Note: At TPC, we are working on revision of our Constitution that we hope to complete in November. This will be the third set of revisions since we adopted the Constitution and joined the CREC in 2006. When we were working through affiliating with the CREC, one of the things we had to address was the CREC’s Book of Memorials. We were asked to give our view on the Memorials as they existed at that time. After much deliberation, we ended up putting our response to the Memorials into our Constitution as Appendix #2. In the years since then, the Memorials and the process by which Memorials are composed has been completely overhauled and so what we adopted in 2006 is no longer directly relevant. Thus, the plan is to remove Appendix #2 from our Constitution when we make changes later this year. However, for the sake of our posterity, we are preserving our response to the Memorials as they then existed. Appendix #2 is published here on the blog for that reason.
APPENDIX #2: Trinity Presbyterian Church’s Declarations on CREC Memorials
The session of TPC accepts the memorials of the CREC (as of September, 2006), as a constitutional requirement, with the following reservations, and/or caveats, and/or explanations. While we appreciate the Church having a mechanism for addressing pressing cultural or ecclesiastical concerns in a timely fashion, we do not grant the memorials full constitutional or confessional status or authority since they are only the view of a CREC court at a particular time and not “appropriate [for] constitutional language” (CREC FAQS, found at http://www.crechurches.org). We concur with the declaration of the CREC Constitution that memorials address topics “on which a confessional statement has not yet been made.”
We have included these declarations on the memorials as an appendix to our Constitution to clarify where we stand on these issues as a Church body. In some cases, the memorials address secondary or tertiary topics on which good Christian brethren may differ and thus, they should not function as tests of orthodoxy in a “Reformed catholic” denomination. In other cases, we found some memorials to be true in their main thrust, but lacking the necessary nuance and balance needed to be used in a pastoral and missional fashion. Of course, other memorials not addressed here are fully accepted.
The memorials referenced here may be found in the CREC’s “Book of Memorials.”
1. Memorial “A” on Church Incorporation
While agreeing with the substance of this memorial, that Christ alone is the head of the Church, and that the Church is not a creature of the state, we choose to remain an incorporated entity, as a way of cooperating with the civil powers and acknowledging their legitimacy (Rom. 13). It is our desire to have a harmonious relationship with every level of civil government, provided the state does not interfere with the work and mission of the Church, or claim illegitimate authority over the Church as an institution. While there are potential liabilities of being incorporated, there are also significant advantages, protections, and conveniences, which we choose to avail ourselves of for now. In no way do we our regard our congregation, or any Church of Christ Jesus, to be a creature of the state. We confess that incorporation does not mean subordination. Instead we recognize both Church and state as distinct, divinely ordained and regulated institutions, designed to serve the glory of God and the good of humanity. Further, we distinguish between the corporation as recognized by the state and the congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ; while the state has legitimate civil authority over Church members in those things that pertain to life in a civic community, the state has no right to intrude upon or interfere with the sacred calling and ministry of the Church.
2. Memorial “C” on Ministerial Training
We fully agree with the problems of an overly academic, credentialed approach to the ministry, which often sets aside biblical qualifications for educational degrees. We agree that ministerial training is best conducted under the oversight of a local session, and should include an intense apprenticeship in a local body to test and develop the gifts, skills, and knowledge of the candidate. At the same time, it is very difficult for many local congregations, with limited resources, to provide a candidate with a form of theological training that upholds high academic standards, equips the candidate in original languages, and so forth. Thus, we see a place for churches to send men to seminaries, while still overseeing and facilitating their training in other ways. In an ideal scenario, seminaries would function as educational extensions of the Church, and seminary learning would be integrated into a comprehensive program of ministerial apprenticeship.
3. Memorial “E” on Christian Education
We agree with this memorial in that we heartily and strongly encourage parents to provide their children with a comprehensively Christian education, under the Lordship of Christ. Indeed, our congregation has been committed to Christian education in a variety of forms for decades. There is no neutrality in education, and thus we agree with the exhortations and warnings of this memorial. Parents are urged to raise their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, making any necessary sacrifice to achieve that objective. However, we also respect parental authority with regard to the decisions they make regarding the education of their children.
Given the current state of the Church and formal Christian education, which is often cost prohibitive and still compromised by secularism, and given the complexity of many familial situations, we recognize that not all parents will be able to provide an explicitly Christian schooling for their children. In such cases, a wise and judicious use of public schools may be made. We would suggest that there are ways to make use of governmental educational institutions that do not involve rendering our covenant children to Caesar. Also, historically not all state sponsored educational entities have been illegitimate or godless, and even today, traces of godliness remain in some quarters in our public educational system.
Parents are accountable to teach their children God’s truth and to raise them in the nurture and instruction of the Lord (Dt. 6; Eph. 6). The Church has a responsibility to encourage and equip parents for the task. But generally, it is best to leave specific educational methodological questions to the judgment of parents.
4. Memorial “F” on Creation
We recognize the great weight of the arguments, in terms of both biblical exegesis and Church tradition, in favor of the “six ordinary days” view of the creation week in Genesis 1. This is undoubtedly the position of the Westminster Confession, of the vast majority of great theologians through the centuries, and of most of our officers. We insist on the historical trustworthiness of the Scriptures in all that they teach, when properly interpreted, even as it bears upon history, science, and other areas of human knowledge. The Bible is supremely and comprehensively true and authoritative. We also recognize the need to stand against various anti-biblical trends in our culture, including atheistic evolution in all its variant forms. We see the damage that evolutionary thought and the false religion of scientism have done to our culture.
At the same time, many good and godly men have interpreted the Genesis creation account differently without necessarily lapsing into a form of scientism or Gnosticism. These notable theologians and churchmen have still maintained God’s work of creation ex nihilo (“absolute creation”) by His Word and Spirit, the special creation of man as male and female in God’s image, the historical reality of a first human couple and their fall into sin, etc. Thus, they fall within the bounds of creedal orthodoxy, even though they take a non-traditional approach to Genesis 1.
While the memorial rightly calls attention to the ways the supposed knowledge of the scientific priesthood of our day is idolized, it fails to acknowledge the many valid and helpful ways science has served the cause of truth. In light of the fact that some Christians have fallen into an unhealthy anti- intellectual mindset, this balance is important to maintain. Science is not to be looked at in exclusively negative terms. It is a legitimate and noble pursuit, as an aspect of the creation mandate (Gen. 1:26-28), and Christians should not be fearful or ungrateful for advances in scientific knowledge and technology. Indeed, the best scientific developments have been the fruit of an essentially Christian worldview. Advances in medicine, transportation, communication, computers, etc. do not constitute “profane and idle babblings,” but rather are God’s good gifts. Rather than simply attack scientists and the field of science, we encourage the cultivation of the scientific enterprise on the basis of fully biblical principles. Science and the gospel are not inherently antagonistic.
5. Memorial “G” on Terrorism
We agree with much of this memorial: God is sovereign, so that all events, including great disasters, are part of His perfect plan, and thus serve His ultimate glory and the ultimate good of His people; God often uses calamity to judge the wicked or chasten His people, in anticipation of the Last Day; American and Canadian cultures are mired in individual and corporate idolatry; American civic religion is generally nationalistic and pluralistic, and thus idolatrous; it is not ordinarily lawful to muster women for combat service; and disasters such as “9/11” are occasions suited for warnings, confession of sin, and repentance. We also affirm the right of America to defend herself against terror attacks, though we do not presume competency to evaluate whether or not America’s response in this particular case meets the traditional Christian criteria of a just war.
However, we are reluctant to prematurely evaluate the meaning of “9/11” or to link “9/11” to any specific sins on the part of America because God’s ways are inscrutable, and often the righteous are mixed with the wicked when such disasters befall a nation. Muslim terrorists might have attacked our nation for any number of reasons; God could use the event in any number of ways. Providence is often full of perplexities. While there are covenantal patterns of blessing and cursing, we also know that many times the righteous suffer persecution, or undergo trials for the strengthening of their faith, just as many times the wicked are allowed to prosper, as a way of intensifying their blameworthiness before God. We do not wish to make a particular theological interpretation of “9/11” a test of orthodoxy in any form or fashion, given the complexities involved and the fact that the event may be too recent for us to have gained proper perspective on its full providential meaning.
Further, we think the rhetoric Christians use in describing God’s judgments in history should be very carefully chosen. It is not necessary to interpret “9/11” as a special act of divine judgment against prevailing American sins in order for us to summon our fellow Americans to repentance from clear violations of God’s Word. “9/11” should also serve as a call to the Church to deepen her understanding of Islam and her love for the Muslim community, so that we can more effectively reach this people-group with the triumphant gospel of Christ.
6. Memorial “I” on Worship
This memorial essentially reflects our own liturgical convictions and practice. Worship is sacrificial covenant renewal, as God’s people draw near to Him in and through Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The memorial presents a biblical hermeneutic for applying the whole of the Scriptures to our liturgical, priestly ministry on the Lord’s Day. We would only reiterate that we do not believe all the contents of this memorial should be used a test of orthodoxy or fellowship within the denomination (e.g., the sequence of worship). We affirm with the memorial that we must avoid “an over-scrupulous zeal” in implementing the theology of worship articulated here. In some places we might desire more nuance (e.g., we would agree that while this memorial’s description of the Church militant as earthly and the Church triumphant as heavenly is a common way of speaking, there also remains a sense in which the Church on earth at present is already triumphant and the Church in heaven is still militant), but we are generally pleased with this memorial.
Adopted by the session of TPC, September 2006
[Note: While the CREC has revised, amended, and removed some of the original memorials that were in place in
2006 when we joined the CREC, we leave our responses to the memorials in this appendix as a witness.]
TPC Pastor's Page 