Strict Subscriptionism towards Confessions and Statements

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.