Modify the LBC. 1689. (Yes I actually said that.)

This will float with many of my friends like a sack of lead bricks. The London Baptist Confession (1689) should be modified. It won’t, of course, because there is no group with the authority to modify it—and that’s probably a good thing. So this is entirely hypothetical. It also couldn’t be modified because of self-selection, and that I don't think is a good thing. Those who love the confession really, really love it, and those who don’t couldn’t be bothered.  And those who really, really love it—and I count some great friends (many actually) among them, do not, dare I say, tend to view it with a critical eye.  There is something about the great confessions that elicits fierce loyalty. You might as well suggest the New York Yankees should not ever wear pinstripes.

So what would I change? ¹ 

Not much. Nothing doctrinal I would just get rid of (or modify) two anachronisms.

The first modification I’d make is to the (in)famous §26.4

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. (LBC §26.4)

This is not because I fear being offensive to Rome, but because this is anachronistic (and unnecessarily offensive).  Today, the usual defense of this passage is that it refers to the office of the pope, not the man. That explanation doesn’t smell right—the writers of the confession were skilled beyond measure—if they meant the office I think they would have stated the office. I believe they mean the man holding the office at any time—which I think is quite different from the office itself. The antichrist does not refer to an office, but to a creature, a man. But even assuming arguendo that view, it is entirely anachronistic. This was written at a time when there was primarily one theological bogeyman: Rome. Written today, would the divines have singled out Rome? Would they not have included among their antichrists the theologically liberal? The open theists? The prosperity gospelists? The LDS? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? Joel Osteen?

Proposal: The doctrinal statements of the confession cover the theological issues with Rome. (Hence no need to be unnecessarily offensive.) The sentence §26.4 should be shortened to end with a period after the phrase terminated by sovereign manner.

The other modification I’d make is with §24 on the Civil Magistrate. This is clearly anachronistic.  If you want to address government today then this should be updated to refer to elected officials, not kings.  And it should reflect the long Baptist tradition of advocating a separation of church and state. In particular while the current language in the confession gives approval for Christians to seek office (that’s fine), it lacks, because of the time it was written, any  flip-side warnings against destructive, counter-productive, and unbiblical  parachurch phenomena such as the “Religious Right” movement that ties Christianity to American political conservatism. Not to mention the even more deformed progeny of this line of thinking: Dominionism, Reconstructionism, and Theonomy.

If your argument is that the confession writers were extremely gifted and theologically sound, and we should be very, very careful to meddle with what they wrote, I’d agree. If your argument is “under no circumstances should we tweak what they wrote, ever."  … Then I think you are making an argument that is tantamount to infallibility.

---

¹ I actually agree with the entire confession (except what I propose to change), although some would not agree that I agree. For example, I agree with the statement on creation (§4) (how could you not? It is just quoting scripture.) but some young earth advocates would deny that I agree with the confession. There are several other similar points where I would argue that I agree, but some would disagree with my claim of agreement.