Robert Lewis Dabney and the Westminster Standards: a Commemoration

Robert Lewis Dabney and the Westminster standards: A Commemoration This year marks the hundredth anniversary of the death of Southern Presbyterian minister and theologian, Robert Lewis Dabney. In the past century he has been both praised and excoriated for his role as spokesperson of Old South conservatism. In academic circles he has been remembered chiefly for his brief role as Confederate General Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff, for his attacks on public education and the excesses of Northern capitalism, and for his unapologetic defence of American slavery. Yet as one recent biographer has stated, 'Any attempt to understand Dabney ... is seriously handicapped if it does not take into account the central importance of theology in his thought' , and for Dabney true theology is that of the Westminster Standards. 1 In the last year of his life, he himself celebrated the anniversary of the productions of that venerated Assembly. 2 As we commemorate his death, it is well that we remember the character and contents of that document which he himself commemorated throughout his life. For Dabney, the Confession of Faith, and all creeds for that matter, are useful only so far as they accurately represent the teaching of Scripture. Creeds are summary statements of what Scripture describes in greater depth and detail. Dabney has often been accused of elevating the Confession of Faith to a status of infallibility on a par with the Scriptures, yet it is clear that Dabney himself always qualifies his high regard for the Confession. Dabney states the relationship this way: The Southern Presbyterian Church wholly disclaims everything except the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as either an infallible or authoritative rule of faith and practice. It claims, therefore, for its standards no rightful influence whatever over the consciences of either clergy or laity except so far as their propositions are sustained by holy writ .3 The very timelessness and enduring utility of the Westminster Standards is based on their reliance upon Scripture. It is for this reason that he can state, 'The Confession will need no amendment until the Bible needs to be amended'. The authority and durability of the Westminster Standards is built upon the foundation of the Scriptures alone. A second remarkable characteristic of the Confession that Dabney notes is its moderation. This trait also contributes to the permanent standing of Westminster. The members of the Assembly limited themselves to the bounds of Scripture and did not stray from these boundaries into the theological and philosophical speculations of the day. For example, the Assembly does not delineate precise views in the controversy between supra-and sublapsarian theories of the divine decree. Scripture tells us that the decree of God is sovereign and unconditioned, but it does not reveal more about the specific ordering the decrees logically in the mind of God. Therefore the Confession is silent and Dabney is silent. Dabney is often castigated for immoderate statements which he made on social issues, so it is somewhat surprising to find him praising moderateness in theological thought. However, this moderation is simply a corollary of Scripturalness. Dabney does not include extra-biblical speculation as a legitimate part of the theological disciplines. A third characteristic of the Confession to which Dabney constantly alludes, but does not expressly enumerate, is the unity of the system of thought in the documents. The Standards cannot be altered without destroying their fundamental integrity. The document lives and breathes as a whole. Dabney employs a number of analogies to describe this trait of the Confession. He 1 compares the Confession to a living body that requires the presence of all its parts to function correctly; or it can also be thought of as an arch. Each head (of doctrine) must support and be reciprocally supported by the other heads, else none of them stand securely; because there is such logical interconnection between all the parts that the rejection of one head introduces logical doubt and difficulty concerning the other heads. If any stone in the arch be loosened, every other stone and the whole structure will become insecure. 4 For Dabney there is no question of amending the Confession of Faith. New creeds may be written and adopted, but there is no going back and rewriting old ones. Dabney's admiration of the Confession goes far beyond just its characteristics; it is clear that he is in agreement with its contents. The guiding principle of the Westminster Standards is the centrality and supremacy of God. As Dabney eloquently states: 'It is the constitution of the Godhead as trinity in unity, and the august circle of the divine attributes which regulate everything in their system of revealed theology. And hence again it results, that every head in their system of doctrine must converge to God's glory as its ultimate end' .5 The profundity of that first question of the Shorter Catechism captures the heart of the doctrinal uniqueness of the Confession: God is the central actor and subject of the entire system of doctrine. The Bible says much about man and his condition, but man can in no way be viewed as its central subject. The glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the central event of the Scriptures, but his work is not pressed to the exclusion of the role of the Father and Spirit in redemption. The subject of the Bible is the whole Godhead in its triune perfection. This guiding principle of the Westminster Standards guarantees its place amongst the creeds of history and makes it unique amongst modern expressions of faith. Dabney was a theologian firmly rooted in the Reformed tradition, but he had no qualms about voicing disagreements with certain theological statements by Turretin, Hodge, and even Calvin. In his discussion of the Confession, however, his language is much more guarded. As Matthews aptly notes, 'Dabney could disagree with Calvin, but he was under ministerial oath to uphold the Westminster Confession' .6 It was an oath that Dabney took seriously, and he expected others to do the same. Contrary to those who depict him as narrow and unbending, he did not make subscription to the Westminster Confession prerequisite to being a Christian or a church member. However, it was the law of the church that every elder had to subscribe to its contents, and Dabney did not tolerate laxity in this regard. Again, he so valued the system as an organic unit that he equated the rejection of individual parts of it as a sign of theological immaturity not worthy of ministers in his denomination. People who disagreed with the Confession could seek fellowship elsewhere. The doctrinal distinctives of the Confession, however, were not an invitation to fragmentation, but rather to unity and understanding. We say to the inquirer, Here is our printed creed, which expresses the propositions we believe the Scriptures to teach in carefully chosen words, whose meaning is unambiguous and as recognized at this time with those who dispute our views as with ourselves. If these words express your views of the Holy Scripture, you can come and witness with us, happily, honestly, and usefully. If they do not, we neither persecute nor unchurch you, but leave you, under your responsibility to your own God, to select the affiliation which suits you. Such a creed, instead of being a cause of schism, is an Irenicum, a source of mutual respect, brotherly love and substantial agreement, amidst minor differences, between the several branches of the church catholic. 7 In other words, Dabney valued the words of the Westminster Standards, not because of their age or unthinking reliance upon tradition, but because they expressed in no uncertain terms what he believed. 2 A hundred years after his death, Robert Lewis Dabney is both a 'curiosity' and a role model. He is now a 'curiosity' because this is a world rampant with humanism, while Dabney's thought is like that of the Standards, preeminently theocentric. He is a 'curiosity' because this is an age characterized by an almost total relativism in philosophy and morals, while Dabney used the Westminster Confession unequivocally and unapologetically to say: 'This is what is true and right and good' . He is a 'curiosity' because this is an age which seeks pragmatic solutions to solve issues of concern, while Dabney is a thinker who uses the Scriptures as a guide in all matters of faith and practice. Yet he is a Christian role model for these same reasons. Dabney had flaws like every man, and his are sometimes painfully evident; but we need more people in our churches of whom it can be said, 'He has never been ashamed of this philosophy (the Bible) or of the Westminster Theology. He has boldly and confidently maintained it, and has opposed everything in current history in opposition thereto' .8 Let us take our stand with Robert Lewis Dabney and firmly state and proudly live what we believe. S Berry © 2013 www.christianstudylibrary.org 1Merrill Matthews, Jr., Robert Lewis Dabney and Conservative Thought in the Nineteenth-Century South: A Study in the History of Ideas (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, 1989), 11. 2 Robert L. Dabney, 'The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession', Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897). 3 Dabney, 'The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession', 103. 4 Dabney, 'The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession', 113. Matthews points out that Dabney neglects to mention the changes rendered in the Confession when it was adopted in the United States. Dabney's acceptance of those changes, while rejecting further changes, could be perceived as an inconsistency.

Load more