Dear Sir
Bill James encouraged us to adopt historic confessions of faith in our churches in April’s en. But he seems to conflate evangelical orthodoxy with doctrinal uniformity. He suggests that such confessions help us to ‘maximise what we stand for’. He correctly points out that a systematic statement of faith does not contradict the principle of Sola Scriptura, and helpfully explains why clarity is vital to guard against ‘downgrade’ and ecumenism.
But I think the historic confessions go much further than proper theological essentials. They address issues which have no part in authentic evangelical identity, e.g. the relationship between biblical covenants, the perpetuity of the Sabbath, baptism, the lawful administrators of ordinances, the duties of civil magistrates, pacifism, etc. Believers may legitimately differ over these areas. Their consciences should never be bound by this degree of ‘confessionalism’. Certainly, some areas require consensus on church practice, but this is entirely different to demanding common doctrinal convictions.
The article implies that church members might be free to hold diverse views. However, if only church officers must hold to a narrower set of convictions, the inescapable consequence is a two-tier membership in which some are unable to serve as God has equipped them. Should mature Christians put themselves in such a position? I do not believe so.
Unity is a key theme of the New Testament. Is Christ divided? No! Meaningful Christian unity will be robust on the essentials, but we must expect – and accept – that it may be fragile on less central issues. We are called to work tirelessly to maintain this unity as members of One Body. Yet the historic confessions often have a divisive spirit, preferring uniformity instead of unity.
In maximising what we stand for, we may minimise whom we can stand with.
Yours faithfully,
