Elder Rich,
You have highlighted the characteristic description of an adherent, but what of the essential definition: Persons, not members of the congregation . . . are known as adherents (DCG 2.4). RP Testimony 25.15 states, 'The Church must have membership requirements based on Scripture, to which every member gives his assent. Those who give such assent and their children are church members.' There is a Constitutional difference in the RPCNA between members and adherents, and the difference is rooted in the taking of vows (whether through baptism or public profession).
I do not agree that submission/consent as you are portraying it in the context of Church government is accurate. Many youth become members but cannot vote as some denominations have an age restriction on who can vote. Many Reformed denominations practice voting by male heads of households, so many women never vote or have the "right" to do so.
I read the rules carefully when I asked to join PB:
I genuinely appreciate the pastoral comments from you and Jake. I think to continue further public discussion wouldn't really be helpful - I am not about to throw my Session under the bus for obeying the commands of God over and against those of man. I have done everything I can to become a formal member in my congregation. I have placed myself under my Session's discipline knowing that I have no access to appealing their discipline. But I cannot in good conscience give assent to all of the vows (just part of one, really) required, and there is much more to the situation than I should share in a public forum.
You mistake the imputing of false charges with the implications I am drawing from your articles and the running commentary you place therein. Nobody is forcing you to post articles from your self-ascribed: "Best, Free, Biblical, Reformed Books & Articles Online:" You certainly have many articles online. Whether they are the best is what I take issue with.
Yes, I have. As I noted previously, Presbyterianism implies deliberative assembly and governance to deal with the circumstances within the Church.
God's Word commands the lawful taking of oaths and vows when the oaccsion justifies it and is required by lawful governemtn:
4. Do you promise to support the church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
This can be determined without vows. No one needs to stand up in front of the congregation and vow the membership vows to do this, neither do they need to swear the membership vows privately in front of the session. However, in the voluntarist and disestablished context in which we live, it would be very difficult indeed to determine such things without a member agreeing to submit and being formally added to the rolls--something which is--to my knowledge--a bit more explicit than the implicit church membership ideal of the 17th century but does not require making vows. My church does not have membership vows, and yet the elders are able to determine who is or is not a member: the prospective members ask the session to join, and then they are added after the session does due dilligence with examining their profession (and also members are usually only added after the session makes clear to them what would be required of them if they joined).
Yes. We are full members, under the Session's authority, with power to vote and all the rest of the privileges of church membership.
With their worship and work.
The form of the question and the answer is "I do" or "We do." The Session interviews members and poses the membership questions. Their assent to the membership questions is made before the Elders. The Session formally joins them to the congregation during that act. Having them stand before the congregation is optional but provides a means for them to be presented to the congregation.
. 
Without trying too hard, I can come up with New Testament examples: works of mercy, hospitality, preaching, teaching, the work of the deacons, older women teaching younger women, washing each other's feet (in the figurative sense). From these examples it seems reasonable to extrapolate using your individual talents and place in life to serve the local body. The modern notion that people only show up once a week for a "worship experience" doesn't meet this expectation.Well that was obvious
How exactly does that look like? I am asking in all seriousness because in my estimation it sounds like the local church expects its members to do "work" within the walls according to that vow. I say this because earlier you implied such in "Anyone who lives in a modern context in which members are wont to spend their time, energy, and resources in support of everything beside the local Church understands why it is necessary that membership entails a commitment to the ministry and work of the local Church."
I say this with sincere gratefulness to those who put time into out local congregations, and one who worked hard all my life in my job and raising a family which precludes my lack of work in my local congregation.
[automerge]1707340227[/automerge]
Also here is a good thread against vows to be a member of a local congregation.
A.A. Hodge on Church Membership
AA Hodge: A church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation.www.puritanboard.com
The questions arose due to the prevalence and popularity of parachurch ministries. The question is not posing whether one will forsake their ordinary vocation, but whether the person joining this particular congregation is committing to the regular worship of the Church as well as the duties that the Bod of Christ has to care for one another.
It is a good thread, but keep in mind that membership questions within PCA congregations are not admitting to the Lord's Table. They are the prudential result of differing circumstances. Notice that some of the quotes assume that those coming into the Church are coming from a ministry down the road. People couldn't travel far. Assuming nobody knew the person, it would be easy to ask the Church they were baptized within. As I noted earlier, a Presbyterian government at one time and place doesn't set the BCO in amber for all times. We can agree with Rutherford and Hodge that no condition for Church membership can tread on the conscience of an individual by binding them to something the Word of God does not teach. No condition should bar them from the Table of the Lord. That said, the vows meet the criteria for the purpose therein, given the Session's need to determine whether persons are in the Lord and understand what it is to be part of the Church.
Wouldn't an oath be more appropriate then? It seems what the modern church membership vows require sounds more like the condition of an oath:
OATH | VOW |
| "A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth." (WCF 21.1) | "A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness." (WCF 21.5) |
| "...in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken." (WCF 21.2) | "A vow is of the like nature* with a promissory oath..." (WCF 21.6) *[But has a different purpose, no?] |
| " Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority." (WCF 21.3) | "It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone*: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want...." (WCF 21.7) [*How does promising to submit to a particular church/congregation meet this requirement?] |
| "An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt...." (WCF 21.4) | "...*Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience..." (WCF 21.8) *[How are these examples of voluntary vows comparable to modern church membership vows?] |
Because an oath and a vow are not identical concepts.
I should add that one might say that the PCA questions contain a mixture of oaths and vows. Some questions are answered with an oath that they believe something while others vow to duties the member is found to perform.
I appreciate your comments but, at the risk of exasperating you, I'm just not sure I see what you see. I do agree that oaths and vows are distinct concepts. I understand the WCF to be teaching that an oath is an act of swearing that what you assert or promise is true, not an act of giving assent. I note that the words "perform/performed" and "performance" are used both to describe an oath (22.3 and 22.4, respectively) and a vow (22.5 and 22.7, respectively), which makes sense since they are "of the like nature" (22.5). But I understand the WCF to be teaching that a vow is a voluntary promise made "to God alone" for something personal: "in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want" (22.6), for example. This is echoed in the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship where, other than in the ministerial prayer before the sermon where we join in contemplating "our own purposes, promises, vows, solemn covenant, and other special obligations," vows are only mentioned in relation to a sick person and the "promises of holiness and obedience... men are apt to make in times of sickness" ("Concerning Visitation of the Sick"). In short, I see no justification in the Standards for vows being of a corporate, public nature or purpose (as there is for an oath).
This, too, seems to be a fairly recent innovation. The WCF never uses the word "vow" in its chapter on marriage and divorce - it instead uses the words "contract" (24.5) and "bond" (24.6). Furthermore, the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship also does not use the word "vow" in its section titled "Of the Solemnization of Marriage." Rather it calls marriage "the covenant of their God" and does not refer to "vows." It states that "...the minister (if no impediment be acknowledged) shall cause first the man to take the woman by the right hand, saying these words: 'I N. do take thee N. to be my married wife, and do, in the presence of God, and before this congregation, promise and covenant to be a loving and faithful husband unto thee, until God shall separate us by death.'"
We are also not in the 19th century which is when the practice of membership "vows" entered American R&P denominations. We are no longer in a "modern context." We are in a post-modern context and I find myself constantly struggling against the postmodern world deconstructing language to make it relative and, therefore, meaningless. We need to be on guard against this sinister ideology making inroads in the Church. Forgive me if you feel I am belaboring the point, but words matter, as do definitions - there is no point in having creeds, confessions, and catechisms (or vows for that matter) if the words that make them up are constantly subject to relativistic interpretations. The concept of semper reformanda does not mean constantly coming up with new innovations in reaction to the issues around us - it means constantly returning to what is good, and right, and true, no matter how long ago that truth was expressed.
Quoting me as pointing out that we are into in 17th Century Scotland and then replying with this portion puts words in my mouth that I did not utter. I answered your question about why I think we use the word vow rather than oath. I was never arguing for a post-modern equivocation on language as you imply. If you want to exasperate me and infract you for a 9th Commandment violation this is the way to go about it - implying that my point about the fact that we live in different times and places is an invitation to simply play with words was never my point.
I in no way intended to communicate any of the implications you have suggested I made about you. I apologize for not being more clear about this. My point was that you earlier suggested that modern times necessitated introducing the practice of membership vows in the 19th century and I was pointing out that we past that age and perhaps it is time to contemplate a change (back) away from such a practice.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Scottish Presbyterian straw man - I have not mentioned anything about Scottish Presbyterians in this thread. My own view is that the practice of maintaining a judicial testimony is better than constantly modifying BCOs - rather than trying to constantly update the letter of the law to which we refer, why not let the rulings of our courts in cases brought before and decided by the Church be our reference?
I'm bringing this up because the OP focused on what Rutherford and the Scottish Presbyterians thought was appropriate with respect to receiving and transferring members and "demonstrating" that current practices are implicitly against some Presbyterian principles.
Right, but they also weren't confused about some parachurch activities where they might not show up (worship) to the Church or spend all their time outside of work where they might help a Church member but are otherwise engaged in parachurch activities.
Do you view membership and access to the table as synonymous? I.e. one must take your vows/oaths to commune?
No. The PCA does not practice closed communion.
What would you do with adherents?