The Two Track Solution
The Two Track Solution
December 9, 2010
I am intrigued by John Ross's proposal (to which DT linked yesterday, but which now appears to have been removed) that the Free Church of Scotland might have, in effect, a two track system for subscription. Without wanting to comment on the internal debates of the FCS, I wonder if such a solution, as a general principle in a church, is ever workable.
Imagine a church where office bearers take two sets of vows, one set being narrower on particular issues than the other. Then someone from the `narrow' group changes his mind and switches camp to the broader group: is he to be prosecuted for breach of vow? If so, then one could have the strange situation of a church which finds his new position entirely tolerable placing him under discipline for holding a perfectly legitimate position. Or perhaps it is simply changing his mind that is the issue; though it would be an odd church that prosecuted somebody for the act of changing his mind between equally acceptable positions. Typically, when an office bearer comes, through studying scripture, to find that he can no longer maintain an aspect of his vow, he goes to his session or presbytery to inform them of the same. In this case, the change has already been granted legitimacy. Thus, the stricter set of vows can have no binding force and is functionally meaningless.
Church vows are not expressions of personal opinions or of sentimental commitment to an historic position but rather public declarations that an individual binds himself to the public criteria for legitimate office bearing in a particular denomination and submits himself to scrutiny by the courts of the church on all points upon which the vows touch. In fact, therefore, the dual track system must inevitably mean that the broader of the two terms of subscription is going to be the only one which has any real legal or procedural status as a boundary marker for who can and who cannot hold office. The stricter form is in practice unenforceable; and, as an aside, the two track system runs the risk of changing the church's understanding of the significance and function of ordination vows to mere personal affirmations rather than public criteria of accountability.
Unity on vows, what they mean, and how they are to be enforced is, in practice, a prerequisite to institutional church unity. That brings no comfort, I know, to churches going through struggles and doing their best to maintain peace and unity; but it is the reality.
Imagine a church where office bearers take two sets of vows, one set being narrower on particular issues than the other. Then someone from the `narrow' group changes his mind and switches camp to the broader group: is he to be prosecuted for breach of vow? If so, then one could have the strange situation of a church which finds his new position entirely tolerable placing him under discipline for holding a perfectly legitimate position. Or perhaps it is simply changing his mind that is the issue; though it would be an odd church that prosecuted somebody for the act of changing his mind between equally acceptable positions. Typically, when an office bearer comes, through studying scripture, to find that he can no longer maintain an aspect of his vow, he goes to his session or presbytery to inform them of the same. In this case, the change has already been granted legitimacy. Thus, the stricter set of vows can have no binding force and is functionally meaningless.
Church vows are not expressions of personal opinions or of sentimental commitment to an historic position but rather public declarations that an individual binds himself to the public criteria for legitimate office bearing in a particular denomination and submits himself to scrutiny by the courts of the church on all points upon which the vows touch. In fact, therefore, the dual track system must inevitably mean that the broader of the two terms of subscription is going to be the only one which has any real legal or procedural status as a boundary marker for who can and who cannot hold office. The stricter form is in practice unenforceable; and, as an aside, the two track system runs the risk of changing the church's understanding of the significance and function of ordination vows to mere personal affirmations rather than public criteria of accountability.
Unity on vows, what they mean, and how they are to be enforced is, in practice, a prerequisite to institutional church unity. That brings no comfort, I know, to churches going through struggles and doing their best to maintain peace and unity; but it is the reality.
