At some point when I was a kid I began collecting stamps as a hobby. I
started with this big, 3-inch-thick album and a determination to fill
it up, at least with the common stamps I could find or afford.

As
I got older I came to the realization that I would
not be able to get every stamp in the world to put in the album so I
became more selective in the stamps that I collected. Finally, by the end of high school, I was specializing in stamps in a very specific
theme (geology, surprise?) that meant something to me.

This
is how I have come to view the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions. In a sense
we are collectors of confessions.

Every other Presbyterian branch that
I regularly follow has adopted the Westminster Standards as their sole subordinate standard.
Even the Church of Scotland has left their Scots Confession for
Westminster.  In fact, the Westminster Standards were the only confessional standard for the Presbyterian Church in the United States before reunion in 1983.  (The introductory Confessional Nature of the Church Report in the Book of Confessions states that historically multiple confessional standards are the norm, not the exception, outside of North America.  However, in the contemporary Presbyterian churches that does not seem to be the case.  While I have not done an exhaustive search I give as examples Article II of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland that says “The principle subordinate standard… is the Westminster Confession of Faith” and there is similar verbiage in the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.) 

The PC(USA), on the other hand, has a Book of Confessions with eleven different documents, but arranged so that the Westminster Shorter and Longer Catechisms are a single chapter for numbering.  There are two ancient creeds (Nicene and Apostles’), several Reformation confessions and catechisms (Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, and Westminster), and the three modern documents (Barmen, 1967, and the Brief Statement).

So, is the PC(USA) trying to collect everything out there
that looks interesting or are we being selective and discerning in our
collection?  I would hope the latter and that is why there is a higher bar to cross to change the Book of Confessions than to change the Book of Order.

I will “confess” that I like
the collection that we have. I regularly include the first question of
the Heidelberg Catechism in my personal devotions. “To glorify God and
enjoy Him forever,” answer 1 from the Westminster shorter, is a guiding principle for me. The three marks of the church
in the Scots confession are a reminder as I work on my church duties. And I stand in awe of
the boldness and audacity of the Barmen Declaration every time I read
it. Yes, I could still have all this if they were not in the Book of
Confessions, but their presence there identified them to me initially
and gave them a certain authority for my life.

The
problem with the collection is that we have no single standard to guide
us. With eleven documents
it can take time and effort to figure out how the confessions guide us
and sometimes the answer between two of them is different or a confession differs from our modern understanding. The introductory section to the Book of Confessions lists many of these specific difficulties (III.C.2).

So, if we are collectors, what
we put in the collection needs to be worthy of being added, otherwise
we end up with a book of documents with no system, coherence, or
meaning. In the most recent developments there is a proposal to adjust the Heidelberg Catechism and add the Confession of Belhar. In the next
three to four years the church will have to decide if they make a meaningful
addition to the Book of Confessions.

Concerning
the Heidelberg catechism there is a strong argument for restoring the
accuracy of the translation. There is also an argument that while Question 87 may not specifically translate the original German text of the Catechism, it does reflect the underlying scriptural passage to which the original author was making reference. I guess my primary disappointment
in the recent GA actions is that five specific questions were singled
out for adjustment rather than an assessment of the whole document.
Adjustments to documents are not unheard of: In 1997 the church replaced the Nicene Creed with the Ecumenical version of the
Nicene Creed updating the language to modern English. But this also
opens up the question of whether other documents, like the Westminster
Confession should be “perfected” to their true form, as was pointed out in a comment on a previous post.  In fact, the Book of Confessions carries, in parallel, both of the pre-reunion versions of the Westminster Confession from the PCUS and the UPCUSA.

As for
including additional documents how do we decide what should be added?
This GA the decision was made to add the 1986 Confession of Belhar. But why that one?
Interestingly the recommendation was made by the Advocacy Committee on Racial-Ethnic Concerns,
not by overture from a presbytery like the Heidelberg adjustments. So why this
one and not others? In past years I have heard suggestions that the
Belgic Confession of 1618 or something associated with John Calvin like the French Confession of 1559 or the Geneva Confession and Catechism should be included.  (Wouldn’t that make sense for the Calvin 500 year anniversary?) Other suggestions floating around include the Accra Confession.  In addition, the Athanasian Creed is referenced as a
standard in the Second Helvetic Confession [5.078]. And the PC(USA) also has Belonging to God: A First Catechism
and The Study Catechism. Start including all of these and the Book of
Confessions begins to look like one of the three volumes of Philip
Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom.

I do not argue for, or against, any one of these documents.  I do raise the question of what is our perspective on which documents should find inclusion in our subordinate standards.  Yes, we are collectors.  Do we have an understanding and focus of what we are collecting?
Is there a system more than “this looks interesting” or “this one is
unique?” In our ordination vows we agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions.  As
we study which confessions to make constitutional documents we should
make sure that our ultimate authority, Scripture, guides our
confessional standards, not that our desire to “collect” another confession is our prime motivation.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general
or particular, 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.
[Westminster Confession, Chapter XXXI, Section 4]