When persons become members of a Presbyterian congregation, they are asked to profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and to express their intention to live in faithful discipleship. When persons are ordained as ministers, elders, and deacons, however, more is required. The Book of Order states that Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, and that they are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.i Furthermore, they are required to make ten vows that express a high level of theological and ecclesial commitment. With the exception of the final vow concerning the different ministries of the three offices, the ordination vows are identical for ministers, elders, and deacons; the forms of the three ministries differ, but requirements for faith and faithfulness are the same. Two of the ordination vows make explicit reference to the church’s confessions:
¢ Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by them as you lead the people of God?
¢ Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ under the authority of Scripture, and continually guided by our confessions?
The second of these two vows seems fairly straightforward. In their ordered ministries, persons are called to be obedient to Jesus Christ, to place themselves under the authority of Scripture, and to be guided by the confessions. It is important to note that the three elements of the vow are not separate, but fundamentally inter-related. Obedience to Christ is primary, but since we do not have direct, unmediated access to Christ’s will, the shape of obedience to Christ is most reliably known in and through Scripture. In turn, the confessions are dependable guides to the understanding of Scripture. Thus, obedience to Christ is linked to Scripture and confessions (tradition); apart from the regulative function of Scripture and confessions, it would be far too easy to imagine that our own inclinations are Christ’s will.
If the second vow seems clear-cut, the first seems almost incomprehensible. Complex syntax and adverbial/adjectival qualifiers combine to render the vow impenetrable, so that it is routinely ignored or evaded. Why the qualifier sincerely? Is there an assumption that some ordinands will receive and adopt deviously? Why pile receive on top of adopt? Surely the latter encompasses the former. Similarly, authentic and reliable appears to be an unnecessary doublet. Is there a danger that confessions might be received as authentic but unreliable . . . or reliable but inauthentic? Perhaps most tellingly, what are the essential tenets of the Reformed faith that ministers, elders, and deacons are supposed to sincerely receive and adopt as authentic and reliable expositions of Scripture?
What are they?
It is not surprising that calls for an account of the essential tenets are heard regularly. Yet even those most eager for a definite list are aware that an agreed upon catalog would be difficult to produce. When the 1910 General Assembly concluded its list of essential and necessary articles of faith [inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth, sacrificial atonement, bodily resurrection, Christ’s miracles] with the tag line others are equally so, it was in good company. John Calvin was not indifferent to doctrinal precision, but he recognized that not all the articles of true religion are of the same sort. Some are necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. What are Calvin’s necessary doctrines? Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like.ii Calvin’s three essential tenets, like the 1910 Assembly’s five, needed the et cetera because no short list is adequate. Nevertheless, Calvin, general assemblies, and the ordination vow all assume that some Christian truths are more central, foundational, necessary, essential than others.
Some Presbyterians suggest that essential tenets can be inferred from the ordination vows themselves. The list of necessary doctrines would then include (1) the Trinity; (2) several christological affirmations; (3) the authority of Scripture; (4) the reliability of the church’s confessions as guides to belief and action; (5) adherence to the church’s polity and discipline; (6) obedient discipleship; (7) an ecumenically principled ecclesiology; and (8) a particular understanding of ministry. Others propose that the catalog of the confessions’ salient characteristics in Chapter II of the Book of Order yields a constitutionally credible list of essential tenets. Thus: (1) the Trinity; (2) the incarnation; (3) grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone; (4) the sovereignty of God; (5) election; (6) covenantal ecclesiology; (7) stewardship; and (8) the necessity to transform societies.
Each of these potential lists of essential tenets has the advantage of being constitutional; neither is the product of personal viewpoint, party preference, or momentary enthusiasm. Yet the ordination questions and the Book of Order’s paragraphs were not composed for the purpose of delineating authentic and reliable confessional expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, or identifying the essential tenets that ordinands must sincerely receive and adopt. Moreover, most Presbyterians would object either that one or more essentials is missing or that one or more non-essentials is included. Where is cross and resurrection? Why is the Holy Spirit absent? Faithful stewardship and adherence to the church’s polity are important, of course, but are they at the heart of the confessional witness?
Even though the two lists are problematic, we can undertake a brief thought experiment by imagining how a specific list might work in the church. If the Book of Order list in G-2.0300-.0500 were to comprise the essential tenets of the Reformed faith, all candidates for the offices of minister, elder, and deacon would have to sincerely receive and adopt the Trinity, several christological affirmations, the authority of Scripture, and so on. But surely the question is not whether one believes the doctrine of the Trinity, but what one believes about the doctrine of the Trinity, how one understands, receives, and adopts the confessions’ Trinitarian teaching. Similarly, the mere assertion that one accepts the authority of Scripture is insufficient, for the real issue is the character and extent of Scripture’s authority. While a list of essential tenets might serve to identify (and limit) the scope of the third ordination question, it would not help with the central task of determining what candidates believe, and whether the beliefs they receive and adopt are consistent with the church’s confessional faith.
Perhaps that is why the Special Commission of 1925 insisted that even if a general assembly were to stipulate essential and necessary doctrines, it would be required to quote the exact language of the article as it appears in the Confession of Faith. It could not paraphrase the language nor use other terms than those employed within the Constitution, much less could it erect into essential and necessary articles doctrines which are only derived as inferences from the statements of the Constitution.iii Quoting the full text of G-2.0300-.0500 would provide little help, however, for the mystery of the triune God and of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God in Jesus Christ do not take us much beyond the shorthand list derived from the exact language of the Book of Order. An alternative procedure — providing a compendium of every confessional reference to the authority of Scripture, for example, and requiring assent — would be a mechanical exercise that would trivialize confessional integrity.
Conversation With the Confessions
Even if the whole church could agree on a catalog of essential tenets, the list would provide candidates and examining bodies with little helpful guidance, for it would not address doctrinal substance, the manner of reception and the character of adoption, an understanding of implications for belief and action, or consequences for ministry. The intention of The Book of Confessions is not merely to provide raw material for a doctrinal digest or a theological précis. A primary intention of The Book of Confessions is captured in the abandoned ordination question from 1967-69: Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in studying the Scriptures, the Book of Confessions, and the Book of Order, in maintaining the truth of the gospel, and in furthering the peace, unity, and purity of the church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise onto you on that account? Although elements of this short-lived vow were transferred to other questions, something important was lost. The question made it clear that study was central to the vocation of ministers, elders, and deacons in the church. Furthermore, study of Scripture, theological tradition, and ecclesial order was not expected for its own sake, but because it is essential in sustaining fidelity to the gospel, integrity of witness, and the wholeness of the body of Christ. (The question was also honest in implying that fidelity, integrity, and ecclesial wholeness are not ingredients in a recipe for success, but might bring opposition, if not persecution.)
Continual study of the church’s confessions is necessary to maintaining a conversation with the confessions about matters of faith and faithfulness. It is this ongoing conversation that enables distinctions to be drawn between central and derivative doctrines, between enduring insights and transitory concerns. Conversation with the confessions is not only an individual concern, however, and the discernment that grows from the conversation is not merely personal insight.
As ministers, elders, and deacons answer the call to study the confessions, even though it is no longer expressed in an ordination question, they would create a community of conversation within which discriminating judgments could be made about the character of foundational matters. Presbyteries and sessions in which ministers and elders converse with the church’s confessions would become collegiums that engage in conversations about Christian faith and life, developing shared understandings of the identity, meaning, and significance of tenets that are essential to the gospel. Persons who are called to ministry as deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament would then become candidates within a community of conversation that invites them to join the discussion. Preparation for ministry, whether the relatively brief period for elders and deacons or the protracted period for ministers of the Word and Sacrament, would include significant exchanges about the confessional witness of the church and the convictions of candidates. Examinations would be less like true/false quizzes, more like concluding tutorials in which reception and adoption of central doctrinal elements are explored and assessed.
Are essential tenets of the Reformed faith expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do? Surely there are essential tenets. And surely we are responsible for making appropriate distinctions between center and periphery, between what is necessary and what is not required, between essential and discretionary. However, our responsibility is not fulfilled by devising an abstract list of doctrines. Instead, we are called to a deeply communal conversation with the whole confessional witness, inquiring about the eternal and the time-bound, the catholic and the parochial. Essential tenets emerge from a dialogue between our forbears in faith and ourselves; they are not a template to be imposed upon the confessions and us.
Joseph D. Small is director of the Office of Theology, Worship and Education, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and a core member of Re-Forming Ministry.
