Philosophical Theology

The impetus for this piece is this statement from the PCA’s Central Florida Presbytery.

Imagine a man resigning his membership in a church in which the resignation was not received by the session due to an investigation. Imagine further that the man was subsequently received into membership of another church. Is the man now out of reach?

Ramifications: 

If the mere act of resignation were sufficient to dissolve ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then any individual deserving of censure could effectively immunize himself against discipline through a timely withdrawal. Similarly, if the mere act of joining a new body nullified the authority of the original session, the process of correction would be nullified. Given these necessary implications that undermine biblical shepherding, it follows that neither mere resignation nor being received into new membership can exempt an individual from God’s means of appointment to reclaim a wayward sheep. Something else must be needed.

The dilemma: 

How to be catholic and not sectarian is always a challenge. So, how might the knot be cut if it cannot be untied? Before proposing a solution, this statement deserves comment:

The term “improper” is ambiguous. If it merely means the independent church violated PCA rules of discipline and ostensible jurisdiction, such irregularities do not necessarily constitute disruptive or detrimental acts. (For one thing, jurisdiction is point of contention.) However, if “improper” means the original church’s actions violated biblical principles, that is a different matter, to which we will now turn. 

The claim above does not necessarily stand or fall as a unit. First, a distinction is in order: an “improper” act concerns its legitimacy, whereas “disruptive” and “detrimental” are the consequences of that improper act. Secondly, although the PCA may deem a censure without ecclesiastical effect, that alone does not make the censure improper, disruptive, or detrimental. However, if the censure is found to be biblically improper, then it is necessarily disruptive and detrimental, and should be considered without ecclesiastical effect.

A proposed solution that seeks peace and catholicity:

If resignation or receiving into a new body exempts an individual from church censure, the Church abdicates half of the keys of the kingdom. Such a policy implies the ability to remit sins but not to retain them, violating the principles outlined in WCF 30.

Accordingly, receiving sessions must ensure to the best of their ability that they have humbly considered all sides of a matter, which in such cases goes beyond receiving the testimony of prospective members.

Peace and vindication:

It crucial to clarify that the receiving sessions did not simply admit these members into membership and to the Lord’s Supper based on their profession of faith while ignoring the original church’s concerns. If the receiving sessions exercised their pastoral duties, even through laborious correspondence with the original session, and concluded that the first church’s proceedings were biblically deficient, they should state that plainly. Such transparency proves they aren’t merely showing favoritism and provides the definitive vindication, if not additional healing, these members are due. Without such clarity, this situation can appear to suggest that these individuals have tactically passed under the jurisdiction of a new governing body. This approach prioritizes procedural technicalities over substantive moral considerations.

Lastly, a public announcement that the receiving sessions have humbly considered and dismissed the direct testimony of the original church need not be accompanied by any details of the concerns. A simple, “we’ve considered this matter and are at an impasse” should suffice.