6 May 2015 A.D. Westminster divines were compromisers
 |
| Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey |
6
May 2015 A.D. Westminster
divines were compromisers
Jones, Mark. “The
Westminster divines were compromisers.” Reformation21.
6 May 2015. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/05/the-westminster-divines-were-c.php.
Accessed 6 May 2015.
I love reading a good book, the
type that keeps you reading till the end. A recent book by Hunter Powell, The crisis
of British Protestantism: Church power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638-44,
reminded me of the importance of good scholarship not only for the academy, but
also for the church. It kept me reading till the end and taught me a great deal
about my Presbyterian history.
The Westminster Confession of
Faith is a complicated document in some respects, with an even more complicated
history. Presbyterians should love the Westminster standards, which stand as
the high-water mark of theology in the seventeenth century (though the Savoy
divines did make some "latest and best" additions in 1658).
While we still debate issues
surrounding the soteriological topics in the confession (such as the IAOC), we
rarely examine the ecclesiological aspects of the Confession. This is
regrettable.
There were intense ecclesiological
debates at Westminster as the Puritans involved tried to redefine England's
National church. A lot of received wisdom needs to be (and has been in
scholarly circles) turned on its head.
What we find is that the same
intellectual rigour applied to texts surrounding issues such as justification,
were also applied to the texts surrounding church government. Painstaking
exegesis was a hallmark of debate among the divines. Those who wrote the Confession
were constantly arguing from Scriptural texts, not just citing older Creeds.
While the Puritans knew that
church government was secondary in terms of orthodoxy, it was the church that
protected orthodoxy from drifting into heterodoxy.
Many of our assumptions about men
such as Rutherford, Gillespie, Goodwin, and Burroughs are based on the
conclusions made in one of the greatest compromise documents in the history of
the church, the Westminster Standards. People who don't see the Standards as full
of compromise - though, also full of polemic against heterodoxy - generally
haven't done much scholarly work on the Standards and thus offer an
a-historical, a-political, and a-theological reading of the text.
Methodologically, the theoretical
work of 'the Cambridge School', particularly the work of the Regius Professor
of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, Quentin Skinner, is important
for this studying the Westminster Standards. Without suggesting that 'the
Cambridge School' invented these ideas - though, Skinner in particular has
articulated these ideas better than others - John Coffey has accurately noted
that this 'school' criticizes 'both the "idealist" tendency to study
the Great Books without reference to the circumstances in which they were
written, and the "realist" approach which sees ideas as the causally
determined offspring of their social, economic or psychological context. They
argue for a method of reading historical texts which respects the intention of
the author and is aware of the linguistic, political or ecclesiastical context
in which he was working. This method is important for understanding the
intentions of the divines at Westminster.
We see that there were a number of
versions of Presbyterianism that were competing for attention in the Jerusalem
chamber, and that the final product was written in such a way that wouldn't
alienate Presbyterians with a more clerical bent from those who had more
'congregational' inclinations.
Puritanism has also been
understood in an "Anglo-centric" manner. As a result, we have missed
the fact that it was the English who stood outside the Continental Reformed
tradition, whereas the Scots and the Congregationalists had the most in common
with the Continental Reformed. One just has to read the Owen of Holland,
Gisbertus Voetius, to see where his sympathies lay when he examined the debate
in England and New England.
In connection with the above,
Powell's book is the first to take a careful look at the Minutes of the
Assembly and untangle the exceedingly complex and erudite debates that took
place between the Westminster divines. Powell gives us a framework for how to
understand the Minutes and the men who wrote them. Robert Paul attempted
to do this with a blow by blow account of the Minutes; but in doing so he
introduced a whole host of false assumptions that still impact the way we think
about the church.
One thing we learn is how
seriously these men took the church, and how carefully they thought about it.
With the little regard our seminaries and churches give to this topic, it would
be good for us to learn something. Personally, I'd recommend spending the $100
on the book mentioned above, especially Presbyterian ministers who take the Confession
seriously. I love the diversity of the Reformed tradition, but I also love the
way that diversity is kept in tact by Confessions such as the WCF.
Not surprisingly, even on
ecclesiology, the WCF is a Presbyterian compromise document. Our divines were
"compromisers."
I don't normally make it through
to the end of a book, but Powell's book was a notable exception. It is one of
the most fascinating reads of the year for me. (I did not receive a copy of
this book, but these are just honest thoughts). He does not make mere
assertions, but vigorously argues his case with a lot of evidence. I'd expect
nothing less from a Cambridge-trained scholar who went to Westminster Seminary
(though regrettably remains a Baptist).
Comments
Post a Comment