, etc.
That’s my point, though – we don’t need to “have” an old confession, we need to be “be had by” an old Confession or else we simply use the confession, bolstered by the fog of time, to impose standards that suit our tastes. And since it is nearly impossible to be had by an old confession, we should write a new one or deliberately adopt an old one, clause by clause, in conversation with each other.
[...] Northern California and Nevada on animus imponentis and confessional subscription. This topic was indirectly raised here [...]