There is some debate in the Christian Reformed Church, (CRC) of which I am a member, concerning the Form of Subscription. If you do not follow any church politics, this post may be a bit foreign.

Confessional churches, like the CRC, have a set of standards by which they are guided. There are some distinct advantages to this – orthodoxy can be judged easily, the heritage of the chuch can be maintained, core beliefs do not change from church to church, and unity is generally fostered.

In the CRC, officebearers, ministers, and professors of theology need to sign a document called the Form of Subscription (FoS) to indicate they subscribe to the doctrinal standards of the CRC – the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dordt. An analogue of this form is a necessary component of a confessional church.

The current debate concerns the content of the form. The synodical committee studying this form (pdf) identified two principles underlying the debate:

1. “… A church’s identity and mission arise out a specific heritage.” (1)
2. “… A regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox.” (1)

The first point, the report presents, the CRC as a whole holds to. It is recognized that the three doctrinal standards are the expression of a particular heritage, a certain way of interpreting Scripture, out of which the CRC has become what it is and done what it does. The leadership of the CRC need to be aware of this heritage to preserve the church’s character and mission.

The second point, the report says, “is increasingly being called into question.” (1)

I would be inclined to disagree with that. I have not heard anyone calling for the abolition of such a “regulatory device” (i.e. the FoS). Rather, I think the aversion to the current FoS is due to its apparent strength.

For by signing the current Form of Subscription, one states they will (in summary):

1. Claim the doctrinal standards fully agree with the Word of God.
2. Not contradict the standards in any way.
3. Reject and refute claims that contradict the standards.
4. Present any difficulties with standards to church leaders.
5. Give explanation of views on an article of the standards to church leaders if asked.
6. Submit to authority of church when dealing with difficulty, with the right of appeal given.

At first glance, it appears to be a more than slightly iron-fisted solution to the problem. Are the doctrinal standards on the same plane of truth as Scripture? May one not disagree with the standards in the least bit? What if the church doesn’t happen to like someone’s valid views and removes them from office?

A more thought-out approach sees that the intention of the Form is not to silence and condemn dissenters, but to make sure the church has the right to deal with true heresy. This is clear especially in Synod 1976’s additions to the commentary on Article 5 of the Church Order. (pdf of the whole thing) But the tone of the document does lead otherwise.

The report cites a few incidences where this is causing problems. A survey by Rev. Ken Nydam revealed that many churches were concerned that the FoS was no longer relevant to the contemporary situation. (3) Fleetwood CRC in British Columbia overtured Synod to examine the form “on the grounds that many churches in that classis no longer used the FOS because many individuals had difficulty signing it.” (3)

Therefore, I agree also that revision of the FoS is necessary and beneficial. By revising this document, the intended meaning would be made much clearer.

The committee also took the opportunity, per Synod’s mandate, to update some elements of the form, notably including reference to Our World Belongs To God.

The proposed new form (page 8 of the report), I believe, expresses this meaning excellently. It is immediately clear, through the language of “covenant” and the positive tone of the form, that it is a positive tool to ensure orthodoxy and keep the church continuing in its historically-grounded direction

(Though, if I could offer a suggestion, the meaning of “submit to its judgement” in the context of the fourth paragraph is unclear.)