Animus Imponentis

Earlier this year, the OPC's Presbytery of Northern California and Nevada held a conference on the nature of the animus imponentis in the OPC. "Animus imponentis" means (roughly) "the will of the imposing body," and refers to what the OPC, as a denomination, understands the Westminster Standards to mean, and what is then expected of the officers who subscribe to those standards as their confession of faith. As several of the speakers pointed out, animus imponentis is an important and necessary concept, as Church officers ought not be putting their own private meanings on the language of the confessions, and as these confessions are supposed to unite, not divide, us. (You can download the various sessions at http://pncnopc.org/index.php?option=com_sermonspeaker&task=singleseries&id=10004&Itemid=100008.)

I'm grateful to this presbytery for organizing the conference and making it, via the miracle of mp3, available to the broader Church. Overall, I found the various lectures thoughtful and informative, and quite helpful in developing further my own understanding of what it means to subscribe to confessional standards. One overarching weakness, however, was that the conference was very much geared to Church officers and their particular concerns as persons who must subscribe to the Westminster Standards and also approve candidates for Church office. Neglected, in my opinion, was the relationship of the average Church member to our confessions, and how the animus imponentis of the OPC affects that. Consequently, I'd like to see further discussion of at least these three areas.


1) Animus in relationship to Confessions as teaching documents

Like many presbyterian pastors, I’ve told people the advantage of confessionalism is that the prospective member knows what he’s getting into; that is, all that which we consider essential to the faith is clearly written down. But if the animus imponentis is somewhat at variance with the plain meaning of the confessional text (as the animus imponentis of the OPC is to accept "historic premillenialism" while Larger Catechism 87 and 90 seem to exclude it), then it seems to me we cannot honestly say our confessions state what we consider to be essential doctrines of the faith.
This point is related to the use of confessional standards as teaching documents. Again, if the animus imponentis is at variance with the wording of the standards, then it seems to me the standards cannot reliably be used to teach the people our faith, at least not without the caveats of an instructor. In that case, then, the oral tradition imparted by the instructor takes priority over the standards themselves, for the standards are nothing more than the words which comprise their text.


2) Animus vs. confessional revision

Where animus imponentis becomes most controversial is when it is in conflict with what seems to be the plain meaning of the confessional texts. Would it not be simpler to revise the confessions so that their wording is in line with the animus of the OPC? (No one is allowed to answer with “This is not a confession-writing age,” as that merely begs the question.)


3) Animus and Church power

Here I am not thinking of Church power as it is technically defined in our Book of Church Order; rather, I am thinking of the perspective often held by congregants that teaching elders hold all the power in the Church. The notion of animus imponentis (again, most especially when the animus is at variance with confessional language) can give the impression that while we claim our doctrines are found in the confessions, what we actually believe and teach is under the control of presbyters who are not bound by what has been written. This is perhaps an extreme response, but one to which we as wielders of Church power ought be sensitive.