Charles Hodge—A man who loved being a Presbyterian

Is it wrong that Charles Hodge loved being a Presbyterian? I don’t think so. Many great men have come from the ranks of Presbyterianism. The better question is, “What does it mean to be a Presbyterian?”

Well, this may be too simplistic, but in my opinion, historic Presbyterianism is a blend of church polity, Reformed theology and a general adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Church Polity

It is likely that most Presbyterians would describe their polity (i.e. church government) as moderate, a middle ground between High church (Episcopalism) and Low Church (congregationalism). The governmental structure is typically broken up into four categories: 1) Sessions (elected leaders by the congregation, both lay and teaching elders); 2) Presbyteries (local Presbyterian churches in a certain region form this group); 3) Synods (an additional step of accountability for regions with an excessive amount of local churches); 4) General Assembly (this is the highest court in Presbyterian polity).

If this means anything, I will tell you that if I had to choose between Episcopalism, Congregationalism or Presbyterianism…I align best with Presbyterianism (though I still prefer self-governing, independent local churches).

Reformed Theology

For the sake of clarity and brevity, historic Presbyterianism comes from the lineage of John Calvin and John Knox. Both these men affirmed the five solas, which I would assert is the defining and central characteristic of Reformed Theology.

“Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone)

“Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone)

“Sola Fide” (Faith Alone)

“Solus Christus” (Christ Alone)

“Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory)

To be clear, I am fully in agreement with the five “solas”, primarily because I believe strongly that each “sola” is found within the pages of the Holy Scriptures.

Westminster Confession of Faith

The assembly's Confession of Faith, completed in December, 1646, is the last of the classic Reformed confessions and by far the most influential in the English-speaking world. Though it governed the Church of England only briefly, it has been widely adopted by British and American Presbyterian bodies as well as by many Congregational and Baptist churches. It is well known for its thoroughness, precision, conciseness, and balance. Notable elements are: (1) The opening on Scripture, called by Warfield the best single chapter in any Protestant confession, (2) The mature formulation of the Reformed doctrine of predestination; it teaches clearly that God’s will is the ultimate cause of all things, including human salvation. (3) The emphasis on covenants as the way in which God relates to his people through history. (4) Its doctrine of redemption structured according to God's acts and human response, thus underscoring its "covenantal" balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. (5) Its Puritan doctrine of assurance—a strong affirmation, yet more sensitive than other Reformed confessions to the subjective difficulties believers have in maintaining conscious assurance. (6) Its strong affirmation of the law of God as perpetually binding the conscience of the believer, even though certain ceremonial and civil statutes are no longer in effect, balanced by a careful formulation of the nature of Christian liberty of conscience. (7) Its Puritan view of the Sabbath, regarding the day as a perpetual obligation, contrary to Calvin's Institutes and other Reformed writings. (8) The first clear confessional distinction between the visible and invisible church.   (Written by John M. Frame)

As a whole, I appreciate the thoroughness of this confession and its strong Calvinistic position, especially with regards to salvation.

***Yet there are a few parts of the Confession of which I disagree (#3, #6, and #7).

Here are some final thoughts:

It has been good for me to revisit the issue of "denominationalism". Personally, I have always been on the side of elder-led, independent local churches that seek purposeful accountability and fellowship with "like-minded" local churches.

Yet the reality is that independent churches rarely pursue this type of accountability or fellowship. Therefore, independent churches are often accused of being "aloof" or "isolationist" in their philosophy of ministry. Though "unfair" to generalize to all independent churches, their assessment is not without merit.

What is the answer? Presbyterianism? No, I am not willing to go that far. But I can say this: Church government should NEVER be a test of Christian fellowship. If a local church or a denomination has the "gospel" right, fellowship should be encouraged. Our "secondary" differences are clearly trumped by the priority of "gospel unity".

Ephesians 4:1-3 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I am ALL about differences, distinctions and preferences. But there is a clear reason why "denominationalism" is becoming less popular.....these denominations are known and defined by "secondary" issues, rather than the love, affection and commitment to the "gospel".

Denominations, at their best, can promote greater accountability, a clearer focus and wider impact in local and global spheres. Charles Hodge believed this and fought hard to contain the purity of Presbyterianism. His biographer writes:

“Hodge believed that since each denomination had its own theological system and form of government, each should perpetuate its ministry in conformity with those standards. He stated that denominations devised various means by which they extended the gospel, and he emphasized that ‘of these means beyond all comparison the more important are the education of ministers, and the organization and support of churches’”.

This statement shows that though Hodge would defend Presbyterianism (as a secondary issue) on scriptural grounds, he also believed in the absolute priority of Christian unity. He states:

“If all Christians really believe that they constitute the mystical body of Christ on earth, they would sympathize with each other as readily as the hands sympathize with the feet or the feet with the hands. If all churches, whether local or denominational, believed that they too are one body in Christ Jesus, then instead of conflict we should have concord; instead of mutual criminations (i.e. accusations against each other) we should have mutual respect and confidence; instead of rivalry and opposition we should have cordial co-operation. The whole visible Church would then present an undivided front against infidelity and every form of Anti-Christian error, and the sacramental host of God, though divided into different corps, would constitute one army glorious and invincible.”

Hodge fought hard for the purity of historic Presbyterianism, but I want to believe that he would have rebuked anyone that called themselves a "Presbyterian", "Lutheran" or "Baptist", rather than saying, "I am a Christian.....and I attend the Presbyterian Church down the street".