The Westminster Assembly was called together to advise the English Parliament regarding the doctrine, government, and worship of the Church of England. The topic of church government received much attention in the Assembly. Two other documents had already been completed before the Confession of Faith was written: The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government, and The Directory for Government. (The latter document, which is the Assembly’s final and practical deliverance on the subject of church government, is little known, because it did not receive official approval in England or Scotland. A copy is found in “Pressing Toward the Mark,” published by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.)

The Confession deals with matters of church government in Chapters 30 and 31, but, because of the earlier documents, not in detail or fullness. Because of this, the Church of Scotland accepted the Confession of Faith with a qualification: “That the not mentioning in this Confession the several sorts of ecclesiastical officers and assemblies, shall be no prejudice to the truth of Christ in these matters, to be expressed fully in the Directory for Government.”

The Church of Scotland had another problem related to the second paragraph of this chapter, having to do with the power of the civil magistrate in the calling of synods. Whereas the meeting of synods without being called by the magistrate is treated by the Confession as extraordinary, the Church of Scotland asserted that ministers and elders are “free to assemble together synodically…at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by the intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of the Church so to assemble” (in standard editions of the Confession, p. 15). The RP Church of Ireland makes the same qualification. The RPCNA simply says in its Testimony, “We reject paragraph 2 [of Chap. 31] of the Confession of Faith.” Other American Presbyterians have modified the language of the Confession itself.

Even those who heartily embrace the doctrines of the Westminster Confession are not bound to regard the Confession as infallible. The fourth paragraph of this chapter asserts that “All synods and councils since the Apostles’ times…may err, and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as a help in both.” Almost all Presbyterians today believe that the Confession erred in giving too much authority to the civil government over the church and its ruling bodies.

This fourth paragraph provides indirect testimony to the fact that the Confession teaches the inerrancy of Scripture. Synods or councils are not to be the rule of faith and practice, because they are subject to error. By contrast, the first chapter of the Confession asserts in the second paragraph that the Scripture is “given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.” The clear implication is that the Scripture is without error.

Having noted some difficulties in this chapter, let us give attention to the positive teaching it contains regarding the role of governing assemblies in the church.

First, note that the terms “synods or councils” are used here in a general sense. They refer to official meetings of ministers and elders. Other documents of the Assembly make it clear that meetings in a graduated series of courts are meant, with the lower courts being under the authority of the higher ones. In this matter, the Confession rejects the principle of the Independents, or Congregationalists, that all church authority resides in the local congregation, and that wider assemblies have only an advisory role. The Assembly looked to the meeting of the apostles and elders in Acts 15 as a justification for their position. (See also the arguments in the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government.)

The third paragraph of the chapter describes the kind of things that come under the jurisdiction of church courts: deciding in doctrinal disputes and ethical questions (“cases of conscience”); giving direction for the conduct of public worship and church government; and adjudicating complaints about improper or unjust actions.

The decisions of church courts are both ministerial and authoritative. “Ministerial” means that the courts have a servant role. They serve Christ, and are under His authority. They are to make their decisions on the basis of the teaching and principles of the Word, and have no independent authority (see Chapter 20). But within that limitation, their decisions carry authority. Their decisions “are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his word.”

The Confession thus stands against the view of church authority that prevailed in both the Roman and the Anglican churches, which taught that bishops were not limited to the Word of God in their power to bind the conscience, but could follow their own wisdom.

The Reformation principle of “Scripture alone” is here applied to the matter of church authority and church government. The Confession’s view stands against the individualism and false ideas of freedom that characterize much of modern evangelicalism. Real, though limited, authority is given by Christ to the courts of His church, and His people are bound to respect that authority. (For the scriptural foundation for this view, reflect on the proof texts that are listed in chapter 30, section 1).

In the paragraph 5, the Confession addresses the separate spheres of authority given to the civil magistrate and to the church. Church assemblies are to “handle, or conclude, nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs.” This is an important principle, but it is liable to misunderstanding. It has been used to assert that the church should not concern itself with social and political evils, such as slavery, racism, or abortion.

However, anyone who reads the Old Testament prophets knows that they spoke out clearly about the evils of their day. G.I. Williamson’s comment (in The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes) helps to give the proper balance: “The Reformed concept of ‘sphere sovereignty’…recognizes that God is supreme in every realm or sphere of life…[T]he law of God is quite as relevant in the political realm as in any other. Moreover, it is the task of the Church to teach the whole counsel of God, even as it pertains to political affairs.…”

The Testimony of the RPCNA states that “it is the responsibility of the Church to declare God’s Word to civil authorities as it applies to their use of the power that has been given them” (31:6).

The life of William Wilberforce is a powerful example of how this can work. As a young man, he was a wicked and worldly member of the House of Commons. When he was converted to Christ, he thought he should leave the Parliament and become a minister of the gospel. However, John Newton, the converted slave-ship captain, advised him to remain in the Parliament and to use his influence there for Christ and for righteousness. Wilberforce labored for some 30 years to end Britain’s involvement in the African slave trade, and eventually that goal was achieved.

Church courts are not to be political pressure groups. But by teaching the truths of Scripture, the church encourages followers of Christ to be salt and light in the world.

Wayne Spear is professor emeritus of systematic theology at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, Pa. He is a ruling elder of the North Hills (Pittsburgh, Pa.) RPC.