Sola Scriptura and confessions

Continuing with some thoughts on Recovering the Reformed Confession by R. Scott Clark...what about this business of "confession"? Obviously, we're not talking about "going to confession" though acknowledgment and repentance of sin is a major subject of "the Reformed confession." My local church is part of a confederation of dissident churches within the PCUSA called the Confessing Church Movement, but that's not exactly what Clark is talking about either. Taken narrowly he means the 16th and 17th century Reformed confessions i.e., Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort, Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. More broadly he means the understanding of those confessions by the Reformed theologians and churches of that period, and theoretically at least, of the present-day Reformed churches.

In interesting fashion Clark lays out some of the historical background of the confessions and writes at length on the ways in which Reformed theologians and churches have understood and approached "subscribing confessions" from the early days of the Protestant Reformation until today. Keep in mind that the author makes his living as a professor of church history and historical theology, and has seemingly read everything there is to read on the subject. Clark advocates returning to a strict standard of confessional subscription by ordained officers and members of churches that claim to be Reformed. But before getting to that point, he addresses some foundational problems and misconceptions, primarily an incorrect understanding of the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura "by Scripture alone." An understanding that turns Luther into a radical individualist and egalitarian that left no role for tradition or ecclesiastical authority in reading and interpreting the Bible.

In Chapter 1 ("Whatever Became of Reformed Theology, Piety, and Practice?") Clark summarizes historian Heiko Oberman's formulations of two competing ways of relating Scripture and tradition in the medieval church -- the "single exegetical tradition" (Tradition I) and the "two-sources theory which allows for extra-biblical oral tradition" (Tradition II). Oberman "argued that the Council of Trent represented Tradition II, and the Reformers represented Tradition I." (p. 8) While they rejected the Roman Catholic view that the authority of the Church is on a par with Scripture, they would be quite unfamiliar with the prevalent attitude among Protestant evangelicals today that makes reading and interpreting Scripture solely a private affair. The pastor of the Baptist church I used to attend would jibe the non-denominational church across town by saying that "non-denominational was a denomination." He had a point. Clark makes a similar argument against the idea of a nonconfessional church.

There are two difficulties to face immediately. First, confessions, however limited they may be, are inescapable. Even "no confession" is a confession of sorts. Everyone who associates with a "no confession" church confesses that there is "no confession." Anyone in a "no confession" congregation who attempted to impose a longer or different confession would run into opposition from all those who confess "no confession." Second, the creation and use of any such document to norm the reading of Scripture are necessarily problematic. What is the status of a confessional document? Does it necessarily or implicitly subvert the normative status of Scripture? Is Scripture the "unnormed norm" (norma non normata)? The answer is that, among classical, confessional Protestants, Scripture is indeed the norm which norms all norms. Nevertheless, that norm must be read and understood within a given community (i.e., the church), and that community must come to some agreement about what Scripture teaches and implies and how it is to be read and applied within the church. Any such agreement or covenant is a confession. (p. 159)

Clark continues by quoting Anglican theologian John Webster that creeds and confessions exist to "goad", "shape" and "tie" the church to the truth (they are nothing less than the "servants of the gospel in the church"), and asserts, based on earlier chapters, that binding ourselves to a confession is not a contradiction of sola Scriptura, indeed to be Reformed is to be confessional.

To be sure, the community's understanding of Scripture may change, and when it does, if there is a consensus regarding that change, the confession may and should be changed to reflect that consensus. What exactly is the relation between the community and the secondary authority, its confession? The idea that Christians should be, in their interpretation of Scripture, in theology, piety, and practice, held accountable to a human document strikes some Christians as flatly wrong, and a violation of conscience, a violation of sola scriptura, or both. We have seen, however, that this view of ecclesiastical authority is not tenable among those who would be Reformed. Among the Reformed churches, our confessional documents have always been recognized as a "public and binding indication of the gospel." (p. 160)

Whether you're among the convinced or the curious the first step in recovering the Reformed confession is to read it. A helpful tool to do just that is Daily Confession. There you can read the documents mentioned above in bite-sized chunks throughout the year. Start today and by this time next year you'll have them read!