Category: Theological Thoughts

Some general thoughts on Strict Subscriptionism towards Confessions and Statements:

First, confessions and statements (hence, c&s) serve to unify categories and bring together common causes. Each c&s proposes certain trajectories of thought and practice. They are necessary and inevitable.

Second, subscribing strictly to certain c&s provide security and a settled dogmatism over primary and secondary matters that may be ultimately unhelpful because it paralyzes the emotion, history, and intellect.

Third, creedal affirmation is in a different category. The Nicene Creed, for example, affirms catholicity of thought on primary matters approved and affirmed universally throughout Church history. Thus, Creeds should not be placed in the same category as c&s.

Fourth, too often, strict subscriptionism devalues continuing learning and growth in areas of theology and exegesis. It offers a settled dogma that prevents the historical sanctification of key areas of discussion. Further, because it is not exhaustive due to historical limitations, it fails to speak on concerns that arise in time and space or simply that were not on the radar of ecclesiastical concerns at the time. Homosexuality, as a moral example; the kingdom of God, as a theological example.

Fifth, strict subscriptionism creates a certain level of cultural aggressiveness that easily becomes intolerable of opposing viewpoints and refuses cooperation, however close they may be to each other politically and theologically.

Sixth, while institutions and individuals should subscribe to confessions as helpful identifying markers, they must carefully articulate their confessions under the authority of Scriptures. As Bullinger once noted: “As God’s word is confirmed by no human authority, so no human power is able to weaken its strength” While denying such supreme authority to confessions publicly, such adherence to strict subscriptionism can probably endanger the primacy of the revealed word practically.

Seventh, we should be eager to endorse c&s whose general trajectory leads towards the good, while overlooking eccentricities. I can gladly subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith while wishing to nuance a few phrases or choosing a differing phraseology for others. But these minor quibbles should not be sufficient to keep me from endorsing such confessions publicly. The very expectation of perfected precisionism works against Sola Scriptura.

Eighth, further, political statements should have a similar function in society. Christians should be able to endorse documents and statements whose overall trajectory leads to greater orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

Ninth, such general agreements may lead to a greater capacity to unified societal benefits while leaving some room for healthy disagreement. I will always have profound differences with Rome, but we can gladly work as co-belligerents in many social and political causes in our day.

Finally, when we speak of the “common good,” we should be quick to spouse “creational good.” Confessions and statements should avoid the sordid neutrality of many who acknowledge basic good but fail to point out that all good is from God, who first declared creation to be good.

We need discernment in all these things and the wisdom of the Church to help us flesh out what is objectively fruitful for a society and what deviates from God’s good to society.

This was incredibly fun! Talking to my brother, Matt Fuller, has become a fruitful way of elaborating on many theological issues of our day. I hope you will share and subscribe to the channel.

Chapter three is perhaps the most succinct vision of biblical symbolism in TNE. In this chapter, James B. Jordan elaborates on the primary and secondary symbols of the Bible but then focuses attention on the three special symbols that God uses to communicate himself to his people. This is the rosetta stone of chapters on symbolism, and it’s hard to grasp the rest of the book without this gem. I touch on iconography briefly and also the necessity of new confessions. This episode is subscriber-only, but if you are not a subscriber, send me a PM, and I will send you the free link to the episode.

The reason the Federal Vision has been resurrected by people is that a) Moscow’s impact in the evangelical landscape is monumental touching members in PCA, SBC, and other variations; b) they also have invested much time in fighting the right culture wars, especially during COVID.

c) Peter Leithart’s @_Theopolis is gaining much ground in the intellectual arena with essays and discussions that stimulate greater theological and biblical insights than many other institutions.

d) Many find the need to narrow their Reformed focus as much as possible to keep as many people out as possible. The Federal Vision is a threat to this un-catholic vision.

e) Many have sacramental allergies and the FV brought issues of weekly communion and paedocommunion to the forefront of all these discussions stressing the objective nature of these rites and rituals.

f) Further, much of the FV revival is a sign that it has been absorbed into the Reformed mainstream, which means that those of us who indwell this world have won the bigger battle.

An example of this is how many PCA pastors find paedocommunion in its hard or soft variation completely acceptable. This was not the case when I began investing myself theologically before 2002.

Finally, the interest in FV stems from the sociological elements of the status of children in God’s redemptive history. How should they be viewed? If they are baptized, how does the covenant speak to such children, and what are the promises made to them? 

I suspect everyone by now has seen the piercing video of an army man on a suicide hotline being comforted by a police officer on the side of a busy highway. The clip ends with a humble request for a hug before it cuts away. I have seen it a few times and find the entire scene a dramatic re-enacting of the lack of cohesive bonds of our culture, especially among men.

I wish to briefly address a few themes that must take place within the body of Christ so that such incidents are avoided or, at the very least, learned from. There is too much at stake and the unrelenting attacks on manhood in our day will compel this misery unless God, by the power of the Spirit, reorients our attention to a renewed brotherhood.

The most masculine thing a man can do to strengthen his own Christian walk is to love another man. And I write that last sentence as a testament to authentic masculinity and manhood in every conceivable biblical definition. But the fact that I’ve had to explain myself and even defend myself in the most masculine of terms means that we—of course, us men—are lagging in our pursuit of virtuous manhood.

I suppose there was a time when most men operated under a fundamental assumption about manhood; the tobacco-spitting kind, but also the “poetry is good” kind as well. The confusion around the sexes is so meticulously absurd in our day that we must make sure we act out our inner Napoleon, whether we’re 5’0 or 6’3. That’s a real pity because I long for a time when I can look at a brother and say, “I love you,” and his response is something akin to, “Love you too, bro!” And the two of us go our merry way back to our wives and arrows without much thought of the event.

I attend an institute of the godliest men I know. Most have beards, which is not the entrance ID, but it does communicate our desire to sing imprecations to God’s enemies a lot more man-liny. There is something prophetic a beard communicates; like that time oil dripped down from Aaron’s beard. But I digress. During the passing of the peace, we get up and kiss other men on the cheek. Paul would have been proud (II Cor. 13:12 and many other verses).

In our sanitized culture, a firm handshake will do, but the kind of handshake that leaves a tiny bruise in the inner hand bone; a hug that communicates that we have strategized well and that our strategy is now sealed. Whatever suits you, but please do something.

Men who love other men are the best disciple-makers. They connect theology with emotions. They hear well but also rebuke well. They speak the truth in love, not in some obtuse fashion. Christian men are not bound to the laws of culture, but the biblical (first) and Christian traditions (second).

I have read Paul, Augustine, Bonhoeffer, Eberhard, C.S. Lewis, and my fair share of Tolkien on friendship and love. And the one thing they seem to all have in common is this sense that brotherly love historically makes our modern relationships look pitiful and impoverished.

Out of the many lessons I’ve learned is the lesson that man respect another man whom they know love them as brothers bound by one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Our definitions promote more isolation instead of more moments of inhabited unity. We do need a richer sacramental theology to reform our relationships in the Church.

Our culture has divorced love from friendship, and our relationships are thin and destitute. David and Jonathan are mere symbols of a by-gone era now hijacked by pro-homosexual causes. Paul and Timothy’s relationship is interpreted as purely professional. The reality is that for those who find this conversation uncomfortable, the lesson is you have strayed from mother church so far that you are content in loneliness. But for those who find this entire conversation at least intriguing, seek to be around other men, and opportunities arise–especially formal opportunities–do what is possible to be there. It’s not your masculinity that is in danger when you absent yourself from other men; it’s your humanity.

Folks, here is what I have been up to in these last few months, and I hope you will subscribe to receive these updates quarterly.