Confessional Cover

In his contribution to Denominatonalism, editor Russell Richey argues that mid-19th century disputes over slavery and other political questions (a series of “ultraisms,” as he puts it) did not so much create as expose “the fault line in purposive association, namely, that . . . denominations and voluntary societies could gather great momentum along their tracks, but a new direction, a new issue, particularly one that exposed profound differences among the travelers . . . , could derail and crash the whole train” (83).

He pushes the railway analogy a bit far, but point taken. Controversies “exposed vital unresolved issues in purposive missionary organization – its underlying quasi-Arminian theology; the power conveyed to voluntary, often cooperative organizations, which acted on denominational behalf but not under formal, judicatory authority; the appropriateness of cooperation or interdenominational ventures; the theological accountability of parts of the church to one another; the level of office within which ultimate authority was to be vested; the relation of missions and missionary efforts to regular judicatories; the right of denominational officials and media to suppress controversy and dissent” (83).

Whether the issues themselves divided the church isn’t clear, and for Richey doesn’t affect the point: “What needs to be affirmed here is that slavery exposed important ecclesiastical issues and that after the divisions, if not before, each of the sectional churches found it important to construe its purposes in theological and ecclesiastical terms.” Old and New Schools insisted that matters of deep principle were at stake, and “a new quasi-confessionalism” arose in the churches out of struggles over slavery (83). According to Richey, confessionalism did more to occlude the real causes of division than to clarify them.

There’s another angle on this, though. Responses to slavery inevitably did highlight real theological divergences, especially hermeneutical differences and differences in conceptions of biblical authority. Those differences may have pre-existed the slavery debates, but when slavery became the issue stark differences came to the fore. That is, the confessional differences may well have existed latently prior to the slavery debates.

Confessionalism is also an attractive option for some in today’s climate of theological indifference, consumerism, and choice. As Richey puts it, “Adherence to denominational practice and structure attests or tests denominational integrity. Polity rather than creed or confession becomes the denominational norm. Exaggerated confessionalism also characterizes the institutions dependent upon denominational personnel, resources, or support” (90).