De-celebritizing Confessionalism

Dear Church Family,

In the past two weeks, I shared the first two of three in a series of articles written by Carl Trueman regarding the importance and benefits of confessionalism. In the first article, “I Confess (Part I)” Trueman argued that confessions stabilize and regulate the public teaching of the church. The emphasis of that article was to say that disciplined confessionalism regulates and informs the preaching and teaching of her officers. In the second article, “I Confess (Part II),” Trueman pointed to the fact that confessions delimit the public teaching of office bearers in the church through a transparent process of accountability.

In the third and final article in this series, “I Confess (Part III),” describes how confessions keep in check the rise of celebrity influencers that often takes place in non-confessional institutions and churches. We might call this benefit of confessions, “de-celebritizing confessionalism.”

The Danger of Celebrity Influencers

If you’ve ever spent much time outside of a confessional church, you may have observed the phenomenon of how the doctrine of a church or institution can become personality-driven. Trueman writes, “…the big personalities and the personal convictions of the leaders become the driving factor…the doctrinal identity of the organisation is at base really personality-driven.” In this kind of non-confessional setting, personality and hype become more important than doctrine and character.

The tendency for Christians to align with certain teachers is the very thing that Paul warned the church in Corinth about; there were divisions and factions which arose from people’s desire to follow one teacher over another (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 1 Corinthians 3:1-23). Additionally, Paul writes to the church in Ephesus, that God has given faithful leadership to the church which, according to His design, are intended to bring about doctrinal stability, mutual love, and unity of faith (Ephesians 4:11-16).

I have personally seen this kind of celebrity-ism in my role as an Army chaplain and in the broader church; however, I have also observed a kind of hero-worship or sectarian spirit in Reformed and confessional churches. Pastors, elders, and even churches will sometimes align themselves with particular theologians or distinctive doctrines in an effort to separate themselves from other churches. Of course, it is right and proper to speak of the distinctives which mark our teaching and doctrine. However, the doctrinal distinctives of our church ought not be defined by one person, but by our corporate confession. If our distinctives are to be idiosyncratic, they should be confessionally idiosyncratic. Trueman elucidates this point, “Confessions are by definition corporate documents. They belong to the church which upholds them. Their interpretation and application is the task of the church as a whole, not of any given individual. The confession stands above any single individual.”

De-celebritizing Confessionalism in Practice

I did not grow up in a Reformed and Presbyterian church. In fact, the first time that I was exposed to and read the Westminster Standards was in my later 20’s. I remember hearing people say things like, “The more I read the confession of faith and catechisms, the more I see how helpful they are in illuminating and summarizing the teaching of Scripture.” And, I remember thinking to myself in response, “Whatever.” Today, almost thirty years later, and after catechizing our now grown children and teaching the Standards in the church, I find myself in agreement with those statements that I heard; my appreciation for the Westminster Standards has only grown.

There are many ways in which confessionalism provides checks and balances for the public teaching of the church, promotes transparency among the office bearers of the church, and mitigates a personality-driven ministry. For my part, I seek to apply confessionalism to my teaching and preaching in several ways. For one thing, I study and teach the confessional standards of our church. Additionally, I study and read those writers and theologians whom I have come to trust to uphold the confessional standards of our church. Finally, I seek to check my teaching and preaching in order to make sure that it conforms to the confessional standards of our church.

Here’s how this works itself out where the rubber meets the road, as it were. If, during my preparations and study, I have questions regarding the interpretation and application of a particular passage of Scripture, I will check to see what the Westminster Standards have to say about it. In fact, many times the categories and teaching of my sermons is simply a summary of what our Standards say. When someone asks me a theological question, I will often refer to the Westminster Standards to find the answer. Through these practices, I seek to do two things: (1) shape my personal thinking about theology, faith, and practice, and (2) ensure that what I am teaching and preaching is not merely my theology, but the theology of our church.

Conclusion

When I was preparing for my ordination exams in the PCA, someone gave me the following advice: right before you stand before the presbytery for your oral exam, read through the Westminster Confession of Faith so that when you answer their questions, you’re using the language and categories of the standards; that way, you’ll communicate to them that you are one of them – or, at least, that you want to be one of them. I followed that advice, but I was a bit skeptical. I thought to myself, “I’m my own man. Why would I want to convey to them that I want to conform to our denominational standards?”

But, you see, that’s just it. As an ordained minister of the gospel, I am not my own man. I have been called, approved, and ordained by the church, to serve the church, according to the standards of the church. There is no such thing as a “lone ranger” pastor – or at least their ought not to be.

The Lord be with you!

- Pastor Peter M. Dietsch