An old friend of the PRC asked three interconnected questions: Has the PRC covenanted since its formation? If not, could it, theoretically, do so in the future? Does the PRC believe that covenanting is a divine ordinance?
If what is meant by covenanting is the perpetual descending obligation of a covenant made by the members of a body politic with God, then the simple answers to those questions are No, No, and No. However, if the follow-up question “Why?” is assumed in the original trio, then the answer will take a lot more syllables. Hopefully, the following paragraphs will not be less than the sum of their parts.
The constitution of the PRC is its Basis of Union; and the Basis of Union makes no mention of covenanting. It is not an article of subscription for office-bearers, nor is it a term of communion for members. So, the answer to the first and last questions is No.
Were the PRC to amend the Basis of Union to include covenanting, it would no longer be the PRC. It would be a new and different body, united under new and different terms. Even though, theoretically, the office-bearers and people of the PRC could adopt covenanting at some future time, somewhere in the process, the PRC would cease to exist, and a new denomination would have been born. So, strictly speaking, the answer to the second question is No.
It might be objected that the PRC started out with the 1933 edition of the Presbyterian Church of Canada’s Book of Forms as its practice and then replaced it in 1996 with its own Form of Government and Book of Discipline which it since amended; is not that a change in the constitution? No, provision was made for such change in the Basis of Union. The constitution says that the PRC holds to the Presbyterian form of church government and that cannot be changed. Yet, while no Presbyterian principle can be abandoned or compromised, the document which outlines the practical application of these principles can be changed or amended to meet better the needs of the church. For example, there comes a time when practices which ensured good order the days of horse and quill should be updated by the reapplication of principles for these days of aeroplane and internet.
Again, the PRC places great importance on its roots; is not covenanting part of that background? Answering that question gets complicated quickly. All Presbyterians with Scottish roots have covenanting in their background. They also have the Revolution Settlement. That means that while they all see the Covenants as a good thing, they are divided on whether they are of lasting obligation. The British denominations from which the forebears of the PRC come are on the side which does not agree with the idea of the perpetual descending obligation of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. The North American denominations from which the forebears of the PRC come did not agree with the idea of the perpetual descending obligation of the Covenants either. Even the church which came from Covenanter roots had seen the new light and abandoned the position. So, covenanting is not part of the PRC’s immediate history feeding into the Basis of Union.
The PRC is constitutionally unsuited to covenanting.
Comments