Statements of Faith: Less is More

Nobody who is reformed would disagree in any substantive way with the Westminster Confession or, if it is more in your sacramental and covenantal wheelhouse, the the London Baptist (1689) Confession. Nor would any honest educated person, believer or not, dispute the skill with which the writers were able to make their extensive theological points concisely and clearly. These confessions are virtually mini-systematic theologies. There are not many (serious) theological issues that you can think up that are not addressed. In one sense, discussed below, the confessions are too long for a common task  to which they are assigned. But in the sense of a sweep through vast areas of relevant theology, they are remarkably and admirably short.

However, some aspects of these confessions should be open for discussion. One that I have pointed out many times is the identification of the pope as the antichrist. From the LBC (The WCF has the same declaration)

2LBCF 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. ¹ 

What to  do with this if you aspire to leadership in a church that demands confirmation of one of these confessions? I know of only four options:

1. You can declare that in good conscience you cannot affirm that the pope is the antichrist and subdue your aspirations. ²
2. You can declare that you do indeed agree that the pope is the antichrist (and Microsoft is his minion.).
3. You can  lie.
4. You can weasel out and say that you  agree, and then tell yourself that the divines actually meant the office of the papacy, not the pope himself. Here you can feel good that you still affirm the whole of the confession without dwelling on the fact that you have insulted the intelligence (or sobriety) of the writers by insisting that, in this one instance, they wrote one thing but meant something entirely different.

Which gets me to my point. The confessions are glorious documents (so much so that they are risks, at  times, for becoming idols), but they are, in my opinion, too long to serve as a statement of  faith for a church. Because of their  length, they contain anachronisms, such as the one about the pope.

For reformed Baptists, the SBC, not an organization I routinely endorse, has a much better document to serve as a a statement of faith. It is about 1/20^th the length. It is the Baptist Abstract of Principles. The articles contained therein are not "better" than the LBC as a comprehensive confession. They are better as a concise, easy to understand statement of faith.

However, "Less is More" is rarely a message that is  well-received by church leadership.

---

¹ As an aside, the confessions are better without the scriptural references. For example, the one given to back the confessions' claim that the pope is the antichrist is:

⁸ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. ⁹ Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. ¹⁰ And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. (Matt 28:3-10, NKJV) 

I think you'd agree this does not in any manner single out the Bishop of Rome for condemnation. This unsatisfying exegesis is not an isolated case. The "proof texts" often found with the confessions, while they look impressive as references-- should you look them up they will, more often than not, disappoint you in their ability to prove the point to which they are attached. On the other hand they serve a good purpose: their inadequacy is obviously not inherent; the blame falls entirely on those who try to make them say something for which they were not intended. It serves as a stark reminder that when you read the confessions you are reading a document of men, not a document of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's proof texts would be spot-on, I reckon.

² I'd sooner choose Joel Osteen.