When being biblically defensible isn't enough

Hats off to Jason Stellman, who has admitted for all the world to see what some of us have been saying is true about American Presbyterians for some time: some would prefer to defend their beliefs from the confession rather than the text of scripture.  Notice I said "some" American Presbyterians. While it's not true of all of them -- some of them have been quite influential on my own hermeneutics, when it comes to handling challenges to certain areas of their theology, too often the habit is to retreat back into the confession rather than providing a robust defense from scripture itself.

Here's how Stellman frames the issue: "Say what you will about Peter Leithart, but when it comes to his theology, the man just plain ol' doesn't care about anything other than that it is biblical.  Is this a bad thing? When the study committee which he and I petitioned the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA to form began its work, Leithart's only request was that, in addition to comparing his views to the Westminster Standards, we also take the time to engage his work from the vantage point of Scripture. It was obvious that this latter concern far outweighed the former in his mind.  The conclusions of the minority report that I authored were that Leithart's positions, though biblically defensible to a certain degree, were nonetheless clearly contrary to the system of doctrine found in our Confession and Catechisms. The problem, the minority argued, was that he failed (or was unwilling) to read the Bible through the lens of the doctrinal standards of the PCA. And Leithart's response, in a nutshell, was "Isn't being biblical enough?""

I'm not sure which is more troubling or appalling: the admission that Leithart's position may have some grounds in the scripture OR that the doctrinal standards of the PCA are the prescribed lens for the Bible.  Doesn't the latter imply that the text is subservient to the confession?  Of course it does... and the subsequent discussion following Stellman's post bears that out, with fellow Presbyterians wrestling with the implications of Stellman's admission AND a recently Protestant-turned-Catholic poster boy pointing out the glaring inconsistency.

It's not my intent to get into the whole Leithart situation out there in the Northwest or his unbiblical views of justification, but I have to wonder: where is the exegetical bravado in the PCA?  In the opinion of this blogger, Leithart's position can be beaten with robust exegetical work.  Where's the mano y mano, my (our) exegesis can beat your exegesis, defense of the gospel here?  The failure to respond with exegesis highlights two other possible implications from Stellman's post, both of which aren't all that cheery: 1) Leithart's position has more grounds in the scripture than the confession's position OR 2) we (the PCA presbytery in the Pacific Northwest) don't know how to exegete.

As a friend of mine has pointed out, the unfolding scenario in this particular presbytery out in the Seattle area highlights the difference between the value of a confession and the dangers of confessionalism.  Confessions, though fallible, have been tools used by the church through the ages to guard the entrustment of the gospel, defending and propagating the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  It's when those confessions become the authoritative means by which the scripture is interepreted (notice I did not merely say "means") that confessionalism becomes a danger to the very sola scriptura idea the confessions seek to defend.

Some may think it's a bit of grandstanding for a baptist to comment on an intramural debate.  Maybe.  But this baptist found Stellman's admission stunning.  As one who has engaged Presbyterians on all sorts of issues, confessionalism is a source of frequent frustration.  Yes, all of us have our hermeneutical presuppositions that we bring to the text.  That's not what this is about.  This is about an all-too-frequent tendency that I have noticed for *some* Presbyterians to run and hide in the confession (and its proof texts) rather than engaging the text.  It's as if the divines have done all of the exegetical work... no further exegesis necessary.  Of course, no one ever says that out loud.

But the apparent calcification of the confession against an exegetical challenge (such as the one put forth by Leithart) raises this additional implication: the confession is infallible.  And of course, no one *ever* says that out loud either.  The qualification to the apparent calcification usually goes along the lines of, "well, it's the best possible defense of the gospel humans have been able to produce".  That's a fine sentiment and probably not so far from the truth, but again, the implications raise a question: So, the confession cannot be wrong?  The implied answer: theoretically "yes"; pragmatically and ecclesiologically, "no".

*That* is confessionalism.  If the ecclesiology of any said denomination has no mechanism by which the confession itself is subjected to the rigorous demands, propositions, and hermeneutics of The Word, what is it in that said denomination which holds the highest place of authority?  It's the confession, not The Word.  And if it's not The Word, it's not THE WORD.  And therein lies the biggest problem of all.