Do you need permission to leave a church?

[Travis Fentiman]

With the rise of an emphasis on the local church, membership and the authority of elders, some have concluded that a church member needs permission from the elders to leave a church. This was the teaching of congregationalism in contrast to presbyterianism during the puritan era.

This new page of resources at ReformedBooksOnline, with an Introduction, argues from Scripture and nature the classic presbyterian position, that, while one ought always to serve the laws of charity, edification and good order, yet one may absent themselves from church functions and the church itself due to moral and providential necessities, according to the Law of God, without permission from elders or necessarily giving them one’s reasons, and that letters of transfer (or other certificates), while useful, are not ultimately necessary.

As all things are to be done unto edification (1 Cor. 14:26), numerous puritans taught a person may leave one church for a more profitable church. So far from the Church being instituted by the Lord as a destructive trap, or liable to this (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10), Christ’s house is a free society for all those that walk uprightly serving their Lord.

One May Miss Services & Leave a Church due to Providence without Permission, & a Letter of Transfer is Not Necessary​

 

[Gforce9]

Travis,
You always bring thought-provoking ideas to the table. My own is a high view of church offices/officers until there is an extremely good reason to not submit. The implicit faith like the Romanists practice is bad as is the radical individualistic independency of the modern west.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I updated the page with more material from Rutherford. Do note that the basic paradigm argued for on the page is simply that of Rutherford.

Here is a Rutherford quote with an explanation following it, from the updated Intro on the page:

“It is true, none should remove from one congregation to another without God go[ing] before them, nor can they change countries without God’s warranting direction, Gen 12:1; 46:4, but that such removal is a matter of Church-discipline, and must be done by a ministerial power, is unwarranted by any word of God.” – Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 6, section 1, p. 329, margin note​

"Rutherford’s implicit reasoning in his context in light of the congregationalist paradigm and arguments, including from Rutherford proof-texting Gen. 46:4 (God telling Jacob, “I will go down with thee into Egypt”), is that God’s direction, call and presence in providence is of greater authority than that of a church. Removing from a congregation need not be done by a ministerial power of the church (the necessity of the Church’s power for this being unwarranted in the Word) and that so removing does not fall under the purview of church discipline.†​

† This is confirmed in Rutherford’s teaching that church-members, due to various providences, may be “dissolved,” or erased from the rolls.​

Seeing as Rutherford had previously in the same volume related that it was legitimate to change churches due to greater spiritual edification and for avoiding impediments therein, using the analogy of removing from a cold and smoky gallery of the great house of Christ’s visible Church to lie and eat in the chamber of the same (pt. 1, ch. 4, p. 73), the conclusion follows that he held such reasons for changing congregations were indicative of God’s obliging direction, call and presence going before."​

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I agree with your thoughts. I would just add that it's generally very emotionally difficult to leave a church because our lives are invested in it, and close relationships that took years to build are basically being walked away from.

 

[jwithnell]

Might this have had a broader application in England and the colonies? I ask because of a letter from the Friends Meeting in Rook How, Lancaster, that was accepted by the Friends in Bucks County, Penn., for my great &etc. grandfather (1733). The letter affirmed a conversion and orderly life and declared him free of obligations to women or debt.

The latter might suggest a broader social application as an assurance a newcomer does not bring scandal. That it was a point of discussion among the Congregationalists and Presbyterians in the colonies suggests the possibility -- anecdotal to be sure, but a possibility, especially given the intermingling of Friends and Presbyterians in the Philadelphia area.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have difficulty determining where Rutherford's thoughts end, and your own tenuous reasoning begins.

The problem I have with your article is the relative "indifference" you argue for with respect to members deciding to simply "move on" and the implication that if Elders press too much, they are treading on conscience.

While it is true that we do not ask for letters when someone approaches the Table, it is the duty of Elders to understand the circumstances of those coming into the Church.

The membership vows of the PCA are similar to other Presbyterian bodies:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save [except] in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

The local Church is not a place where members attend as long as it is mutually convenient. We do not providentially hinder any families moving in and out of the area, but it would not only be a violation of membership vows but a lack of shepherding to simply allow a family to depart without so much as an explanation.

Furthermore, the reason why we prefer Letters of Transfer (which is one of the methods of joining a Church) is to ensure that there is no unresolved conflict ongoing from where the persons left.

 

[Northern Crofter]

With the rise of an emphasis on the local church, membership and the authority of elders, some have concluded that a church member needs permission from the elders to leave a church. This was the teaching of congregationalism in contrast to presbyterianism during the puritan era.

This is exactly what Rutherford was debating with Thomas Hooker in the former's Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline. But Rutherford was surprisingly willing to put up with a great amount of internal corruption instead of separating - and encouraged others to follow suit. I think it is hard to apply everything Rutherford wrote because most of us are in a different situation - the greatest difference being that most of us are not living in a land with an established Church. Rutherford is talking about leaving one congregation for another within the context of them all being part of the same particular (national) church. There is, no doubt, some application in moving from one congregation to another within the same denomination.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

"Rutherford is talking about leaving one congregation for another within the context of them all being part of the same particular (national) church. There is, no doubt, some application in moving from one congregation to another within the same denomination."

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughts. Rutherford's arguments do explicitly extend further than simply moving from one church to another under the same national church. He is very explicit that a national Church is not necessarily even in view, but rather in moving from one congregation to any other, one is simply moving to a new location in the catholic visible church of Christ, albeit with other governing elders.

He is explicit in arguing against the congregationalist context where no national Church was in view, but people just leave for another congregation, which is very similar to our context.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughts. Rutherford's arguments do explicitly extend further than simply moving from one church to another under the same national church. He is very explicit that a national Church is not necessarily even in view, but rather in moving from one congregation to any other, one is simply moving to a new location in the catholic visible church of Christ, albeit with other governing elders.

Perhaps you could share where in Rutherford you find this argument or where he explicitly states he is not speaking within the context of a national Church. I did not see that in what you presented (though I appreciate what you have put together on the topic). This is certainly not what he is arguing in pt. 1, ch. 4, p. 73 of Due Right of Presbyteries. Rather, as you have quoted, "It is true, none should remove from one congregation to another without God go[ing] before them, nor can they change countries without God’s warranting direction, Gen 12:1; 46:4, but that such removal is a matter of Church-discipline, and must be done by a ministerial power, is unwarranted by any word of God.” – Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 6, section 1, p. 329, margin note." The part I have bolded for emphasis seems to indicate that Rutherford was speaking of national (or particular) Churches.

One has to keep in mind, in his Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline, Rutherford is poking holes in congregationalism and often presenting hypotheticals, showing the inconsistency of their binding folks via vows to a particular congregation. His arguing that the members of such congregations have a Biblical warrant for leaving does not necessarily mean he is arguing for doing so in a land with an established presbyterian Church. In other words, I do not believe it is correct to apply what Rutherford said with regard to the faults he saw in the congregationalist system of church governance in the American colonies to situations with a different governance. However, again, I do believe there is some application to the present situation of most of us on PB - living in nations with no established Church and a plethora of denominations.

My own personal experience/view is that many elements of congregationalism have seeped into presbyterian denominations. For example: Are there any reformed and presbyterian denominations in the US that do not have some form of covenant or vow that must be taken to join a congregation within a denomination? If so, when and where did that come from (as there is no mention of or allowance for such a practice in any of the original Westminster Standards)? If so, how to denominations adhering to the Westminster Confession reconcile such a practice (requiring a vow to be recognized as a member) with the fact that their confession states that vows are to be made voluntarily (that is, cannot be required)?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

My own personal experience/view is that many elements of congregationalism have seeped into presbyterian denominations. For example: Are there any reformed and presbyterian denominations in the US that do not have some form of covenant or vow that must be taken to join a congregation within a denomination? If so, when and where did that come from (as there is no mention of or allowance for such a practice in any of the original Westminster Standards)? If so, how to denominations adhering to the Westminster Confession reconcile such a practice (requiring a vow to be recognized as a member) with the fact that their confession states that vows are to be made voluntarily (that is, cannot be required)?

I would like to see if there is an answer to these questions because they intrigue me. Last year, I attended an evening service at an independent Presbyterian church (I know) in Edinburgh and was quite shocked at the content of the vows the candidates for baptism were asked to take to become church members. I was shocked because they went way beyond what is required of an ordinary church member regarding participation in evangelism and church activities.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

For example: Are there any reformed and presbyterian denominations in the US that do not have some form of covenant or vow that must be taken to join a congregation within a denomination?

The Free Church (Continuing) is one.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Are there any reformed and presbyterian denominations in the US that do not have some form of covenant or vow that must be taken to join a congregation within a denomination? If so, when and where did that come from (as there is no mention of or allowance for such a practice in any of the original Westminster Standards)? If so, how to denominations adhering to the Westminster Confession reconcile such a practice (requiring a vow to be recognized as a member) with the fact that their confession states that vows are to be made voluntarily (that is, cannot be required)?

I would like to see if there is an answer to these questions because they intrigue me.

To the questions above, see:

A Local Church Covenant is Not Necessary for Church Membership​

​

When Membership Vows came into the Church​

Also, I am not sure a vow being made voluntarily is inherently exclusive of the same vow being required.

 

[Northern Crofter]

To the questions above, see:

A Local Church Covenant is Not Necessary for Church Membership​

​

When Membership Vows came into the Church​

Thank you for these - I tried tracing the history of public membership vows in the RPCNA but couldn't find the exact locus. It seems to have replaced the Terms of Communion. I've been told the PRC does not in Canadian congregations, but I have witnessed it in the US.

Also, I am not sure a vow being made voluntarily is inherently exclusive of the same vow being required.

I'm curious how a voluntary vow can be required. All of the proofs provided in WCF 22.6 are from the OT and I can think of no examples in Scripture where a vow is required of anyone. The WCF is careful to distinguish between an oath, which can be "imposed by lawful authority" (22.2), and a vow which "is to be made voluntarily" (22.6), even though they are "of the like nature" in that, once taken, they are to be to performed with faithfulness (22.5).

This is a very real issue for me. You will note from my signature that I am an adherent and not a member of the RPCNA - they require a vow of church membership and, not only is there a part of that covenant I cannot in good conscience give assent to, but I have difficulty seeing how it does not contradict the WCF (which is part of what the vow requires submission to). I have at one time been told I can state exceptions and at another time been told I cannot (it is nowhere mentioned in the denomination's constitution, but I have witnessed ministers, elders, and deacons take exceptions during their ordinations). So any further thoughts or resources would sincerely be appreciated.

 

[Jake]

This is a very real issue for me. You will note from my signature that I am an adherent and not a member of the RPCNA - they require a vow of church membership and, not only is there a part of that covenant I cannot in good conscience give assent to, but I have difficulty seeing how it does not contradict the WCF (which is part of what the vow requires submission to). I have at one time been told I can state exceptions and at another time been told I cannot (it is nowhere mentioned in the denomination's constitution, but I have witnessed ministers, elders, and deacons take exceptions during their ordinations). So any further thoughts or resources would sincerely be appreciated.

In the ARP Church, we have this vow for communicate membership: Do you accept that the doctrines and principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are founded upon the Scriptures?

Whereas for officers, we have this vow: Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of your own faith and do you resolve to adhere thereto?

I find this to be quite clear in the distinction made in what is required of a member versus an officer. It looks like the RPCNA is not as clear in the distinction as it uses similar language for both communicant membership and officers:

Members: Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America?

Officers: Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?

 

[Solparvus]

This is a very real issue for me. You will note from my signature that I am an adherent and not a member of the RPCNA - they require a vow of church membership and, not only is there a part of that covenant I cannot in good conscience give assent to, but I have difficulty seeing how it does not contradict the WCF (which is part of what the vow requires submission to). I have at one time been told I can state exceptions and at another time been told I cannot (it is nowhere mentioned in the denomination's constitution, but I have witnessed ministers, elders, and deacons take exceptions during their ordinations). So any further thoughts or resources would sincerely be appreciated.

In the case that you need correction in doctrine and practice in the formal sense, what congregation exercises that authority over you?

 

[iainduguid]

Thank you for these - I tried tracing the history of public membership vows in the RPCNA but couldn't find the exact locus. It seems to have replaced the Terms of Communion. I've been told the PRC does not in Canadian congregations, but I have witnessed it in the US.

I'm curious how a voluntary vow can be required. All of the proofs provided in WCF 22.6 are from the OT and I can think of no examples in Scripture where a vow is required of anyone. The WCF is careful to distinguish between an oath, which can be "imposed by lawful authority" (22.2), and a vow which "is to be made voluntarily" (22.6), even though they are "of the like nature" in that, once taken, they are to be to performed with faithfulness (22.5).

This is a very real issue for me. You will note from my signature that I am an adherent and not a member of the RPCNA - they require a vow of church membership and, not only is there a part of that covenant I cannot in good conscience give assent to, but I have difficulty seeing how it does not contradict the WCF (which is part of what the vow requires submission to). I have at one time been told I can state exceptions and at another time been told I cannot (it is nowhere mentioned in the denomination's constitution, but I have witnessed ministers, elders, and deacons take exceptions during their ordinations). So any further thoughts or resources would sincerely be appreciated.

Andrew, I'm not sure where the element of compulsion comes in, unless there is a state church that mandates membership. Your own example demonstrates that those who have scruples can remain as adherents, or in many places find a church that aligns better with their views.

I view membership vows as functioning like creeds and confessions - making clear up front what we believe the Bible's teaching to be about particular topics. As a result, I'd be reluctant to join a church that didn't have membership vows, unless they had some similarly clear description of their expectations of me and what I could expect from them. I use membership vows to structure the membership class, since it explores what we believe and what we expect members to believe and do. This is very important, since if a church is going to discipline me for not participating in their evangelism outreach or not serving in the nursery, I'd rather know ahead of time. Or, to use a much debated example, if I'm a baptist and I join a Presbyterian church, what are their expectations about baptizing my children? If I have vowed something, then you should be able to show me how I'm out of line with that vow. If it is all left undefined, then a lot of unnecessary pastoral pain and confusion could be the result.

Perhaps there is a way to make those expectations clear without a vow, but I'd appreciate hearing what that is. In the meantime, in a non-established church, it seems to me that a membership vow is freely asked for and freely given.

 

[Northern Crofter]

In the case that you need correction in doctrine and practice in the formal sense, what congregation exercises that authority over you?

The congregation I adhere to. The only difference in the RPCNA between an adherent and a "formal member" in a congregation is that the former cannot vote. And, in my sad experience, other RPCNA congregations may refuse to allow you to come to the Lord's Table.
[automerge]1707180967[/automerge]

Your own example demonstrates that those who have scruples can remain as adherents

There's more to it than that. My minister/session allows me (for the time being) to remain. Another minister in the presbytery told him if I did not become a member after 6 months, he should kick me out (that was 5 years ago).

I view membership vows as functioning like creeds and confessions - making clear up front what we believe the Bible's teaching to be about particular topics.

It should be enough that when the Session examines you they make clear what creeds and confession they hold and that you by joining in Communion with them believe the same or agree to be teachable where you might have mental reservations. My experience is that this is not done - people take a vow/covenant of church membership and then later find out what the church's creeds and confessions teach. Someone can go through the membership classes I have witnessed and never actually read the church's constituting documents, getting just an overview of Christianity instead (not that I believe one needs more than to be baptized and confess the basics of Christianity to identify with the Church). Vowing and binding oneself to something you have not read seems inappropriate. How can someone give assent to a query like "Do you accept that the doctrines and principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are founded upon the Scriptures?" without first reading through the constituting documents that contain those doctrines and principles?

As far as I can understand, Scripture and the testimony of the Church require baptism and a credible profession of faith (in either order) to partake of the Lord’s Supper, with partaking of the Lord’s Supper being the only warranted sign of “membership” in a local congregation and a submission to their authority.

Rutherford says it better than I have: "...“a Church-covenant is a conceit destitute of all authority of God’s Word, Old or New Testament, and therefore to be rejected as a way of men’s devising, 1. Argum. All will-worship laying a band on the Conscience, where God hath laid none, is damnable; but to tie the oath of God to one particular duty rather then another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seals of grace and God’s Ordinances, is will-worship, and that by virtue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it.” (The Due Right of Presbyteries, p.88)

And A.A Hodge is even more economical: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, "A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions")
[automerge]1707181156[/automerge]
In my view, we desperately need to get away from the idea that churches/congregations can make people members of the Church. The only thing churches and congregations can do is recognize members of the Church by acknowledging their lawful baptism and credible profession of faith.

 

[Sam Jer]

Perhaps you could share where in Rutherford you find this argument or where he explicitly states he is not speaking within the context of a national Church. I did not see that in what you presented (though I appreciate what you have put together on the topic). This is certainly not what he is arguing in pt. 1, ch. 4, p. 73 of Due Right of Presbyteries. Rather, as you have quoted, "It is true, none should remove from one congregation to another without God go[ing] before them, nor can they change countries without God’s warranting direction, Gen 12:1; 46:4, but that such removal is a matter of Church-discipline, and must be done by a ministerial power, is unwarranted by any word of God.” – Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 6, section 1, p. 329, margin note." The part I have bolded for emphasis seems to indicate that Rutherford was speaking of national (or particular) Churches.

One has to keep in mind, in his Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline, Rutherford is poking holes in congregationalism and often presenting hypotheticals, showing the inconsistency of their binding folks via vows to a particular congregation. His arguing that the members of such congregations have a Biblical warrant for leaving does not necessarily mean he is arguing for doing so in a land with an established presbyterian Church. In other words, I do not believe it is correct to apply what Rutherford said with regard to the faults he saw in the congregationalist system of church governance in the American colonies to situations with a different governance. However, again, I do believe there is some application to the present situation of most of us on PB - living in nations with no established Church and a plethora of denominations.

My own personal experience/view is that many elements of congregationalism have seeped into presbyterian denominations. For example: Are there any reformed and presbyterian denominations in the US that do not have some form of covenant or vow that must be taken to join a congregation within a denomination? If so, when and where did that come from (as there is no mention of or allowance for such a practice in any of the original Westminster Standards)? If so, how to denominations adhering to the Westminster Confession reconcile such a practice (requiring a vow to be recognized as a member) with the fact that their confession states that vows are to be made voluntarily (that is, cannot be required)?

The congregation I adhere to. The only difference in the RPCNA between an adherent and a "formal member" in a congregation is that the former cannot vote. And, in my sad experience, other RPCNA congregations may refuse to allow you to come to the Lord's Table.
[automerge]1707180967[/automerge]

There's more to it than that. My minister/session allows me (for the time being) to remain. Another minister in the presbytery told him if I did not become a member after 6 months, he should kick me out (that was 5 years ago).

It should be enough that when the Session examines you they make clear what creeds and confession they hold and that you by joining in Communion with them believe the same or agree to be teachable where you might have mental reservations. My experience is that this is not done - people take a vow/covenant of church membership and then later find out what the church's creeds and confessions teach. Someone can go through the membership classes I have witnessed and never actually read the church's constituting documents, getting just an overview of Christianity instead (not that I believe one needs more than to be baptized and confess the basics of Christianity to identify with the Church). Vowing and binding oneself to something you have not read seems inappropriate. How can someone give assent to a query like "Do you accept that the doctrines and principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are founded upon the Scriptures?" without first reading through the constituting documents that contain those doctrines and principles?

As far as I can understand, Scripture and the testimony of the Church require baptism and a credible profession of faith (in either order) to partake of the Lord’s Supper, with partaking of the Lord’s Supper being the only warranted sign of “membership” in a local congregation and a submission to their authority.

Rutherford says it better than I have: "...“a Church-covenant is a conceit destitute of all authority of God’s Word, Old or New Testament, and therefore to be rejected as a way of men’s devising, 1. Argum. All will-worship laying a band on the Conscience, where God hath laid none, is damnable; but to tie the oath of God to one particular duty rather then another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seals of grace and God’s Ordinances, is will-worship, and that by virtue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it.” (The Due Right of Presbyteries, p.88)

And A.A Hodge is even more economical: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, "A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions")
[automerge]1707181156[/automerge]
In my view, we desperately need to get away from the idea that churches/congregations can make people members of the Church. The only thing churches and congregations can do is recognize members of the Church by acknowledging their lawful baptism and credible profession of faith.

Does anyone here know if denominations that have such membership vows, other than the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, allow people who share this view be members/adherents/ext?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Does anyone here know if denominations that have such membership vows, other than the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, allow people who share this view be members/adherents/ext?

If you mean by "this view", the view that one should not take required vows:

The OPC enjoins (from what I understand) membership vows. I told the session I did not think vows were necessary for such, but that I was willing to take such vows, which I did voluntarily, which they accepted. In this case, this was an example of material compliance and cooperation where formal agreement was not exactly the same.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I find some of the views here idiosyncratic and ridiculous.

I understand scruples against vowing a specific Church's expressions.

The notion, however, that no vows (in the form of assent) are required for a member to join a congregation is not consonant with any idea that one can define who is or is not a "member" of a congregation. That is to say, there is no way in which it can be determined for whom the Elders are held accountable or to whom a person must submit.

As an example, if you look at the PCA questions, they are all Biblical. The first few are boundaries of basic Christian belief to determine if the person sees himself as a sinner and trusts in Christ and that he is humbly relying upon Christ in sanctification. The fourth question determines whether the person is committed to the ideas inherent in the Epistles about striving together (Hebrew) while the fifth question is inherent in commands to submit to those who watch over you.

Let me make this plain as day. This board requires Church *membership". If a person's views are so idiosyncratic that they cannot in good conscience join a Church so that they are under the authority of a Church Session then they are not in compliance with our Board requirements.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I find some of the views here idiosyncratic and ridiculous...

The notion, however, that no vows (in the form of assent) are required for a member to join a congregation is not consonant with any idea that one can define who is or is not a "member" of a congregation. That is to say, there is no way in which it can be determined for whom the Elders are held accountable or to whom a person must submit.

The Church of Scotland during the whole Post-Reformation did not require vows for particular church membership. Classic presbyterianism, argued by Rutherford and others, held that a simple profession of faith uncontradicted by scandal, and willing to hear the Word, and being under the moral obligations of the Covenant of Grace, was sufficient for particular church membership.

If vows were not used by the apostles, they would appear to be an extraneous ordinance of man to require them for church membership, when Christ does not.

Vows or covenants for church membership came into the Church in the Post-Reformation from congregationalism. They came into American presbyterianism (see the links in above posts of mine) during the 1800's, from congregationalist influence. They became standard in conservative American presbyterianism during and after the early 1900's fundamentalist controversy.

Nor is it necessary for a Christian to give up their Christian liberty in not taking vows, and becoming a member of a particular church. Vows are of their nature extraordinary, not ordinary, every time one might change churches. See, 'When Swearing a Vow, Oath or Covenant is Warranted'.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Church of Scotland during the whole Post-Reformation did not require vows for particular church membership. Classic presbyterianism, argued by Rutherford and others, held that a simple profession of faith uncontradicted by scandal, and willing to hear the Word, and being under the moral obligations of the Covenant of Grace, was sufficient for particular church membership.

If vows were not used by the apostles, they would appear to be an extraneous ordinance of man to require them for church membership, when Christ does not.

Vows or covenants for church membership came into the Church in the Post-Reformation from congregationalism. They came into American presbyterianism (see the links in above posts of mine) during the 1800's, from congregationalist influence. They became standard in conservative American presbyterianism during and after the early 1900's fundamentalist controversy.

Nor is it necessary for a Christian to give up their Christian liberty in not taking vows, and becoming a member of a particular church. Vows are of their nature extraordinary, not ordinary, every time one might change churches. See, 'When Swearing a Vow, Oath or Covenant is Warranted'.

I know you believe you have demonstrated that vows were introduced into Presbyterian Churches through "infection" by Congregational thinking, but you have not done so. All you have done is shown that Congregational Churches had very strict Covenantal structures for Church membership that were not in place with Scottish Presbyterian Churches and that, at the time, Scottish Presbyterians did not use these.

The actual history of how membership questions entered into Presbyterian Churches in their adoption of various Books of Church Order was not explored by your article. One might as well argue, erroneously, that the reason for an antidisestablishmentarian impulse in American Presbyterianism owed to the infection of ana-Baptists given your idea that similarity of two ideas means that they have the same root.

What we know of the practice of how Church members were received into the Apostolic Church is not spelled out so saying that no Churches of that time ever asked questions of persons before baptism and admission of the Church is speculative at best. Your standard, is in fact, Biblicist looking for some sort of "prooftext" to see a case where someone is asking persons if they believe the Gospel and are willing to submit to the Elders.

Let me simply add that there is a use of history by an individual that convinces him that he is being "Reformed" by consulting an article by a Scottish Presbyterian written in his time and context and then looking around and concluding that he finds no Churches living up to his standards. He is utimately "Presbyterian" only in his cos-play imagination thinking that the only Church he may lawfully join is one that matches his idiosyncratic ideas based on the authors he collects. We are not in 17th Century Scotland. Nor are the visible Churches governed by the Directory that existed at the time. It is the Church in time and space that writes its Book of Chruch Order to the best of its ability fulfill its duty before God to govern the Church in good conscience. A Church adopts its Constitution on this basis and a person is free to join that Church. Nobody forces association but, to be clear, a person who is so scrupulous as to suppose that no Church is "pure enough" because of its BCO, is a schismatic and not a Presbyterian.

 

[Northern Crofter]

This board requires Church *membership". If a person's views are so idiosyncratic that they cannot in good conscience joine a Church so that they are under the authority of a Church Session then they are not in compliance with our Board requirements.

Where does PB define "membership"?

Does membership require taking vows or giving assent to a church covenant? If so, then do you want all the FCoS(C) to depart PB?

Does membership require being under the authority of a Church Session? As an adherent in the RPCNA I am under the authority of my Session.

Let me simply add that there is a use of history by an individual that convinces him that he is being "Reformed" by consulting an article by a Scottish Presbyterian written in his time and context and then looking around and concluding that he finds no Churches living up to his standards.... to be clear, a person who is so scrupulous as to suppose that no Church is "pure enough" because of its BCO, is a schismatic and not a Presbyterian.

No one in this thread has argued any such thing. I would ask that you consider tempering your exasperation with a dose of charity.

Your standard, is in fact, Biblicist looking for some sort of "prooftext" to see a case where someone is asking persons if they believe the Gospel and are willing to submit to the Elders.

What we know of the practice of how Church members were received into the Apostolic Church is not spelled out

I know these comments were not a reply to me, but do you see the following that I wrote earlier as "Biblicist"? ↓

As far as I can understand, Scripture and the testimony of the Church require baptism and a credible profession of faith (in either order) to partake of the Lord’s Supper, with partaking of the Lord’s Supper being the only warranted sign of “membership” in a local congregation and a submission to their authority.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Does membership require being under the authority of a Church Session? As an adherent in the RPCNA I am under the authority of my Session.

While you may be under an informal authority of the Session, the truth is that they could not suspend/excommunicate you if needed, thereby being deprived of one of the graces given by Christ (i.e., Church discipline).

Being an adherent and never joining the congregation through the taking of vows is just an ecclesiological form of cohabitation - you have all of the privileges, none of the responsibilities.

 

[sgemmen9]

Many good biblical and theological responses have been posted above. So I thought I'd make a comment as a pastor. The church order among many NAPARC and Reformed denominations include language that assumes permission is needed. However, many do not often pursue membership (even when encouraged) and others ghost communication in transferring to other churches. Many churches also, sadly, create new membership without encouraging members to honor the process of the former church.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I know you believe you have demonstrated that vows were introduced into Presbyterian Churches through "infection" by Congregational thinking, but you have not done so....

The actual history of how membership questions entered into Presbyterian Churches in their adoption of various Books of Church Order was not explored by your article....

I have sufficiently documented this through sources, exactly where I said I did, when I said see the link above, namely this one: When Membership Vows came into the Church If you would like to provide more sources detailing this history, please send them to me, and I will put them up.

What we know of the practice of how Church members were received into the Apostolic Church is not spelled out so saying that no Churches of that time ever asked questions of persons before baptism and admission of the Church is speculative at best. Your standard, is in fact, Biblicist looking for some sort of "prooftext" to see a case where someone is asking persons if they believe the Gospel and are willing to submit to the Elders.

It is the Word that binds, not silence, and if the Word is silent, and those many thousands became church members without vows in Acts, then vows are not necessary for church membership, lest those church members were not church members. And it is not just myself that argues this, but Rutherford and other presbyterians at length.

Let me simply add that there is a use of history by an individual that convinces him that he is being "Reformed" by consulting an article by a Scottish Presbyterian written in his time and context and then looking around and concluding that he finds no Churches living up to his standards. He is utimately "Presbyterian" only in his cos-play imagination thinking that the only Church he may lawfully join is one that matches his idiosyncratic ideas based on the authors he collects... Nobody forces association but, to be clear, a person who is so scrupulous as to suppose that no Church is "pure enough" because of its BCO, is a schismatic and not a Presbyterian.

None of this applies to me: I am not a separatist. Here is evidence: 'On Schism & Separatism'.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have sufficiently documented this through sources, exactly where I said I did, when I said see the link above, namely this one: When Membership Vows came into the Church If you would like to provide more sources detailing this history, please send them to me, and I will put them up.

The sources you provide do not prove the idea that the practice comes about universally in Presbyterianism as a result of the New England Congregationalists. The PCUS,, for example, was responding to circumstances that came about centuries after that influence had waned. There were very different circumstances at play.

The point is that what is "Presbyterian" is not fixed by a Directory or even the arguments by Scottish Presbyterians in the circumstances in which they lived.

The PCA, for example, follows the practice of interviewing with the Session and permits the joining of persons without a public answer to questions in front of the congregation. It also lives in a completely different ministry context where membership is much more voluntary and persons are coming from mcuh more diverse contexts. Your appeal to Presbyterian history at a "time and place" as a standard for all circumstances is wooden. It fails to account for centuries of Presbyterian elders wrestling in the places in which they minister and rule trying to provide for the proper discipline of their Churches and assumes they universally and slavishly simply aped others without considering what came before. The articles you cite might provide a brief overview of how issues developed at a macro level without delving into the way in which various Presbyteries argued for or against certain provisions until they believed they have Providentially settled on the wisest course. That is what the Presbyterian government entails. It's not the opinion of a single communicant member with an internet connection and a web page that says: "Oh, that's not Presbyterian because I have these articles that tell me you're wrong."

Ultimately, the Westminster Standards are the boundaries and not even the consensus of some Presbyterians at a certain time and place as to how a Church's Book of Church Order accords with both direct exegesis and GNC. Whether Rutherford thought that, because Acts doesn't report any questions by the Apostles to individuals before they were baptized does not mean that this is the standard for all times in how this process works. Yes, it is the Word that binds, and GNC for this issue is not limited to Acts 2 and direct exegesis. If a minister came before our Presbytery with only Acts 2 in mind as to how to determine whether or not one ought to catechize and question a person being admitted into the local Church then I would question his competency.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

None of this applies to me: I am not a separatist. Here is evidence: 'On Schism & Separatism'.

Because you have an article on Schism and Separatism, you are by definition, immune from a schismatic spirit?

 

[Northern Crofter]

While you may be under an informal authority of the Session, the truth is that they could not suspend/excommunicate you if needed, thereby being deprived of one of the graces given by Christ (i.e., Church discipline).

I do not believe that is true. Adherents in the RPCNA can be disciplined and excommunicated. That was made clear to me when I joined as such. What leads you to believe otherwise? The only thing that the RPCNA's constituting documents deny an adherent is voting in congregational meetings (adherents "...have no vote in the congregational meetings." RPCNA Directory for Church Government, p.D-4). They can even sign the call of a minister ("Opportunity shall be given the communicant members and adherents of the congregation to sign the call....adherents may sign the call....Any communicant member or adherent may request the clerk of the session to add his name to the call" Ibid. p.D-17)!

Being an adherent and never joining the congregation through the taking of vows is just an ecclesiological form of cohabitation - you have all of the privileges, none of the responsibilities.

I believe this also is an inaccurate portrayal of what an adherent is in the RPCNA: "Persons, not members of the congregation, who regularly attend the services, participate in the worship, and contribute to the support are known as adherents." (Ibid. p.D-4, emphasis added). How are the bold items - and participating in the call of a minister - not "responsibilities"?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Where does PB define "membership"?

Does membership require taking vows or giving assent to a church covenant? If so, then do you want all the FCoS(C) to depart PB?

We require Church membership as the Church that a person is a member therein defines it.

This thread is not about the propriety of every vow a Church may require of its members.

The issue, however, is that if one is part of a congregation they cannot join as a member in good conscience then they are not members of that congregation.

In other words, I may not agree with the RPCNA vows but it doesn't change the reality that you are not a member of a local Church. You are, by your own admission, an adherent. You don't even have the right to vote for your government and, by definition, you are not submitted to any government to which you have consented.

Does membership require being under the authority of a Church Session? As an adherent in the RPCNA I am under the authority of my Session.

In a limited sense, but not the sense in which a person has joined a Church and has the rights of Church membership to vote for those to whom he will submit. This is not merely a Presbyterian but a universally Reformed conviction.

I know these comments were not a reply to me, but do you see the following that I wrote earlier as "Biblicist"? ↓

Partially Biblicist, partially idiosyncratic, and selective from the view of Church history.